Our real threat: Paranoia and Hubris?

Fabius Maximus critiques Barnett (who, for the lack of any other competitive strategy is the natural target).

Comments

[phil jones]

Good article.

But as an aside, I'm always curious as to what elements of "fascism" people actually detect in "islamofascism".

Is it the hyper-nationalism? Unlikely for an anti-nationalist movement. Is it racism as policy? Once again, islamism is "religionist" or sectarian, but doesn't, as far as I know, make any formal claims about race. Is it Mussolini's assertion that fascism is the alliance of state and corporations? If so, where are Bin Laden's industrial backers.

Islamism is feudal, tribal, patriarchal, conservative, oppressively religious, etc. But I just don't see much resemblance to "fascism" as we've come to know it in the west.

[John Robb]

I don't get that either. It is a nice pejorative to attach to something.

[Ken Hagler]

I pretty common for socialists to use "fascism" as a synonym for "something I don't like," so it's not surprising that they're doing so here. It's kind of ironic, really, given that nearly everyone who uses it is, themself, pushing fascist policies. The people who use "Islamofascism," for example, display an attitude towards Muslims very similar to the attitude shown towards Jews by the national socialists of the early 1930s.

It's also ironic that of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the only one that really goes into economic policies, and those are more capitalist than fascist. Not surprising for a religion founded by a small businessman, really.

[Fabius Maximus]

Great comments! That's exactly how I used "islamofacism" in my article. It just means, I think, that the speaker does not like these people.

Since I doubt Islam will disappear soon, we'd better find a way to live with them -- in all their different flavors.

More on this in Chapter Four!

Comments on these welcome, and thanks to Robb for posting the pointer!

[mark safranski]

"The people who use "Islamofascism," for example, display an attitude towards Muslims very similar to the attitude shown towards Jews by the national socialists of the early 1930s'

Wow ! That's a bit over the top to say the least.

There is much utility in clearly distinguishing the violent Jihadis, neo-Salafis and Takfiri Islamists from their mainstream co-religionists. Or even from non-violent Islamists who are willing to work inside a democratic political process. Isolate the extremists rather than reinforce their association with other Muslims.

There are strands in Islamist thinking from the 20's and 30's that picked up on or aped elements of European Fascism. A perhaps more accurate parallel comes from the violent, anarchist terrorist movements of the 19th century though neither secular analogy fits neatly with al Qaida.

My guess is we are looking at more of a psychological commonality between radical Islamism and 20th century totalitarianisms than a political one.

[jamie]

I believe the political utility of the comparison is that it enables the user to tie the war in Iraq to the fight against bin Laden by positing the muslim world in general as an amorphously hostile entity.

I think the term was coined by Christopher Hitchens in late 2001 and first used in reference to the Taliban.

[phil jones]

"My guess is we are looking at more of a psychological commonality between radical Islamism and 20th century totalitarianisms than a political one."

OK. Then what *is* the commonality? Psychologically?

[mark safranski]

"OK. Then what *is* the commonality? Psychologically?"

Good question.

Terrorists today like SS Einsatzgruppen personnel, NKVD torturers in the 30's or 19th century Russian anarchists were not for the most part, clinically insane. Research on terrorists in the past show that terror groups actually try to weed out unstable recruits. So, what do we see ?

*Generally, individuals of above average intelligence. For example, the Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg, with the exception of Julius Streicher, had IQ's in 120's, 130's and even the 140's in two cases. Only two of them were thought to be emotionally or mentally ill from a psychiatric perspective( Hess & Frank). I doubt that Bin Laden would score less than in the very superior range on any standard IQ test.

*Generally, individuals of advanced education.(Relative to their native societies in the case of Islamist terrorists - very advanced education in societies where illiteracy runs 20-60 %)Interestingly enough, this usually means technical or scientific degrees, not liberal arts or humanistic education, though Turabi in the Sudan was a notable exception.

*Individuals deeply alienated from their social context. Something that applied equally to Mohammed Atta in Germany as it did Bin Laden in KSA.

*My specualtion here: a sense of exaltation derived from adherence to very stark moral paradigms that help the individual " organize" or " focus" himself and bring the world's complexity into a coherent worldview. Here we get fighters who become " addicts of jihad" ( at the opposite end of the spectrum would be those for whom ideological jihad degenerates into mere mercenarism and eventually, criminal network activity for self-interested motives)

[phil jones]

He he! So what Islamists have in common with Nazis is that they're both above average intelligence and better than average educated. ;-)

I wonder when the US will start *profiling* based on this crit- ... doh!

Oh, and they're geeks. Which may help classify a bit. Communist revolutionaries are usually poets and steeped in romantic literature.

Obviously "alienated from social context" is probably right, but still way too general.

All sorts of people are alienated. Dumb alienated people become criminals - because they don't know what gets to them. Smart alienated people are going to have a *theory* and so become more systematic enemies of the status quo. But being an enemy of the status quo still isn't being a "fascist". Or a totalitarian. Or even a revolutionary.

"a sense of exaltation derived from adherence to very stark moral paradigms that help the individual "organize" or "focus" himself and bring the world's complexity into a coherent worldview"

There's something in this. But was, say, Che Guavara *not* like this too? What about George Bush? (Or maybe you want to put them into 20th totalitarianisms too)

The term "islamofascist" is important because it looks like people who think it are reasoning : "X was a very bad thing that was our enemy, Y is a very bad thing that is our enemy, therefore X and Y must be the same very bad enemy thing."

If you assume that it's likely you're going to make various strategic errors.

a) You'll assume what worked against X is likely to work against Y. But clearly fighting islamism on the moral plane is not like fighting fascism (or even the soviet union) on the moral plane.

b) You'll miss opportunities to divide the enemies from each other. I think this is Lind's point about separating Sunni ex-Ba'athists from Al Qaeda. Assuming that all enemies can be lumped into the same category blinds you to this possibility.

[mark safranski]

"He he! So what Islamists have in common with Nazis is that they're both above average intelligence and better than average educated. ;-)"

That would be correct, for the leadership cadres at any rate.That is not the case with all radical groups. Stalin's early followers were, for example, quite mediocre - even many at the very top of his system ( Voroshilov, Molotov, Budyenny etc.)

"There's something in this. But was, say, Che Guavara *not* like this too? What about George Bush? (Or maybe you want to put them into 20th totalitarianisms too)"

Che Guevara was a Communist revolutionary so yes, a totalitarian though one personally more interested in overthrowing states than in ruling them. I think that goes to psychological commonalities, yes. Is Bush a totalitarian ? No. He's actually a Methodist BTW and they haven't been terribly extreme since the English Civil War.

"But being an enemy of the status quo still isn't being a "fascist". Or a totalitarian. Or even a revolutionary"

Al Qaida and related extreme Salafist-Deobandi groups wish to topple existing Muslim states and replace them with a transnational Caliphate. By definition, they are revolutionaries. Right ?

Their reification of the Sharia is also totalitarian. Perhaps less so than North Korea but certainly a far harsher and maximalist system than anything seen in Fascist Italy or Imperial Japan.

[phil jones]

Maybe the discussion here is just whether "fascist" == "totalitarian".

Let's assume totalitarian means something like "having a fairly narrow, probably morally inspired, idea of the good society, and a willingness to use force to impose it on an unwilling population"

Maybe then we can agree Bin Laden (or other religious extremist) can sign up for that.

I think "fascism" is a much narrower term which defines its good specifically in terms of nation state (rather than caliphate); and a special (chosen) people (probably defined racially). And possibly has an economic model based on close association between state and hierarchical corporations.

It's in this sense that I don't see much connection with Bin Laden.