This will be dull reading for most people, because I'm going to argue about the facts and logic behind a magazine article of Max?s. I think the term "Islamo-Fascism" is nonsense.
Joseph Farah (of WorldNetDaily) starts from the supposed fact that Saddam supported al-Qaida for a full decade up to the year 2000, based on a book by one Yossef Bodansky. I've never heard of this Bodansky or his evidence before now. Bush, Cheney, and company were so desperate for justification for the Iraq war, I'm sure they would have brought up this guy and his evidence if there was any chance his story would stand. I?ve just got to conclude it didn?t. If Cheney wouldn?t bite, it must be worthless, because that man would swallow just about any crazy tale. And without an Al-Qaida/Iraq link, half of Farah?s argument has nothing to stand on.
Saddam did support terrorists for a while, mostly Palestinians fighting Israel. Looks to me like he did it in a half-&ssed way, like he was trying to get prestige within the Arab world, more than he wanted terrorists to conduct his national policy for him. Saddam always wanted to be the international big shot, to be a pan-Arab leader. But he never did support Al-Qaida, and Al-Qaida never supported him. Al-Qaida?s main enemies in the world were not the U.S., but secular Arab leaders. Al-Qaida figured the infidels could all go wallow in their own filth; what they wanted was an Islamic state of historic purity that would unite Arabs and restore Islam to the glory of the 10th century. Secular Arabs wanted to pursue their own petty dreams, imitating vile Westerners and their godless oversexed society, and leading the Arab people further astray. Al-Qaida wanted to redeem Muslims, and in particular Arabs, and more particularly, Sunni Arabs.
It?s Farah?s cultural egotism that makes him think that hating America was the most important thing on both Al-Qaida?s and Saddam?s minds. They were driven by their own purposes, and they didn?t need to look across the Atlantic Ocean for motivation. America didn?t unite these parties.
Farah goes on to say fascism is a form of socialism. There are similarities, but bigger differences. The biggest similarity is the way both try to exert total control over all phases of society, because they both want to shape a new breed of man, and they are both suspicious of any competing power within society. However, this doesn?t mean that fascism and socialism are identical. Fascism, as practiced by Hitler and Mussolini, and by imitator movements between the wars in France, Britain, Spain, and the United States, saw the West having lost its way and grown pathetic and weak under the administration of chicken-hearted governments, and its wealth dissipated by rich-living elites who drank and gambled and wasted society?s riches on personal pleasure. The argument had some force when all around there was massive unemployment, hyper inflation, and a worldwide depression. It was fun to blame people, and that was part of the fascist charm. The fascist prescription for national troubles was a strong nation, strong national purpose, people made strong by patriotism and a sense of national mission, and a charismatic leader who could make it all feel alive. Members of fascist parties became members of uniformed paramilitary groups, which made the members feel like they were doing something, and were impressive political symbols that were also tools of formidable political power, wielded by the leader. (Brown Shirts in Germany, Black Shirts in Italy and Britain, Silver Shirts in the U.S.)
The communists were much more interested in building a new man without greed or self-interest. Citizens? loyalty was ideally owed to a political-economic philosophy, not to a state. Private ownership of businesses was outlawed; under fascism, private property was never illegal, though business owners were often given close orders on how they had to run aspects of their business. The two movements had little in common but their total control philosophy of government. Both were hostile toward tradition, though fascism glorified many peasant ways, believing they were patriotic expressions of the people. Both were very suspicious of religion, and exercised tight control over churches, because they knew priests could create political resistance to their broad social agendas.
Islamists are interested in God, and in saving Islamic mankind by putting it back on the true path. Islam holds that religion belongs in every part of society, and that the state should govern by religious law. Mohammed was himself a businessman (a long-distance trader), but believed that business had a social mission, and also had to operate within the bounds of God?s plan. Mohammed also believed in jihad, struggle, but the big jihad was each man?s struggle against his own godlessness; the little jihad was the armed conflict with infidels, which was usually seen in defensive terms. (The terrorists we fight generally ignore the main part of the message in favor of armed struggle.) The ideal society, church, and government is seen as what existed in Arabia 1400 years ago.
Fascism generally puts a godless state above man, as an inspiration to him, that he may glorify it and himself by his sacrifice. Islamic crazies look backward over a thousand years for holy legends, which will redeem man and glorify God (and, in the interests of defending God and his people and the realm of the believers, lead them to war where they can be sacrificed in the purposes of God.) Both Islamic extremists and fascists think it is glorious going off the deep end in the name of their beliefs. So have done patriots and believers in many causes for the whole history of humankind. It doesn?t make them all fascists, though.
