The Administration’s Futile Attempts to Continuously Redefine the War

Over the past four years the Administration has presented a sequence of failed rationales for the War on Terror and the war in Iraq, ranging from WMDs to spreading democracy. The rationale behind the rationales is a textbook case of shifting from one marketing hook to another, hoping the masses finally embrace one of them. And to think; these were the same people who called Bill Clinton a waffler.

Without the acumen of a sophisticated ad agency, the Administration has repeatedly shown desperation after each respective concept failed to inspire mass approval. This must have been shocking on Penn. Ave. After having successfully manipulated the electorate for many national and two presidential races, the White House Hucksters bit off more than they can chew when deciding to sell the Neocon’s wayward plan to reshape the Islamic world. Who in their right mind would want such a job? In retrospect, selling Bush to the fundamentalists was a picnic.

The bumper-sticker pitches have included "Get the WMDs Out of Iraq," "Regime Change," "Shock and Awe," "Make the World Safer," "Fight the Terrorists Over There," Islamic Extremism," and "Establish Democracies." Even if each of those causes were legitimate, the conceptual diversity has made the situation confusing to America’s electorate, which is geared to instant gratification and Easy Understanding.

WMDs that weren’t there! A phantom Iraqi regime unable to protect itself, much less the rest of the country! A treacherous environment that now breeds terrorists who have been conditioned to hate the West! Diverse Islamic factions that range from peaceful to lethal at war with each other as well as the West! Areas still dominated by tribal rule and primitive economics suddenly expected to become democratic with a minimal history of secular rule! Not quite a formula for success.

So, quite naturally, the neoconservative strategy then required another pop rationality, and one hopefully that could also legitimize the Israeli battles against its neighbors, based on the idea of fighting "terrorism." So what did they come up with? Islamo fascism. Yep, fascism - the most overused word of the 21st century - has been stretched so far that it now, supposedly, defines what America is fighting in its War on Terror. A few more accurate terms could’ve been chosen but the focus groups the Administration used, no doubt, were most incited by the term, fascism. "Islamic extremism" was too vague. "Islamic militancy" was too clinical. "Anarchistic zealots" sounds more suitable for college essays.

Islamo fascism! Now there you’ve got real enmity - a faceless bogeyman, which average Americans can easily demonize. Why’s it wrong? Because it misrepresents the complexities occurring in the Muslim lands, supports misleading grounds for violence and inflates a threat into an apocalyptic scenario. And the prejudice it foments against Muslims in general is a strain of belief related to racism.

The principal threat to America (from outsiders) is not from fascists but from anarchists aiming to disrupt order. The true aim of fascism has been to maintain order through oppressive rule. Historically, fascists have aimed to control society politically, economically and culturally while upholding atheistic values. Islamic anarchists, such as Al Qaeda and to a great extent the Muslim Brotherhood, aim to ruin Western interests and/or societies through political, economic and cultural disorder. Rather than make the trains runs on time they’d rather see them derailed. And if they could control Western societies - an ideal exceeding their expectations - they would do so via Sharia (Islamic rule).

On the other hand, the Iraqi Baathists, who specifically patterned themselves after the totalitarian models of Nazism and Communism, nonetheless, obligingly held to the supremacy of Islam despite being mostly secular. And Hezbollah and Hamas, though mercenary supporters of suicide bombers and mayhem are mainly concerned with territorial disputes and the right of Israel to exist. The grounds for their efforts are based on the Qur’anic notions of fighting infidels, on a general sense of Islamic solidarity (subnationalism), and a particular allegiance to Shia connectivity sustained by Iran.

Strictly speaking, though all these groups have been ruthless, they have not been and are not now fascist in any meaningful way. And it won’t be long before Islamo fascism is replaced by yet another inappropriate term. At this rate, sooner or later they’re going to run out of words. Maybe that’s when the "War" will stop.