An article in the L.A. Times analyzes the term "Islamo-Fascist." The article raises a lot of issue during the war on terror-- who is the enemy?
For Iraq, the term "Islamo-Fascist" did not make sense while Saddam was in power since there was little to none Islam but plenty of Fascism. For Afghanistan, the "Islamo" made sense but not the fascist aspect. However, the word makes “sense” to connect the fundamental groups of Islam that want to establish a democracy with a graze threat of fascism from the 1930’s – and 1940’s to create an all powerful enemy. I do remember seeing a few letters to the editor in the local paper that suggests if the US did not fight the radical Islam in Iraq or Afghanistan, the citizens of the US would all be speaking a different language just like if we did not fight the Germans and the Japanese in the 1940’s would we all be speaking German or Japanese.
It seems that that the term "Islamo-Fascist" would follow the appeals to pity fallacy where the emotional connotation of the word is to overpower the meaning of the word-- just as "We are fighting for Freedom" would. It also hides the distinctions within Islam:
But like "terror," and "evil" before it, "Islamic fascism" has the effect of reducing a complex story to a simple fable. It effaces the differences among ex-Baathists, Al Qaeda and Shiite mullahs; Chechens and Kashmiris; Hezbollah, Hamas and British-born Asians allegedly making bombs in a London suburb. Yes, there are millions of people in the Muslim world who wish the U.S. ill, and some of them are pretty creepy about it. But that doesn't mean they're all of a single mind and purpose, or that a blow against any one of them is a blow against the others. As Tolstoy might have put it, every creep is creepy in his own way.
The use of the term “Islamo-Fascist” overemphasizes the enemy without understanding the enemy. This leads us to the following questions:
(1) What is the proper term for the enemy?
(There is an enemy but it neither belongs to one sect of a religion nor does it belong to a state. Both of these are very important since, first, to call the war a war on Islam without differentiating would be to say that there are certain groups within Christianity that is a problem; therefore, all of Christianity is a problem. Second, since there is no enemy state, a Congressional Declaration of War, is impossible. There ought to have been a Declaration of War by Congress for Afghanistan but Congress abdicated its power to the President.
(2) Can you characterize the enemy as a “Fundamental” Religious group without calling into question other fundamental religious groups?
Once you apply the term “fundamental” to a religion, the religion is no longer the problem but the description of the religion. What standards can a reasonable person use to determine what constitutes a fundamental religious group? It seems that Eric Rudolph (the alleged Olympic bomber, abortion clinic bomber, and gay night-club bomber) would apply to belonging to a fundamental practice, though many people respected his actions and offered him help while he lived in the woods for five years. What about the Christian Exodus movement?
The War on Terror has carried on far to long without a clear understanding of the enemy.
Bonus Question: Why are the Sunni and the Shi’a fighting? When did the fight begin?
1 comment:
It seems to me that part of the problem is the title "The War on Terror." Rhetorically and grammatically speaking, that is a horrible title. How can you fight something you can't see? Terror is an intangible thing, an emotional response to something or someone. It isn't an actual person, country, or faction that can be fought. I understand that terrorists use terror as a weapon; that makes sense. So why not call it "The War on Terrorists?" I speculate because then we'd have to deal with the terrorists living in our own country, whom we've conveniently ignored since September 11th.
Post a Comment