Islamofascism: Why We Are Losing the War

Islamofascism: There is no such thing. The belief that it exists is one reason we are losing the war on terrorism.

Fascism embraces the organic state. Fascism emanated from the amalgamation into modern Germany and Italy of the fragmented districts and tiny states that populated nineteenth century Europe . Fascism is a nationalistic rejection of liberalism, rejection of representative democracy, and the celebration of nationalistic myths.

In Germany and Italy, fascism came to power through democratic elections.

We would not be in this mess if in 1967, when Dick Cheney and I were graduate students at the University of Wisconsin, our Vice President, the architect of the phony war on Islamofascism, had come over to the History Department and attended the lectures of Professors George Mosse and Harvey Goldberg. As Mosse wrote in The Culture of Western Europe:

The real spirit of the Volk must be expressed through a "national aristocracy" and though a leader. An elite would express the shared spirituality of the nation as its "ideal type."...Ideas which have previously been dealt with thus come together here: the organic state, the elite, and the leader. (p 345, emphasis added)

The organic state would allow all to participate through myths, principally of racial superiority. This organic state incorporated a "political liturgy and rites of fascism," which brought everything from uniforms and the arts to the masses. Above all, fascism heralded the triumph of the state.

For a more extensive view of German fascism, there is Mosse's The Nationalization Of the Masses, written in 1975.  Brian C. Anderson's review of Mosse's The Fascist Revolution: Toward a General Theory of Fascism, outlines the cornerstones of real fascism:

"Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state." Benito Mussolini...Mussolini’s infamous quote captures the remarkable hubris of fascism, its frightening impulse to rule over every dimension of life (the word is from the Latin fasces, the bundle of rods sporting an axe–head that symbolized the unchallenged state authority of Rome)...

... he correctly stresses the crucial role of nationalism...

...These four marks of the Fascist spirit—nationalism and racism, a love of violence and war, irrationalism, and revolutionary presumption—though not exhaustive, help us to understand its appeal during the first half of the twentieth century, particularly where democratic institutions were feckless and resentments bred by World War I festered...

There are many commonalities between the German and Italian fascist of the twentieth century and the present day Islamic terrorists. They reject industrialization, though both utilized the latest industrial innovations for military purposes, and they embrace totalitarianism, myths of superiority, and the expendability of human life.

But Islamic terrorists are not fascists.  They do not embrace the nation state, they do not evolve from an organic state. Their movement is not one that embraces worker's unity, national unity, or myths of Christianity, all essential elements of fascism.

The use of the term Islamofascism is not only incorrect historically, but contributed to the successive military blunders orchestrated by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

They engaged an enemy on the premise that they were battling a nation state. They won a battle defeating the state led by Saddam Hussein, but they continue to lose two greater battles.  They lost the battle to control Iraq, and they are losing the battle to defeat Islamic terrorists. The United States is struggling to control the nation of Iraq.  Our enemy does not need it; they only want to drive us out. There is a difference.

When we toppled the Nazi government of Adolph Hitler, the Germans stopped fighting. They lost the prize; they no longer controlled the state. When we toppled Saddam Hussein, the Islamic terrorists stepped into the void when the Iraqi army collapsed. Islamic terrorists kept fighting, stronger than ever. Islamic terrorists do not need to control the state to advance their cause.

So long as the Neocons rely on the false notion of Islamofascism to inspire support for the faltering Bush policies, we will militarily lose the battle.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

In January, 2004, Patrick Michelson of the George L. Mosse Program In History at the University of Wisconsin, and John Tortorice sent me a gift, a copy of Professor Mosse's Culture of Western Europe.  For too long, I was without this valuable text.  Too bad Dick Cheney never read it.

Comments

[wm. tyroler]

No such thing as Islamofascism? And you learned that at lectures of George Mosse and Harvey Goldberg lectures, the very ones Cheney missed? Too bad Victor Davis Hanson missed the same lectures, otherwise he might have spared hmself the trouble of pondering the connections you confidently assert simply don't exist. (article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OGEyNjcyNzBjYTQ2MDM0ZGIzZjY5YjhhMzViYjdjNTA=) Hanson -- a lifelong Democrat -- too much of a Necon? Then what about Maxime Rodinson, a lifelong Marxist? ("But the dominant trend is a certain type of archaic fascism (type de fascisme archaïque). By this I mean a wish to establish an authoritarian and totalitarian state...") Or Princeton expert Manfred Halpren, who "grew up with fascism: born in Germany in 1924, he and his parents fled the Nazis in 1937 for America," and who in 1963 termed "(t)he neo-Islamic totalitarian movements ... essentially fascist movements"? (http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2006_09_20.htm") They must've missed those lectures, too.

And if only the Grand Mufti of Jeruslaem hadn't missed them he would've realized he had no business seeking a grand alliance with Nazi Germany. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni)

Seriously: you claim we're losing to "Islamic terrorists," so what is your strategy for success? You say, "Islamic terrorists do not need to control the state to advance their cause" -- then what, exactly is "their cause"? And if they don't precisely need state control, then why don't you think they at least need state sponsorship? And if they do, then why shouldn't we have in our sights Iran and Syria, the two biggest sponsors of Islamic terror? (And is it OK to call them Islamofascist states?)

[jody]

whooosh

It went over his head so fast it parted his hair.

[wm. tyroler]

I get it, I get it. Because we've defined an enemy who doesn't exist we're fighting a war we can't win. I don't particularly agree with that assessment, but the post is a huge improvement over typical Dem talking points, which typically start with the premise we aren't at war and don't really have an enemy. The post thus deserves much credit for at least acknowledging, however implicitly, that we indeed are at war with "Islamic terrorists." Next step, though, is to define a strategy for defeating that enemy.

I think we should worry about the christo-fascists like Bishop Morlino. If he didn't sound so humorously like Dr. Evil and if he wasn't so out of step with his assigned base of Madison he might actually be dangerous. But even non-dangerous fascists are still fascists. Remember Relevent Radio 1240 AM run by the Diocese of Madison did say that Franco wasn't all that bad. Thank God not many catholics take that nutjob seriously. I think even Jesus laughs when he talks.