Fascism, Extremism, Islamism, Whatever. Let's Just Kill 'Em And Let The Lexicographers Sort It Out.

Apparently the President spoke today about the war today and didn't use the word fascism to describe our enemies. (Here.) Calling our enemy Islamic Fascism or Islamo-fascism apparently bent some people out of shape. Patrick Buchanan, for instance. (Here.)

Buchanan's commentary is absurd. He starts by arguing that fascism can't be defined. Here's an adequate definition:

"1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. ..."

Okay, maybe our Islamist enemies aren't fascists because they don't have that single dictator thing. The rest of the definition fits pretty well, however.

Buchanan then spills a lot of words whining about the leftist tendency to slur conservatives as fascists and suggests the word is being applied to our terrorist enemies because of the nefarious neocons, who used to be lefties. Apparently, it's just old leftie habits. Here's a question? When exactly were Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush lefties again?

Buchanan then says that Syria is not an Islamic Fascist state and neither was Saddam's Iraq. Okay, fine, they aren't religious dictatorships the way Afghanistan was. How about plain old fascists then? Baathist rule in Syria and Iraq certainly fits the definition of fascism.

Buchanan finally gets around to discussing our terrorist enemy and betrays an abysmmal ignorance of Al Qaeda's war aims. He says the goal is to get America and Europe out of the Middle East. But that's not the final goal. Al Qaeda wants the West out of the Middle East in order to try and overthrow the regimes in the region and replace them with Islamist governments. Afghanistan was their utopia and they want to replicate it throughout the Middle East.

Buchanan then betrays an appalling ignorance of Syria's and Iran's tactics.

"Why did the Ayatollah let the American hostages go, as Reagan raised his right hand to take the oath of office? Why did Syria not rush to the rescue of Hezbollah? What [sic] did Ahmadinejad not rocket Tel Aviv in solidarity with his embattled allies in Lebanon? Res ipse loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. They don't want war with Israel, and they don't want war with the United States."

What Buchanan misses is that Syria and Iran already are fighting a war through their proxy paramilitary groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Buchanan continues with this:

"'Islamo-fascism' should be jettisoned from Bush's vocabulary. It yokes the faith of a billion people with an odious ideology. Imagine how Christians would have reacted, had FDR taken to declaring Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy "Christo-fascist."

One wonders if Buchanan has ever listened to a single thing Osama Bin Laden, to name an example, has ever said. He and his fellow travelers specifically claim to be fighting a jihad against non-Muslims in the name of Islam and of Allah, and recently, their message has been, convert to Islam and we won't fight you. Their objectives are specifically religious, inspired by their view of Islam.

Finally, the term Islamic Fascism or Islamo Fascism does not yoke the faith of a billion people with fascist ideology. Instead it differentiates Islam from the terrorists, while still recognizing the obvious truth that the terrorists get their inspiration from their Islamic religious views.

Buchanan did say one thing worthwhile about our enemies:

"They are out to kill us, and we have to get them first."

Can we get an "Amen" here?

-tdr

Technorati: Bush, Islam, Terrorism, War.