Two years after invading Iraq to remove "an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder," one outlaw regime has acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons while a second feverishly attempts to produce such terrifying mechanisms. Could the unintended consequence of the Iraq war have been to further encourage rogue states to go nuclear?
Just a short time ago, hawks, grasping for ex post facto justifications for an invasion that they promoted on spurious grounds, seized on Libya's abandonment of its WMD program as affirmation for their war whooping. "Libya's announcement that it will close down its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs is an important vindication of American and British foreign policy," Andrew Apostolou wrote at National Review Online. "The announcement of Libyan disarmament could not have happened without the liberation of Iraq." "The danger posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is obvious to everyone," declared Powerline on the Libyan disarmament, "and if the administration's tough line can yield results like these, its wisdom should be beyond question."
Such are the dangers of viewing any positive geopolitical development through the prism of Iraq. Libya seems to have been intent on rejoining the community of civilized nations prior to the Iraq war, but who knows, perhaps that conflict was the straw that broke the camel's back. Libya's dismantling of its WMD program, although welcome, neither provides "vindication" to the Iraq campaign nor makes the intelligence of its course "beyond question." More than a year ago, hawks claimed that disarming Iraq would have beneficial effects on other gangster states. It hasn't. Instead, the remaining members of the axis of evil have grown more dangerous. Like Libya, Iran and North Korea charted their course on weapons of mass destruction prior to the Iraq war--with Kim Jong-Il likely having an atomic weapon before gameday in Iraq. But it's worth pondering whether the war accelerated attempts by the two nations to further realize their nuclear ambitions--just as it's worth pondering whether the war had a beneficial effect on Libya.
Obviously, the rulers of North Korea and Iran don't want their nations to be the next Iraq. Welcoming inspections and abandoning the pursuit of WMD is one way--the Libyan way--to avoid invasion. Another way--the Iranian and North Korean way--involves gaining nukes as quickly as possible. More reliable than the mantra that democracies don't wage full-scale wars upon other democracies is the time-tested reality that nuclear powers don't wage full-scale wars upon other nuclear powers. Rather than inspiring the abandonment of dreams of nuclear arsenals, couldn't it just as easily be said that the lesson Iraq imparted to Iran and North Korea is that nukes are the only surefire way to avoid the military wrath of the U.S.?
The hawks have been misrepresenting the Libyan situation for quite some time now. In the vast majority of hawk rhetoric the specter of normalized economic relations with rest of the civilized world - the proverbial carrot held out by the US as a motive for disarming - is scarcely brought up, and if mentioned only in passing.
The bottom line: the hawks will latch on to just about anything to prop up an unjust, undeclared, unconstitutional, and illegal war on an impoverished third world nation that did not threaten us.
More on Libya:
There are two ways to look at this, though. One is that the Libyans failed because they're just not good at making nuclear bombs. Let's face it, they had all of the materials they needed for sometime and just couldn't make it work.(Hell, they even gave Dr. Emmet Brown some plutonium to build them a bomb back in 1985, cause they just couldn't figure it out. Of course, we all know how that turned out.) So, if you announce that you have it, and that you're giving it up, now you're friends with the rest of the world again and everyone flocks to reinvest in your oil fields. Sounds like a good deal, but maybe just a fluke and nothing to do with Iraq.
Or, the other way to look at it is that the above is partly true AND they were intimidated by Iraq. Then, looking at Iran and DPRK, you have to think that if they CAN (or HAVE)develop(ed) a bomb, AND then give it up, they'll get an even better deal than Libya and won't have to deal with a messy war. A war mind you, driven by a US President who's shown that he's not afraid of so-called "quagmires". What a bargaining chip they'll have...we don't just have a program, we have a real bomb! The first thing North Korea did last week after announcing it had the bomb was demand direct talks with the US ("US, we have bomb! Let's talk, why not?"). They're clearly looking for a deal.
I don't think it's fair to completely discount the idea that both of these regimes see nukes as a way to end their isolation in the most profitable way possible. If that's the case (hopefully it is) then America fought one war to avoid two others and leveraged our greatest strength, money, to bring 2 rogues back into the international community.
Of course, if that's not the case, we have a serious problem on our hands.
Israel will destroy any Iranian attempt to obtain nuclear weapons before it reaches completion. And despite the tough talk, they've got to be nervous with the U.S. military on two of their borders.
If the Israelies do not destroy their nuclear facilities, a moonless night B-2 run would be in order.
The same goes for North Korea. Why not simply reduce their nuclear power plants to flaming, radioactive rubble?
Quick question: Why does Israel get to have nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't?
Even if Iran gets WMDs it does not justify war against that state - nor does Pyongyang's admission of possessing WMDs justify war against North Korea.
I think our policy of pre-emptive, aggressive war, is backfiring on us, as these "rogue" states attempt to arm themselves to prevent a US invasion. If the intent of our policy is to prevent the spread of WMDs, it doesn't seem to be working too well.
"Quick question: Why does Israel get to have nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't?"
Well, for starters, next to Great Britain they're our closest ally; there is no imaginable scenario in which they would use such weapons against the U.S. or supply them to our enemies; and they are surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims who would love nothing better than to irradicate them.
Israel, by the way, does not officially have nuclear weapons. Everyone believes that they do, but they have made no declarations.
"If the intent of our policy is to prevent the spread of WMD's, it doesn't seem to be working too well."
As oppossed to what? How exactly would you propose the accomplishment of that goal?
"Quick question: Why does Israel get to have nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't?"
Quick answer: Israel is a westernized liberal democracy. Iran is a radical Islamic theocracy bent on conquering the entire middle east, and eventually the world, in the name of Allah.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
therein lies the comprehensive post-Iraq war report released by the Central Intelligence Agency on September 30th, 2004. The report concludes that obtaining nuclear and chemical weapons was a top priority for the Saddam government.
But that wasn't the real reason anyway, the real reason was and is that a democratic middle east is nothing short of VITAL to winning the War on Terror. I am short on time now, but I will explain further if requested.
Was "preventing the spread of WMD's" the reason behind sacking Hussein and the Baathists? Not entirely. It was specifically to prevent the spread of these weapons among those who were planning to use them again us or our allies. Even so, it's only one reason among many. Violating the original cease-fire from the first Gulf action, making common cause with al-Qaeda, sponging the monies from Oil-for-Food into weapons programs and a compensation fund for the families of self-immolating terrorists... The list goes on.
Iran and NK were already working on this for some time. We didn't deter them? That doesn't prove that it was a mistake to try. We did help deter Libya. We certainly deterred the Taliban and Hussein. Pakistan swung aboard the coalition instead of against it.
We can't have it both ways. Saying that an action doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it didn't solve some things, any more than saying it solved some things means that it's beyond reproach. Sure we can do better - but we could also be doing a hell of a lot worse. We could be shuffling papers and making sad little appeasement noises like most of Old Europe. We can go back to speaking loudly and carrying a swizzle stick like we did during the Clinton years. But to do nothing to protect ourselves because we're afraid that some people (who hate the Great Satan anyway) are going to do bad stuff? We may as well make Sharia the 28th Amendment and save ourselves the trouble.
The Iraq war might have accelerated the timetable for the North Koreans and Iranians, but the march towards the nuclear weapons has been a long one and was moving steadily along enough during the Clinton Administration.
And fear of a belligerent United States is not the only reason a regime may ramp up to nuclear status. In the case of Iran it may be to have a weapons to use against Israel, or at least hold over Israel's head to prevent a fuller prosecution of anti-Hamas military campaigns. In the case of North Korea: it's to bribe the West to keep the regime afloat since a combination of famine and Marxist economic management have completely broken the back of the country's economy.
And we saw that it wasn't fear of the US but a long-standing border conflict that drove India and Pakistan to develop nukes. And despite, or perhaps because of their mutual nuclear status, there is hope for a more peaceful resolution to the Kashmir issue.
So yeah, maybe Iraq didn't help, but I think it may only have slightly accelerated a dangerous trend which was otherwise, pre-9/11 and pre-Iraq war a silent march towards nuclear status.
"But that wasn't the real reason anyway, the real reason was and is that a democratic middle east is nothing short of VITAL to winning the War on Terror. I am short on time now, but I will explain further if requested."
Well, at least you're honest. And by the way, nice try on the WMDs, but you know very well that all throughout the run-up to the war the Administration said Hussein possessed (present tense) stockpiles of WMD and that Iraq was an "imminent" threat to the United States. Since those justifications have been proven to be false the war supporters just effortlessly change the rules in the middle of the game.
Also, attempting to "democratize" the Middle East won't win the so-called "war on terror" (what does this term actually mean anyway) it will only provoke more terror. Terror is a consequence of interventionism, more interventionism leads to more terror. Its very simple - contrary to the conventional wisdom we were not attacked on 9/11 because of our "freedom" or our commitment to "women's rights" or co-ed education or strip clubs in Las Vegas, we were attacked because of our Middle East policies (regarding stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, bankrolling Israel to the tune of unheard of billions yearly, etc.).
I never believed they (WMDs) were there in the first place, if you dont believe me about that ask Ben L.
Your views on foreign policy are weak, mediocre on a good day. Terrorism is a result of the kind of theocratic, vehemently anti-American, anti-west, oppressive culture the majority of arabs live in. If inteventionism is what creates terrorism than you will have to explain why we didn't face long, hard, insurgent wars in the South after the Civil War, in Germany after WWI, in Nazi Germany, in Fascist Italy, or in Imperial Japan.
It is quite revealing as to your condescension to the common American that you think he belives such absurdity about 9/11. The vast majority of Americans, I would hope, understand we were attacked because of our foreign policy. But our policy in the Middle East is RIGHT. It is the right thing to do to stand up for Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, it is the right thing to do to oppose the rule of rampant Islamism, especially in the form of Iran. Althought our friendly relationship with the Saudis in the past has been regrettable, I find it interesting that most Anti-Bushers choose to overlook that Bush II has done more to seperate ourselves from Saudi Arabia than either Clinton OR Bush I. We no longer have bases in Saudi Arabia, we are buying less and less oil from Saudi Arabia, and we are becoming more and more detached from the Riyadh government.
How would you like to win the War on Terror? Kill Osama Bin Laden? Laughable. What would we have accomplished? Simply put, nothing. If we do not change the base situation of the Middle East as it currently exists, than there will always be another Bin Laden to step up and take his place. Change our Mideast policy in order to better suit those that would attack us? Equally terrible. One cannot peacefully negotiate with terrorists, dictators, and madmen for long. Giving into the wishes of terrorists does nothing but encourage terrorism.
The best, nay the only way, to stop terrorism in the long run is to create a democratic, free, educated Middle East. A world where people are living good because the booming oil trade is going into THEIR pockets instead of those of oppressive governments. If human beings are free to choose their own government, know that their inalienable rights will be respected, and are seeing a booming oil trade that goes to help their families, instead of the very governments responsible for their oppression, what will be their motivation to fight? Where are they going to find a reason to go blow themselves up. Islam? Why? Islam makes no mention of it being impossible to coexist peacefully with Jews or Christians. Mohammed called Jews and Christians "people of the book" and when he ruled in the Middle East he allowed them to live their lives peacefully. Veiled under Islam or not, there is no question that hatred of the US/Israel that exists in the Middle East is political, not religious.
Why strap C4 to your chest and blow up a busload of innocents, if the money is good and living is easy? There is no reason to.
That is why the War on Terror can be won, and that is why democratizing the Middle East is the way to do it.
(1) I sympathize with Ben T's commitment to consumerist secular american values and rights. ...partly because I was raised here. But don't you see that your entire theory of world politics is based on the presumption that everyone in the world cares about X-Boxes, compact cars, a free press, and ready-to-hand R- rated movies as much as you do? The way to fix those religious fanatics? Make sure that "the money is good and living is easy." Wise words.
(2) "Giving into the wishes of terrorists does nothing but encourage terrorism." Ok. But there are other things that do too -- like screwing with their countries constantly for the last 50 years, massively supporting a regime which absolutely humiliates them, invading their region and trying to force our ideas of good government on them, and playing into every accusation OBL makes against us.
"Your views on foreign policy are weak, mediocre on a good day. Terrorism is a result of the kind of theocratic, vehemently anti-American, anti-west, oppressive culture the majority of arabs live in. If inteventionism is what creates terrorism than you will have to explain why we didn't face long, hard, insurgent wars in the South after the Civil War, in Germany after WWI, in Nazi Germany, in Fascist Italy, or in Imperial Japan."
The South, Germany, Italy, and Japan all had semblances of a "democratic" tradition prior to all of the conflagarations you cite. In three of the four of them, the United States and its Allies were reduced to employing what was nothing less than terror-like tactics in defeating the enemy. Think I'm making that up? Ask the survivors of Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. Go ahead and read some of the accounts of Sherman's march to sea -- total war unleashed on defenseless Southern civilian populations, terror pure and simple.
"It is quite revealing as to your condescension to the common American that you think he belives such absurdity about 9/11. The vast majority of Americans, I would hope, understand we were attacked because of our foreign policy."
Well then, what's the problem then? That's my point -- that we were attacked for "who we are" but for "what we do" in the world. Pursuing the same policies is going to yield same results.
"It is the right thing to do to stand up for Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, it is the right thing to do to oppose the rule of rampant Islamism, especially in the form of Iran."
Sorry, but I don't consider a country where it is officially illegal to proselytize while the youth of the nation is forced into military service very "liberal" or "free" for that matter. To each his own I suppose.
"How would you like to win the War on Terror? Kill Osama Bin Laden? Laughable. What would we have accomplished? Simply put, nothing."
I don't necessarily disagree. As long as we continue our meddling, continue our billions of dollars of welfare payments to Israel every year, and continue to turn a blind eye to Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, I think we'll see much of the same.
"Giving into the wishes of terrorists does nothing but encourage terrorism."
Unless, of course, you agree with those who participate in terrorism. Do a search on the "Stern Gang" and see what I'm talking about.
"The best, nay the only way, to stop terrorism in the long run is to create a democratic, free, educated Middle East."
I strongly disagree. The British stopped IRA terror by ending the occcupation and by stopping the interventionism. Your proposal - the advancement of "freedom" by the force of arms - is a recipe for more and more terror, not to mention financial insolvency at home as our fiscal situation gets more and more precarious with the enormous costs of the Iraq occupation.
If the people of the Middle East were free to chose their own leaders tomorrow, what makes you think they'll choose a European-style democracy? The Iraqis just elected a Shi'ite ticket that has promised to make Islam the basis of all law. Doesn't sound particularly promising to me. It sure as heck doesn't sound like something I'm willing to die for, or I want any of my kids to give their lives for.
Speaking of that Ben, when do you plan to join the front lines of the "war on terror"? I surely wouldn't ask anyone to fight and die in a war I wouldn't participate in myself.
Islamo-Fascists hatred of America has nothing to do with American foreign policy. It has everthing to do with the Jihadists goal of world domination. Even a cursory study of Islam will reveal this. Unfortunately we will not get this from the main-stream news media. The sooner Americans realize this the closer we will be to winning the war on terrorism. Whether or not the "Bush doctrine" will prove to be sound remains to be seen. We should hope and pray that it is successful because the alternative is living under a world that is dominated by some sort of Islamo/Marxists hybrid government. The Bush doctrine while it is not perfect it is the best we currently have. I offer the following as practical steps that could be taken to enhance our chances:
1.) Increase support for Israel. United States support for Israel has been wanting of late. I'm a bit puzzled, as to our policy of fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan yet encouraging Israel to carve out a terrorist state known as "Palestine." Perhaps I'm missing something here. In other words, it makes no sense to fight the Islamo-Fascists in two places yet encourage them in another place. The terrorists see this as weakness and it only encourages them.
2.) States such as Iran and Syria support the terror groups such as Al Qaeda, Hams, Islamic Jihad, and others. Russia and China support the terror supporting states such Iran and Syria. We need to understand that the enemy is much broader than a band of Islamic terrorist.
3.) Develop an alternative for oil. This would not solve the problem entirely, as the terror supporting governments would still be able to sell enough oil to Europe, Japan, China, and other countries to finance Jihad. While America not buying their oil would not be sufficent to completely end global Jihad, it would deprive them of a major source of revenue. This would limit their capability to engage in current operations and it would limit their ability to train future Jihadists. there is more but I'm pressed for time at the moment.
Wow! "Whether or not the "Bush doctrine" will prove to be sound remains to be seen. We should hope and pray that it is successful because the alternative is living under a world that is dominated by some sort of Islamo/Marxists hybrid government."
Rob: there is absolutely no chance that an Islamo-Fascist/Marxist hybrid government will dominate the world. Really: no chance.
Leave the chicken-littlisms to the environmentalists and the Bush-haters. Conservatives are supposed to be somewhat more level-headed.
Brigid
"There is absloutely no chance that an "Islamo-Fascists/Marxist hybrid government will dominate the world. Really: no chance." If only you were right!! In my post, I think I am being quite level-headed. I offer my ana-lysis of this based on a large number of books and articles. If interested, you can start by referring to books such as "Onward Muslim Soldiers" by Robert Spencer. You can also reference the information at www.memri.org. You can reference files at www.danielpipes.org. For detailed ana-lysis of the links between the terror supporting states and Russia and China you can refer to www.jrnyquist.org. This barely scratches the surface. As evidence to support your claim that these people have no chance to dominate the world you accuse me of "chicken littlisms." It may be true that I am a little enthusiatic when it comes to the defense of America. What can I say? I love my country, as I know you do to. We already know the cost of inaction. The cost of inaction is the events of 9/11. 9/11 happened because both Democrats and Republicans were passive, in the face of Islamic terrorism, for far to long. Right now the Bush doctrine is the best we have. Could the Bush doctrine use improvement? Absolutely!! That is what my previous post was all about. To offer constructive criticism. In spite of all the flaws of the current operations in Iraq and elsewhere, we have not had another 9/11 in over three years. This is absolutely miraculous!! This is due in large part to the operations in Iraq. This has caused the terrorists and their supporting states to divert resources and man power to Iraq that would have been used elsewhere.
In your post you seem to imply that environmentalists are over reacting. I tend to agree with you but I will need to do more research on this issue to comment intellegently.
With Respect
Rob
To continue the previous post on how we can fight a more effective war on terror.
4.) American foreign policy has no doubt been misguided at times and could probably even be classified as meddling. Arab foreign policy has also been misguided as well. If we are to achieve peace, we need a partner for peace. Right now we simply do not have one. What America has or has not done, in the middle east or anywhere else for that matter, is not unimportant. It is simply irrelevant to the current situation. They, at least their leaders, do not hate us for anything we have done. They hate us for who we are. The sooner we grasp this the better. Concerning meddling, I am becoming increasingly disgusted with the attempts of the terrorist porxy organization known as CAIR and their attempts to remake America into the image of their terrorist allies. For the last 30 years or so American foreign policy, in the middle east, has largely been reactionary rather than proactive. The terror supporting states have thus far been thwarted, in their attempts to achieve world hegemony, but they have yet to actually be fully defeated. Israel has played the largest role in thwarting the terrorists. Everyone in the western world owes Israel a huge thank you!! When the terrorists are actually defeated it will become possible to achieve peace. Concerning American foreign policy, if the Arabs are so upset with it, they can present their case to the United Nations general assembly along with a request for some type of sanctions against America and/or some type of reparations to be paid by America. This should be quite easy for them to do, as the UN has become a virtual proxy for them. From here they can move on to the United Nations Security Council. Russia, China, and France would most likely vote with them. While the United States could veto it, this would send s powerful message. Why haven't they done this? A.)A public trial might lead to their own misdeeds being exposed, in a very public way. This might not be good for their propaganda war. B.)Such a forum might lead to a pratical solution. The terrorists do not want this. They need the "grievences" as an excuse to continue to wage global jihad. Suffice it to say when the terrorists are finally defeated it will be possible to open up some type of forum where both real and imagined grieveances can be addressed and resolved.
5.)Finally, I would like to see the government do something more to counter the absolutely vicious and false propaganda that is leveled against us on a daily basis.
Rob
P.S. - The website I listed previously is www.jrnyquist.com and not www.jrnyquist.org.
1) Islamo-fascism is a term that has absolutely no meaning or true referent.
2) the fact that there has not been a repeat of 9/11 is not miraculous. 9/11, so far, thankfully, was a one of a kind success for the islamacists, the earlier WTC bombing did nothing like that in damage and the other attacks have come on foreign soil. But (too make Ockham proud) could it not be also reasonable to suppose that there has been no repeat b/c Al Qaeda is and was just not as menacing and fearful as you are supposing Rob? After all, they used primitive means (box cutters) and it took them years of planning to execute that evil deed. They couldn't even provide the planes but had to hijack them.
It was a horrible day in American history and certainly the worst day for most living American's in their lives but maybe the lack of a reoccurrence of such a terrorist act speaks to Al Qaeda's weakness rather than to our strength.
Should we be on our absolute guard?, yes. Do we have to tumble all the governments of the Middle East and occupy them to prevent another 9/11?, no.
Skeptic's reference to the Stern Gang is just brilliant btw.
Brian
Please understand what I write is with the utmost respect for you and for all.
1.)"Islamo-Fascism is a term that has absolutely no meaning or true referent." I think there are numerous similarities between the religous beliefs of the terrroists and the Nazis, furthermore, their beliefs have been grafted onto those of leftists/marxists. You can refer to some of the references I listed above. Also, "Unholy Aliance" by David Horowitz explains some of this. You can also refer to many of the articles at www.frontpagemag.com. I do not use this term lightly.
Regarding your second point, that Al Qaeda may not be as fearsome as first thought could well be correct. Why did they use hijacked planes as opposed to their own? I can't say for sure. At a terrorist training camp in Iraq, Samon Pak, I think was the name of the training camp, it is known that the terrorists trained with 747s or 737s or something like this. There was a report on this on the O'Reilly factor a few months back and a few artices have been written on this but the main-stream news media has been largely silent about it. I think the choice of hijacked planes was a strategic choice of the terrorists. They wanted to crush the American economy and instill as much fear as possible. fortunately they have thus far failed on both counts. The attacks really hurt the airline industry and they are still reeeling. Of course some might say the airlines had bad business models to begin with!! Why use box cutters? Again, I'm not sure. I don't want to get into conspiracy theory, so the best educated guess I have is it might be easier to get these past security than to get machine guns past security. Also, to get taken out by box cutters is quite humiliating. This is one of the goals of the terrorists to humiliate their enemies. Hopefully we will be more alert in the future and this type of attack will not succeed. Again you may be correct. We could have over estimated the power of this enemy. I would rather do that than underestimate them, as we know the cost of doing this. The only salient argument I know of to oppose the operations in Iraq is that it may have caused us to take our eyes off of bigger enemies such as Russia and China. Having written that, at this time, there appears to be no way to win this war by leaving Saddam in power.
Do we need to tumble all the governments in the middle east and occupy them to prevent another 9/11? I think your answer of "no" is the correct one. These operations involve a careful balance of diplomacy and the use of force. Even a cursory examination of American foreign policy reveals that different methods are used in different places. Hopefully we will not have to use the military option anywhere else. In the final ana-lysis, we probably lack the ability to tumble all the governments in the middle east and occupy them. At this time, America definitely lacks the will to implement such a policy. You are correct we do need to be on our absolute guard. On that note, the government needs to do something to address the border situation!! Thankfully the terrorists have not succeeded in their broader goals. Lets hope and pray it stays that way!!
With Respect
Rob
Thanks for the response Rob.
I think that in your explanation of the use of the term Islamo-fascist you are actually validating my claim. This is because there are important differences between National Socialism and the fascism of Mussolini. Likewise, when you further suggest that the leftists and marxists have become fascist by grafting on "their" (I assume the referent is the Nazis?) ideas you are again demonstrating that you are expelling any real historical content or meaning from the term "fascist."
Horowitz, an ex-leftist, and FrontPageMag are not good resources for a well-developed understanding of the meaning of the term fascism. Better woould be to look at the historian Stanley Payne's books or even Mussolini's encyclopedia article "What is Fascism?" of 1932. Horowitz has his own domestic political and ideological agenda to further and that is why he makes use of such loose terminology. This is a tactic he has continued from his days as a radical leftist.
I understand the rationale of such a usage, the idea is that if one can paint one's enemies as "fascist" then we can forego the difficulty of providing an argument for some particular means of combatting or defeating our enemies, it will be granted as self-evident that war and "any means necessary" will be wholly acceptable and really beyond dispute. Basically the reasoning goes:
"everyone knows that fascism is evil and that it must be stopped at all costs and warred against at every turn, therefore, since Islamic extremists (or leftists or Marxists) are "fascists" it is self-evident that we must stop them by any means. The Good War of World War Two had to be fought to save us from fascism so to does this War on Terror have to be fought to save ourselves from . . . fascism."
My point is that this is propaganda and an ideologically biased and thus intellectually bankrupt use of words. How exactly are the radical Islamicists fascist, particulary if compared to the national socialists? The Nazis were completely atheistic and actually quite morally decadent, while the Islamicists are ascetic and exceedingly, fanatically, devout. Also, the fascists in both the German and Italian variants were nationalists and ultra-modernists, but the Islamic radicals are entirely antediluvian and pan-nationalist.
I understand the well-argued and developed ana-logies between the tactics (and athiesm!) of the Nazis and those of the communist/Leninists, but making this same ana-logy fit the Islamic radicals would require much more work. I am saying it doesn't fit.
What is the point of my complaint? The point is that if we mischaracterize the enemy, and thus misunderstand the enemy then we are that much more likely to make mistakes in combatting the enemy. Slinging around the word fascist works much as the left uses the terms "racist" or homophobe" or the neocons (even at this site) use the term "isolationist." The word is a highly charged term b/c of the *historical* baggage that comes with the word. Misapplying it often proves anachronistic and is simply a convenient means of narrowing our options of action or combat of the enemy to the few that are accepted by the most rabid and militant war hawks amongst us.
As to my discussion of the archaic means used by Al Qaeda I only brought that up as illustrating the possible weakness of the group in their real lack of advanced technology, clearly the choice of means of attack was a strategic one and one that proved extremely shocking and destructive. I have seen old videos of terrorists at their training camps using 747s etc., but only as practice sites to learn how to commit hijackings. It isn't like Al Qaeda has a fleet of planes or ships to attack us with; they are extremely bereft of real weapons technology. Terror acts like suicide bombings are clearly the actions of the weak against the strong, I mean it isn't all that efficient a use of manpower to guarantee a 100% casualty rate of your fighters. Anyway, I was just suggesting that they were weaker than we may have thought I am not claiming that, I really have no idea about that.
Sorry about the length of my response but the use of the term Islamo-fascist is a real pet peeve of mine.
Brian
Thank you for your response. I apologize if my use of the term "Islamo-Fascists" has offended you. The term "Islamo-Fascists" may not be the best description of our enemies. There are no doubt distinct differences between Nazis and Islamists. Actually I think Nazi and Fascist have been used by some to describe President Bush. It really seems the term fascist is now used by both the left and the right to describe people they don't like, especially by the left. I will try to come up with another term. The fact is this is a ruthless enemy whose religous ideology requires them to dominate and subjigate the entire world. Thankfully the USA and the coaliton of the willing are currently standing in their way. It bothers me that many, especially liberals and leftists, simply can't or won't grasp what we are up against. While I will try to use a different term, I am still going to point evil where and when I see it. A basic problem that the post-Christian western world has is that many of its citizens lack a basic moral compass. In other words, many simply have lost the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Until we develop this ability, it will make things much more difficult.
By the way, you are quite right about David Horowitz. This is why I read Flynn files to serve as sort of check on so called neo-conservative philosphy. One thing that seems to distinguish leftists from conservatives, is conservatives have the humility to admit we may not always be right.
With much respect
Rob
I'm not sure if I was clear regarding my postion on David Horowitz. While he clearly is what some would term as an ideologue, he has demonstrated a basic understanding of this enemy that goes far beyond that of most commentators. Also, I have been aware for quite some time that he is a former leftist. This may be why he has a better grasp of the left than most commentators do. This is why his works are a valuable tool in understanding the world as it is today, however, his works nor the works of any one human author should be one's only tool for understanding world politics. Having written this,I do understand that his ideology may have caused him to go astray, from time to time. Adherence to one's Ideology, at all costs, can serve to blind one to the truth. We must all be very careful and try to examine all issues carefully from all sides. This is by no means easy.
Hope I didn't seem too preachy Rob. I wasn't sitting at my desk steaming about the term, it is a pet peeve of mine cuz of the way it is used rhetorically to tie in the current threat we face to some great evil of the past. I think that can be misleading and obscures the particular nature of the Islamic threat
Anyway, I actually really like Horowitz, I don't think he is simply an ideologue, I only said that he has particular ideological battles (basically against the American left) that he is engaged in which help explain his use of the concept of Islamo-fascism. That's all I meant, Horowitz is very interesting and very provocative, I enjoy that he is a pit bull on the right side of things getting back at the left he thankfully abandoned.
Word.
Regards,
Islamo-Fascist is a perfectly acceptable term.
The governments described as such are always based deeply in a radicaly interpretation of the Islamic faith, and will categorically implement Shariah law.
Islamo.
These same nations are almost always devoted a strong military destruction of Israel, and of the United States. They will almost always harbor those pursuing a Jihad against Israel or the United States. They are almost always trying to find ways to build up their miltaries or gaind WMDs.
Fascist.
Nazism =/= all forms of fascism.
Sofrom your defintion, Ben-T, the sufficient condition for being fascist is (1) being anti-American and anti-Israel, and (2) building a military.
People will go to any lengths to believe what they want to believe.
NB: Leftists use the word with a different meaning, but just as irresponsibly. For them the jointly sufficents conditions of being fascist are (1) being pro-U.S., and (2) building a military.
Oh no Brigid,
Don't talk to Ben-T about definitions again! I still have a headache from his last convoluted attempt to pretend to be capable of following a logical argument regarding the meanings of words.
Brian
You did not sound preachy at all. I think the point you are trying to make is we can confuse the issues when we use words to loosely. It is a valid point. While we may not always agree on everything, your take on the issues is well thought out. It is a pleasure to discuss them with you.
Best Wishes
Rob
