Imagine the chagrin of the Bush Administration that that darned uncontrollable liberal media has gone and started calling the civil war in Iraq a civil war. Hilarious was Tony Snow’s attempting to define exactly what a civil war was and, in doing so, described exactly what was happening in Iraq…only to try and backpedal moments later and explain why, no, no, that’s not it at all.
Ostensibly the administration is concerned that referring to it as a Civil War could further voter discontent and objection to the war. It’s hard to believe that discontent could be more profound than approval ratings in the 30s and an election that turned the government back over to the Democrats, so clearly the major worry is that the GOP candidate for president in 2008 is going to suffer from his predecessor’s actions having launched a civil war in another country.
Indeed, the only thing we’re waiting for now is assassination of the current Iraqi leaders and a military overthrow of the current Iraqi government, which seems to be on the very close horizon. Indeed, the *only* thing that may be preventing that is the presence of our troops, and I suspect even that isn’t going to hold matters in check forever.
In any event, with the current battering the Bush Administration is taking, this blog will try to display some sensitivity. We here will NOT be referring to the Iraqi situation as Civil War. Instead we will refer to the overall situation as the CW, and events that transpire there as CW Programming. That sonds a lot friendlier.
PAD
• 
>Absolutely, keeping in mind that Israel is a nuclear power, Iran would make sure to hit them first if they were to get the bomb. Not only would it eliminate their biggest regional nuclear threat, it would also increase their stature in the Muslim world.
Oh, no. Because the only way to be SURE of having eliminated any possibility of a nuclear counterstrike from Israel would be to pretty much flatten the country and take out deep bunkers while they’re at it. The problem with that is, neighbouring countries would take quite a hit in fallout alone and my theory is, however much they despise Israel, they’d hate that even more.
I think people are forgetting that Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, is pretty dámņ good. I think Israel would launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran before the latter country had a chance to fire off nukes.
Of course, I shudder to think of what such a pre-emptive strike would look like. I hope the world can find a way to untangle the Middle East Mess (or Mess ‘O Potamia as “The Daily Show” calls it) long before that happens.
Of course, the way things are going now doesn’t exactly lend itself to a lot of hope.
I mean, the guy shot his best friend, for crying out loud.
That was an accident–but Cheney not going to the hospital with the guy immediately afterwards was his choice and a choice that made me pretty disgusted with him. What the hëll was he thinking? If somebody sprays me with buckshot and isn’t even considerate enough to show up at the hospital right after I’m treated and apologize and ask me if I’m feeling any better, I denounce that person as a friend that very day. So for that matter, what the was the guy Cheney SHOT thinking? Not to mention that this wasn’t a hunting trip, it was “hey, you know what’d be fun? If we got somebody to put cages of domesticated birds all over the place, then had him lead us to the birds, then had him poke the birds until they try to fly away, and then we could shoot them since they’ve never flown before and would make real easy targets. Or maybe we could buy some kittens and shoot them instead…nah, let’s do the bird thing. Just as long as I get to kill something.”
I have no respect for Cheney as a leader nor as a man.
I find him pretty despicable too. But read this quote from 1991 when he was Secretary of Defense. It really is amazing…
CHENEY (explaining why the first Gulf War ended with Saddam still in power): “I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we’re going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.”
Talk about flip-flopping. Also, the fact that he was able to see all of that coming makes it even more inexcusable for him to have been involved in the invasion 12 years later.
But if he went to war for oil what would be the sense of blowing it all up?
It would greatly reduce the supply allowing tremendous price hikes & profits that are currently unimaginable.
So…if we succeed in Iraq it was to grab the oil for ourselves…if we fail in Iraq it was to drive the price up…it’s an argument that can’t be lost!
Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 08:11 PM
So…if we succeed in Iraq it was to grab the oil for ourselves…if we fail in Iraq it was to drive the price up…it’s an argument that can’t be lost!
Actually, it can.
I doubt Bush wants to spike up the price of oil. That would put the final nail into the coffin that has become his presidency. Bush is clearly stupid, but I don’t think he’s that stupid.
We were relying on oil revenues to fund our occupation; that was part of Bush’s plan all along. And I find it hard to believe that Bush and his oil-soaked pals weren’t interested in getting control of Iraqi oil. Our economy is oil-based, a huge chunk of our oil comes from the Middle East, and political instability in that region therefore threatens our economic stability.
Moreover, people seem to forget that the market for oil is not strictly controlled by market forces. There are cartels, like OPEC, that artificially manipulate the supply depending on their perceived needs. If we could control Iraq’s oil, even by proxy, it would mean we could have more control over the supply and price of oil.
I don’t think that’s a “tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.” It may not have been the primary reason for invading Iraq, but I believe it was among the motives.
Well, I think one can make the argument that the only reason we care at all about the middle east is ultimately because our economy depends on oil. Though in that case, some of our actions (supporting the oil poor Israel over the oil rich Saudis, Iranians, etc, makes little sense). It’s always a factor but far less of one than critics contend.
It occurs to me…if Iraq is a civil war isn’t Afghanistan as well? And hasn’t Afghanistan been one from the get go?
The big problem with the War On Terrorism/Islamofacism is that this is not an enemy we can defeat once and then go home (like Nazi Germany).
We pull out and stop fighting Al Qaida in Iraq, especially prior to Iraq’s three year old government being established firmly enough to fight off the insurging terrorists, this enemy will follow us back home and continue more attempts at a 9-11 attack.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 09:23 PM
Well, I think one can make the argument that the only reason we care at all about the middle east is ultimately because our economy depends on oil. Though in that case, some of our actions (supporting the oil poor Israel over the oil rich Saudis, Iranians, etc, makes little sense). It’s always a factor but far less of one than critics contend.
But, we do support the Saudis. Or at least the Saudi royal family. We stationed troops to fend off an attack from Iraq and left them there, which is part of what got us involved in 9/11. Then we found a way to let a bunch of Saudis fly back home while there was ostensibly a ban on all flights in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 09:23 PM
It occurs to me…if Iraq is a civil war isn’t Afghanistan as well? And hasn’t Afghanistan been one from the get go?
Afghanistan wasn’t a civil war from the get-go, unless you believe the U.S. was part of Afghanistan. Afghanistan began with a U.S. invasion that toppled a hostile government and attempted to install a friendlier one. It was afterwards that the warlords began vying for control of the country. Now we’re seeing a resurgence of the Taliban.
Our invasion of Iraq is almost a mirror image, except for one small but pesky detail: Iraq was never a significant threat to us.
Posted by: Darin at November 29, 2006 09:36 PM
The big problem with the War On Terrorism/Islamofacism is that this is not an enemy we can defeat once and then go home (like Nazi Germany).
Using the term “Islamofascism” may be popular, but I’m not sure it’s accurate. The basis of radical Islam is religion (or a perversion of it). Some of the fascist movements of the early 20th century may have co-opted some religious beliefs, but the core of their ideologies were not necessarily religious.
I’m not saying radical Islam is good. In fact, I consider it to be a cancer on the civilized world. But two things aren’t the same unless they are.
So one cannot see that “Islamofacism” is a form of radical Islam? If one does not believe that Islam in its uncorrupted form is facist, then they shouldn’t have a problem with “Islamofacism” as a viable term.
Iraq was a growing threat the United States. The evidence (confirmed by multiple global inteligence agencies and verified by even Bill Clinton) supports that. His inability to abide by double-digit UN inspection requirements and resolutions in a post 9-11 world also lead to his being overthrown and his eventual death sentence. I have no pity for Saddam.
DW
I think the Iranian leaders mat believe that but in reality, if they bomb Israel they will have to change the name of their country to “The steaming pile of radioactive sand formally known as Iran”
Well, yeah. But they’ll still call it a victory.
Afghanistan wasn’t a civil war from the get-go, unless you believe the U.S. was part of Afghanistan.
Actually, the Northern Alliance was already fighting against the Taliban, so technically, Afghanistan was in a civil war before we toppled the Taliban.
The difference is, Iraq is now in a civil war of our creation.
But, we do support the Saudis.
yeah but does anyone seriously argue that we are even handed in the Middle East, in terms of who we support? We are overwhelmingly on Israel’s side. Wich is a good thing, in my opinion, but not something that the Muslim states are happy about. My point is, if people believe that oil is our main objective, there seems to be a major disconnect with our policies.
Afghanistan wasn’t a civil war from the get-go, unless you believe the U.S. was part of Afghanistan. Afghanistan began with a U.S. invasion that toppled a hostile government and attempted to install a friendlier one.
Using, in large part, the existing anti-taliban forces. I’d say that Afghanistan has been in a state of civil war since the 80s.
My Dad noticed something and made comment to me, they are not blowing up the oil fields. Both sides so far have not really attacked the main things that could truly cripple the country. We think some money and payola is being doled out by the companies running the show.
Both sides so far have not really attacked the main things that could truly cripple the country.
Interesting point, though at least one of the sides would have no reason to do that.
I think there have been some attacks on pipelines and such–there were few incidents I recall that effectively shut down the oil producing capacity for a while.
Protecting an oil field or refinery is much easier than protecting every possible place where civilians gather.
Well, how do you feel about referring to the nazis as Christo-fascists? The swastika has a history as a variant of the Christian cross, the Iron Cross was taken from the Teutonic Knights who were Catholic, and the nazis often referred to the grail myth.
The only evidence Iraq was a threat to any of its neighbors was speculation. Scott Ritter was getting substantial coverage a half year up to the invasion saying Iraq was no threat to its neighbors, and the White House produced no evidence to contradict him. In the weeks before the invasion, the back pages of newspapers were reporting that no intelligence agencies — including the CIA and Israeli intelligence — could confirm Iraq had any WMDs. George W Bush retconning the justification for invasion to liberating the Iraqi people only confirms Iraq was no international threat.
It’s plainly observable you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The insurgents depend on the US occupation to keep their recruitment up. Of course they would attempt another 9/11 to bring us back.
Pre-9/11, flight schools were reporting to the FBI foreign students who weren’t interested in learning how to land airplanes. The national FBI offices were prohibiting the local offices from initiating legal wiretaps against Saudis with ties to known terror cells, Condi Rice was telling Richard Clarke she didn’t want to talk about Arab terrorism, and George W Bush took a monthlong vacation barely 6-months into his presidency after reading the memo titled “Bin Laden determined to strike US.”
We aren’t in danger because religious fanatics want to kill us. We are in danger because George W Bush is in charge of our safety.
Actually, the swastika predates Christianity by (according to some archeological finds) approximately five millenia, and is a sacred symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism, amongst others.
Being found in many ancient European cultures as well, it was used (and perverted) by the Nazis as a symbol in the Aryan movement, theorizing a “Nordic master race,” originating in northern Europe.
-Rex Hondo-
I haven’t taken the time to read all the comments, but after reading at least three individuals’ posts referring to the Kurds vs Shiites vs Sunnis, I need to make a major point of correction. The Kurds ARE largely Sunni Muslims (there is a sizable Shia minority, but there’s much less religious strife among the Kurds). They’re not ARABS, unlike the other Sunnis in Iraq. That’s where the ethnicity comes into play. There’s RELIGIOUS strife between the Iraqi Arab Sunnis and Iraqi Arab Shiites and an ETHNIC rivalry between the Iraqi Arabs (Sunnis and Shiites) and the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Modern Kurds are related to the Iranians, and their language belongs to the Indo-European family, not the Semitic family (like Arabic).
While the confusion is understandable since most of the administration’s so-called experts on the Middle East seem to be less than aware of this themselves, we should avoid falling into that trap as well.
If we could control Iraq’s oil, even by proxy, it would mean we could have more control over the supply and price of oil.
I don’t think that’s a “tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.” It may not have been the primary reason for invading Iraq, but I believe it was among the motives.
Indeed. Safe to say that prospect didn’t give them second thoughts or anything.
Being found in many ancient European cultures as well, (the swastika) was used (and perverted) by the Nazis as a symbol in the Aryan movement, theorizing a “Nordic master race,” originating in northern Europe.
The sad thing is that you could do that with just about any symbol. What if some murderous, Nazi-like regime put the cross on their flag? Or the peace sign? You’d never be able to wear either in public again without getting harassed for it.
We are overwhelmingly on Israel’s side. Wich is a good thing, in my opinion, but not something that the Muslim states are happy about.
I’d say it depends what Israel DOES. If Israel sticks to the moral high ground, they deserve support. But if they sink to the level of their enemies, as one could argue the U.S. has, then they deserve to be rebuked. This was why I was so angry about the bombing of Lebanon earlier this year, and dropping flyers saying “you better haul ášš because we’re about to blow up your house and neighborhood” doesn’t make it a whole lot more acceptable. Metaphorically speaking, good guys don’t shoot at the bad guys if there are innocent bystanders in the line of fire, period.
Finally, here are Michael Moore’s thoughts if anybody is interested (in this case he argues pretty well and my father, who often agrees with Moore but is turned off by his tone, thought it was one of his better pieces):
http://michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=202
The sad thing is that you could do that with just about any symbol. What if some murderous, Nazi-like regime put the cross on their flag? Or the peace sign? You’d never be able to wear either in public again without getting harassed for it.
Well, the swasika as a cultural taboo is a largely western phenomenon, largely I’d imagine, because Christianity is one of the only religions that hadn’t used it for centuries on end. It don’t have the long standing positive connotations that it does in many east Asian cultures as a balancing influence, unlike the Christian cross or the peace sign. Although, there are quite a few who already don’t think too highly of the peace sign anyway…
-Rex Hondo-
Wow, it really has been a long week…
That above, of course, should read, “It doesn’t have the long standing…” etc… And using the word “largely” twice in the same sentence. Well, that’s just sloppy… :6
I guess it’s a good thing I’ve been tapped for secretary of defense instead of press secretary. 😉
-Rex Hondo-
Wait until they start calling it what it really is.
Resistance.
Posted by Den at November 29, 2006 10:40 PM
Actually, the Northern Alliance was already fighting against the Taliban, so technically, Afghanistan was in a civil war before we toppled the Taliban.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 10:43 PM
Using, in large part, the existing anti-taliban forces. I’d say that Afghanistan has been in a state of civil war since the 80s.
You people just loooove pointing out when I’m wrong, don’cha? Well, don’t get too high on yourselves… spotting when I’m wrong is like shooting fish in a barrel. 🙂
Posted by: Darin at November 29, 2006 10:06 PM
So one cannot see that “Islamofacism” is a form of radical Islam?
Actually, “Islamofascism” is simply a term that many Americans use to refer to radical Islam. And I don’t think there’s anything to “see.” As I’ve already pointed out, the political movements most closely associated with fascism, including Italy under Benito Mussolini and Nazi Germany (erk! Godwin’s Law!), were ideological movements that may have borrowed from religion here and there but were not based in religion. Islamic fundamentalism is by definition based in religion.
Posted by: Darin at November 29, 2006 10:06 PM
If one does not believe that Islam in its uncorrupted form is facist, then they shouldn’t have a problem with “Islamofacism” as a viable term.
That’s a false dilemma. You’re asserting that any corruption of Islam must be fascist and that simply isn’t so.
Posted by: Darin at November 29, 2006 10:06 PM
Iraq was a growing threat the United States. The evidence (confirmed by multiple global inteligence agencies and verified by even Bill Clinton) supports that.
Actually, the evidence supports the very opposite of your conclusion. Iraq had no significant stockpiles of WMDs.
As for who “confirmed” what, the Bush administration silenced the voices inside the CIA who tried to present evidence that his thesis about Iraq was dubious. The rest of the world, aside from Britain, was largely against our invasion of Iraq.
Posted by: Darin at November 29, 2006 10:06 PM
His inability to abide by double-digit UN inspection requirements and resolutions in a post 9-11 world also lead to his being overthrown and his eventual death sentence. I have no pity for Saddam.
Nor do I. He was a brutal dictator. It doesn’t mean he was a threat to us.
And using UN resolutions as a moral justification just doesn’t wash. Nations all over the world, including the U.S., flout such resolutions all the time. Nations demand their enforcement only when it suits them.
DW
Whoops! I didn’t mean to sign my last post “DW”! I was quoting Darin and forgot to remove his initials.
Wait until they start calling it what it really is.
Resistance.
Blowing up cvilians…your own civilians…your own civilians whose only crime is to be walking by a market at the wrong time of day…isn’t “resistance”.
I don’t buy that when Palestinians do it to random Israelis and I certainly don’t buy it when Iraqis do it to other Iraqis.
And using UN resolutions as a moral justification just doesn’t wash. Nations all over the world, including the U.S., flout such resolutions all the time. Nations demand their enforcement only when it suits them.
Now you’ve got me thinking about how funny it’d be if Bush were taken into custody by a military invasion force composed of the armed forces of many countries who are in a whole ‘nother coalition, spirited out of the U.S. and put on trial for war crimes.
I mean, realistically I know that such an invasion would be wrong and would have the same problems as Iraq, since it would be impossible to do something like that without causing massive destruction and loss of life to innocent bystanders, but still, can you imagine Bush’s reaction? The expression on his face? The dude thinks he’s above the law, after all, and can do whatever he likes without having to answer to anybody. I would absolutely LOVE to see him on trial just like Saddam, and I feel pretty confident that he’d act pretty much the same way during his trial. Both men reject the idea that anybody has the right to judge or impose sentence on them, and both men will rant and rave and throw tantrums when they find themselves in such a predicament.
“Talk about flip-flopping. Also, the fact that he was able to see all of that coming makes it even more inexcusable for him to have been involved in the invasion 12 years later.”
If that quote were brought up to Cheney, he would dispose of it in four words:
“That was before 9/11.”
That’s the joy of the Twin Towers, you see. It’s the be-all/catch-all, fast and dismissive answer to any criticism of the Administration, or at least has been for five years. What they say: “After 9/11, everything changed.” What they mean: “After 9/11, we should be able to do whatever we want, and if you disagree, then you support the destruction of more landmarks and more people dying.”
The thing is, as the saying goes, You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Bush & Co. said the above enough times that it worked at first…indeed, it worked enough to get Bush re-elected…but it wore out its welcome and they had no Plan B. Which, when you think about it, is Iraq in a nutshell. This Administration never allows for the possibility that their “A” game isn’t going to work and that stems from nothing but arrogance, pure and simple.
PAD
Blowing up cvilians…your own civilians…your own civilians whose only crime is to be walking by a market at the wrong time of day…isn’t “resistance”.
And that’s our dilemma. While our troops are still tempting targets for the insurgents and the Al Qaida factions, much of the violations there today is Iraqi-on-Iraqi. So, at what point do we recognize that our presense is not going to point an end to such violence? When do we realize that all we’re doing now is getting in between people who want to kill each other?
Please tell me the answer isn’t “Once the oil is gone”.
The term Islamofascism is annoying because it’s typically employed as if Christianity has always been Bing Crosby singing White Christmas and not and burning crosses and witches. If extremism were a qualification to dismiss a religion, Christianity would be subject to dismissal as much as any other.
Not so:
Pre-WWII churches in the US included the swastika as a variant of the Christian cross in their religious decoration:
…
That’s precisely what happened. The nazis put the a variant of the Christian cross on their flag. Now the swastika is a tabboo, and you have Christians today denying the connection between it and Christianity.
Darin –
Iraq was a growing threat the United States. The evidence (confirmed by multiple global inteligence agencies and verified by even Bill Clinton) supports that.
And yet, all those intelligence agencies couldn’t get the simple fact correct that Iraq didn’t have any WMD>
They were wrong. Bush was wrong. Clinton was wrong.
Palladin –
My Dad noticed something and made comment to me, they are not blowing up the oil fields.
There were attacks on the oil fields early on, but otherwise, yeah, not so much lately.
Although it surprises me how much Nigeria’s problems have been ignored lately. They are one of our top importers for oil, iirc, and they’ve had a series of attacks against oil piplines and stuff lately.
Oh, and is just me, or has a lot of the sidebar stuff on the main page of this site gone poof?
They were wrong. Bush was wrong. Clinton was wrong.
And yet, as Darin’s original comment indicates, there are still many people out there who believe that Iraq somehow was capable of being a “substantial threat”. I find that the most distressing thing in this entire thread. PAD may be right that the American people are finally waking up to the massive fraud that has been perpetrated on the American public, but the idea that there are still people who think what comes out of Bush’s cakehole has anything but coincidental resemblance to the truth is horrifying. What exactly will it take for them to realize that he’s a liar?
And I love the fact that people who dispise the very air that Clinton breathes keep citing him for cover. It’s as if they’re saying, “See, Clinton bought into the cherry-picked the intel, now shut up!” Of course, Clinton never ordered the invasion of another country based on spurious intelligence with no clue as to how he was going to get us out. But there I go, citing that pesky reality based community again.
Oh, and is just me, or has a lot of the sidebar stuff on the main page of this site gone poof?
Something screwy is going on. The sidebar links are back, but now only about half the page loads.
“I would hope we as a nation would learn from this experience. But I tend to doubt it. We didn’t learn anything from Vietnam, obviously.”
Well, Bush & his cronies didn’t. Some of “we as a nation” knew this war was a con-job from the get go and have been resisting the urge to scream “I f#$&%*# TOLD YOU SO!” for four years now…
“Now the swastika is a tabboo, and you have Christians today denying the connection between it and Christianity.”
Part of the problem with any symbology, like the swastika, is that people are trained to react to symbols. Put a swastika or the initials “KKK” or even football logos out for people to see, they’re going to judge you viscerally. Symbols are means of communication, and generally people don’t want to take the time to find out what people mean by them, the assumption being that what a symbol means to one person, it must mean to all people. Not to get too Pavlovian, or Pavlovesue, or whatever, show the average person the McDonalds logo, see if their stomach doesn’t give a little growl. Flash someone the “okay” sign with your index finger touching your thumb around here, no problem, people think you’re okay with it. Flash it in some countries, they tell you where to find the prositutes.
Now that I think about it, maybe that’s why all the adminstration types don’t want to refer to what’s going on as a civ–sorry, a CW. OUR CW was the bloodiest conflict in the nation’s history, not exactly a pleasant thing to remind people of.
Maybe if Bush had actually gone to Vietnam thirty-five years ago, he’d have learned something. Given his recent statements while he was (finally) in Vietnam, it seems that he learned the wrong lesson: He thinks we should have stayed “until the job was done.” If it had been up to him, we’d still be fighting in Nam.
Now, I know there’s zero chance of it happening, but I’d love see what would happen if the Bush Doublemint Twins got drafted. Dodging IEDs in Iraq might not be as much fun as running naked in an Argentinian hotel.
Not to get too Pavlovian, or Pavlovesue, or whatever, show the average person the McDonalds logo, see if their stomach doesn’t give a little growl.
Speaking solely for myself, the sight of the McDonalds logo makes my stomach lurch at the thought of what passes for “food” served there.
“Actually, the swastika predates Christianity by (according to some archeological finds) approximately five millenia, and is a sacred symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism, amongst others.”
Man…the Nazi’s were Bhuddiofascists? 😉
“The term Islamofascism is annoying because it’s typically employed as if Christianity has always been Bing Crosby singing White Christmas and not and burning crosses and witches. If extremism were a qualification to dismiss a religion, Christianity would be subject to dismissal as much as any other.”
No, actually, the term Islamofascism is ACTUALLY meant to differentiate it from other forms of Islam, not to suggest Christianity is without it’s blemishes. It’s being done to avoid lumping all of Islam in with groups like the Taliban.
Posted by Thom at November 30, 2006 11:56 AM
No, actually, the term Islamofascism is ACTUALLY meant to differentiate it from other forms of Islam, not to suggest Christianity is without it’s blemishes. It’s being done to avoid lumping all of Islam in with groups like the Taliban.
Regardless of what it is meant to do, in reality the term “Islamofascism” lumps radical Islam with other, dissimilar movements, and hinders understanding of the nature of radical Islam. And I’m not talking about “understanding” from a, y’know, “Oprah” perspective. I’m talking about understanding our enemy so we can defeat them.
Which is an entirely different issue, Bill. 🙂 I was adressing the claim made by Mike as to what is supposedly being suggested by the term. And the term implies nothing about Christianity at all. That’s all.
1Here is an article by an internet commentator I often but not always agree with concerning the term Islamofascism.
http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000521.htm
Fair enough, Thom. I stand properly chastised. 🙂
Cool! The blog is back!
I have an idea. Let’s not call it Islamofascism. Let’s call it Islamodrama. Then we can hit the Islamic fundamentalists with devastating taunts like, “Save the drama for Osama!”
No? Oh, well, I tried.
Now you’ve got me thinking about how funny it’d be if Bush were taken into custody by a military invasion force composed of the armed forces of many countries who are in a whole ‘nother coalition, spirited out of the U.S. and put on trial for war crimes.
That’s pretty much the gist of the plot for ULTIMATES volume 2.
Interesting article, Micha.
I don’t know why some of the same pundits who yell “Fascist!” at the first sign in America of anything critical to their own world view are upset when it gets applied to places that hang gays, issue hits on writers, stone rape victims, long for the extermination of all Jews, outlaw books, films and cartoons that offend them and outlaw all but their own version of a religion. What more do they have to do, paint mediocre watercolors and sport silly mustaches?
That’s ridiculous. People who burn crosses, assassinate doctors, and kidnap children in Utah don’t need to be labeled Christo-fascists to be differentiated from other Christians.
The insurgents in Iraq have no air force or navy, and even Henry Kissinger has admitted they are kicking our ášš. Islamofascism is simply a term used by invasion hawks to present the resolve to resist colonization as something perverse, as if fundamentalist ideology does more to feed the insurgency than an actual invasion. “I can’t believe those nutty Islamofascists don’t have the sense to take our military occupation lying down! What’s wrong with them?”
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 30, 2006 10:01 PM
I don’t know why some of the same pundits who yell “Fascist!” at the first sign in America of anything critical to their own world view are upset when it gets applied to places that hang gays, issue hits on writers, stone rape victims, long for the extermination of all Jews, outlaw books, films and cartoons that offend them and outlaw all but their own version of a religion.
Well, I hope you don’t lump me in with those folks. 🙂
The term “fascism” is difficult to nail down. It’s such a pejorative that no political movements identify themselves as such. And there isn’t necessarily a single accepted definition.
I don’t mean to keep repeating myself (really, I don’t mean to keep repeating myself). But I wonder — are we not diluting the meaning of the word if we use it to lump together the Nazi ideology (gah-gah-Godwin’s Law violation!) and radical Islam? The former was not based in religion. The latter is.
It’s not a question of whether I think radical Islam is good. I don’t. I just wonder if “fascism” is an accurate label for it.
Your thoughts?
“I don’t know why some of the same pundits who yell “Fascist!” at the first sign in America of anything critical to their own world view.”
In Marxist tradition Fascist is the worst insult. It goes back to the Spanish civil war (I’m reading Hemingway right now. Really good). For Marxists the Nazi’s were Fascist, although not all fascist movements were racist like the Nazis. I’ve participated in left leaning demonstrations (against the policies of the Israeli government) where people used that term.
However, the article I linked to says it best: there are significant similarities between Fascism and radical Islamism, but the term is bad because it does not help understand the phenomena we are dealing with (instead it makes it shallow), and because of its association to neo-cons, is harmful for the fight against Radical Islamism.
Bill Myers, not all Fascism is Nazism. Nazism was distinctly secular, Italian Fascism less. But, as the article shows, in other respects there similarities between Fascism and Radical Islamism.
But the truth is, it dies not matter. Bush used the term as a sologan to say that Islamic Radicalism is a threat to the whole world that cannot be appeased. Others used it to try to attack Islam as a religion. While others use it to
attack Bush. Slogans are bad if they harm intelligent discussion.
Radical Islamism is a threat. Bush handled that threat in the wrong way.
———-
Sean Scullion wrote
“Just thinking, maybe the problem is that we tried to turn Iraq to a system like ours. Maybe what they need, since they have three groups in the country is a council of three with representatives from each that can try to get things done together. Under the current system over there, no matter who’s in charge, two groups feel unrepresented.
Bill then wrote:
It’s a nice thought, but a car can’t have three fully-functioning steering wheels operated by three separate people and drive very well. Nor can a government operate effectively, I believe, without a single chief executive.
Iraq is just chock full of ethnic hatred, however. Not being as schooled in history as I ought to be, I’m unaware of any historical precedent for creating a democracy under those circumstances.”
Look at Lebanon. It is a fûçkëd up system, always on the verge of civil war. But it is a system for rule by several ethnic groups, that can give you an indication of the way middle easterners think of these issues. In Lebanon the president is Christian, the prime minister Sunni, the chairman of parliament Shia.
I don’t like their system, I wouldn’t want to live under such system, but that’s how they work things out.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 05:54 AM
Bill Myers, not all Fascism is Nazism.
Yes, I’m well aware of that. My point was, however, that extending the term to encompass two extremes — a secular totalitarian movement and a radical religious movement — seems to dilute the term to the point of meaninglessness. At least to me.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 05:54 AM
But, as the article shows, in other respects there similarities between Fascism and Radical Islamism.
True, but you can find similarties between all of the forms of totalitarianism. But certainly it is useful to draw distinctions between them where such distinctions exist.
Sigh… I think I’ll make this my last word on the subject here. I think we’re fast approaching agree-to-disagree territory.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 05:54 AM
Look at Lebanon. It is a fûçkëd up system, always on the verge of civil war. But it is a system for rule by several ethnic groups, that can give you an indication of the way middle easterners think of these issues. In Lebanon the president is Christian, the prime minister Sunni, the chairman of parliament Shia.
I don’t like their system, I wouldn’t want to live under such system, but that’s how they work things out.
I guess it depends on your definition of “work things out.” The Lebanese government is at the mercy of forces like Iran, Syria, and Hizbollah. Large swaths of the country are controlled by Hizbollah militias that are not answerable to the Lebanese government. It strikes me as a very, very fragile balance that could easily be upset at any time.
That said, it’s certainly a dámņëd sight better than what’s happening in Iraq. I guess the question is: if we are to use Lebanon as a model, how would one go about bringing a similar order — however fragile — to Iraq?
“Sigh… I think I’ll make this my last word on the subject here. I think we’re fast approaching agree-to-disagree territory.”
That’s not necessary, since altimately we agree. The articles I linked to show that there are similarities and differences between Fascism and Radical Islamism, but says that we shouldn’t lump them together but understand them, similarities and differences, in all their complexity.
“if we are to use Lebanon as a model, how would one go about bringing a similar order — however fragile — to Iraq?”
In principal what you need to do is deal with the insurgents and offer them a share of the pie. But, I’m pessimistic about it. The insurgents will probably prefer a victory against the US over peace and a share of the pie. You need a carrot and a stick, both of which should be appropriate for the problems you’re dealing with. First the US didn’t have the carrot (at least one fitting the people you were dealing with), now you don’t have the stick.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 07:00 AM
That’s not necessary, since altimately we agree.
This is the Internet, Micha. We’re not supposed to do that. 😉