Is the US fascist? Or just Republicans?

Jacko writes:
“Bearing in mind that I do not feel the US is a fascist state as of yet, I do find it amazing how accurate the above is in defining the political actions, aspirations and machinations of a certain president and his cohorts in all things neoconservative. In fact, every single aspect listed above is incorporated into our nation’s past 6 years, and so much of it at the orchestration of the neocons.”

http://www.madison.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=251668&highlight=#251668

We all have a world-view and rational paradigm from which we approach any issue, and while attempting to cast himself as a reasonable and “non-partisan” moderate, Jacko nevertheless clearly reveals his own particular sharp leanings.

While one may certainly make a valid argument that certain characteristics of fascism are frequently incorporated into the American body politic, it is ludicrous to imply that such aspects are only characteristic of actions and positions taken by those of a political and social perspective that is generally defined as either Republican or conservative – neo or otherwise – or that such interpretations of fascism are limited to either the past 6 years, or to any previous period of a Republican presidency, or for that matter, a Republican political majority.

To turn a phrase, what motivation would a political liberal or Democrat have in portraying either Republicans or conservative views as inherently “fascist”?

Islamo-fascism: No apologies – calling a spade a spade ….

Mike writes:
“What is an ‘Islamo-fascist’? Which Islamic fascist state are you referring to when you use this term?” –MikeCannon; WDH Forum

Mike asks an excellent question and, presuming for the time being that he is actually interested in a serious answer, and didn’t just write the words rhetorically in a petty effort to trivialize and demagogue a serious issue, I’ll address it.

In response first to the second part of his question, regarding the presumed necessary existence of a fascist “state”, this once again reflects a degree of “WWII thinking”, and it’s nature as a formal “conventional war” against an established, nationalistic state, with a more or less homogeous citizenry, a formal centralized government, and clearly defined geographical borders.

In contrast, the present conflict is characterized by it’s “asymmetric” nature, in which the formal military and political structures of one or more distinct nation-states are pitted against a more loosely-organized, militarily inferior, trans-national guerilla-style force, that is organized around and draws it’s identity from an ideology or cause, rather than on the basis of a geographical identity.

Iraq – on appeasement, surrender, and avoiding entanglements

Web Guy writes:
“Save our military for real threats. And if some nut blows up a skyscraper in a metropolis on one of the coasts, the lives lost will be much less than the numbers lost from annual traffic deaths. If Bush were really concerned about “democracy”, why does he let Israel attack neighboring democracies in Palestine and Lebanon?” — WebGuy; WDH Forum

An interesting perspective that is perhaps quite telling.

It would appear that Web Guy counts himself as among that group that does not view Islamist jihadism (aka Islamist terrorism) as a legitimate “threat”.

Presumably then, he is one in agreement with John Edward’s assertion that the “War on Terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker”.

If global Islamo-fascist jihad is “not a threat” worthy of the efforts of our military to combat, then just exactly WHAT does Web Guy legitimately consider to be a threat that calls for a military?

Appeasing the Islamist alligator …

Dino writes:
“The Agerians did not follow the French home, they were Muslims. The French left there, and they made it home okay.”  — Dino; WDH Forum

Mike writes:
“vilifying people is the oldest trick in the book. Now that the godless commies are gone, now we have the radical jihadists islomo fascists Muslims.” — Mike Cannon; WDH Forum

With due respect to Dino’s understanding of what’s going on in the world, France today is one of the most heavily Muslimized countries in Europe, followed closely by Britain – a legacy of their “open borders” and liberal immigration policies. Muslims came for the “opportunities” of a nominally free and democratic society, and many now seek to re-impose the type of oppressive society and culture that they originally fled.

Sort of like what is increasingly happening here.

The levels of violence perpetrated by radicalized Muslims living in France is a significant ongoing problem there, and the sheer numbers of Muslims who have refused to adopt and to become a part of the culture of their new country, is a significant political problem that in many ways has immobilized French politicians from taking necessary steps to protect the country from the Islamist’s who have indeed, “followed them home”.

Iraq and the politics of defeat

On another forum, poster “frd” writes, regarding Iraq:
“Today during his press conference President Bush, defending his troop surge in Iraq, insisted that the insurgents attacking US troops in Iraq “are the same ones who attacked us on Sept. 11.”

Frd, like nearly all Dems and members of the political left (and yes, including some mis-quided or politically-panicked Republicans) for selfish electoral purposes are heavily invested in a strategy of failure, defeat, and retreat as the only option in Iraq, and are thus reduced to cheerleading and providing comfort to those declared enemies of their own country, and of the liberties that they themselves enjoy in being able to do so.

Frd also hears only what he want to hear. President Bush in his press conference was also very clear in pointing out in his response to the question, that the direct perpetrators of the attacks are dead, a large number of the planning leadership is dead or captured, and bin Laden himself and his lieutenants – none of whom are in any apparent hurry to commit martyrdom and themselves go meet Allah with the 72 black-eyed beauties – while still a threat, are less of a threat than they would have been had they not been pursued.

Getting better in Iraq … not always so good in Washington

Headlines on Sunday screamed “Bomber Kills More Than 100 In Iraq” (AP) and “Bombings Leave 162 Dead In Iraq” (CNN), reminicent of the ongoing media coverage that continues to focus on the successes of the insurgent jihadists and Iranian proxies, rather than on the persistent, if often uneven and painfully slow, progress being made by Coalition forces and the new Iraqi government.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bomber-kills-more-than-100-in-iraq/20070707132809990001

Buried in the story however are these interesting bits of information:

The attack’s location, a small Shiite and Kurdish town north of Baghdad, suggests to analysts and officials that the attack may have been “carried out by Sunni extremists fleeing the three-week old US offensive [currently] centered at the city of Baqouba, 60 miles to the south [of Baghdad],” according to the article.

Iraq, Fairness, and the new “Battle of Britain”

The recent bombings – and bombing attempts – in London and Glasgow apparently make it clear that the “Battle of Britain” is over, defeat is inevitable, and that the Brits need to unilaterally withdraw from England, immediately seat an Islamic Courts in Parliament, and replace the British judicial code with Shari’ah Law.

In spite of the almost-hourly body counts put forth by the “despair and defeat” crowd as incontrovertable “proof” that “we are losing”, “the war is lost”, and “we can’t win” – culmulative death and injury to American forces are at the lowest rates ever experienced in a military conflict.

To put it bluntly, the Islamists – although determined and pernacious – are simply not very good at conventional soldiering – and they know it.

In a straight-up, head-to-head fight, they lose every time.

Relatively few US and Coalition troops have been lost to conventional small arms, mortar, or missile attacks. The Islamists presently have no real air power, very little sea power (pirates notwithstanding), no nuclear missles (yet), and their armies outside Iran are mostly loosely-connected terror cells and militias.

Islamists on Iraq: “Resistance is futile” …

A forum poster elsewhere writes: “ Senator R. Lugar, the ranking Republican member on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday said we have to get out of Iraq.  Senator Warner will be next. Put a fork in the Iraq war, it is done. Get our troops out of harms way, rather making them sitting ducks in a shooting gallery.   Pick up your military toys and go home. This is not a game, many innocents are getting killed for a war that never should have happened.”

I certainly agree that Senator Lugar’s recent statement and ongoing lack of support for the efforts underway in Iraq (if not downright undermining them) are very sad and unfortunate.

However, the entire point of the current operation is that our troops, and certainly WE, are not simply “sitting ducks”, waiting for the next jihadic attack by those driven with an ideology of Islamist domination.

Iraq – moving forward …

A great deal of press has been given recently to the perceived ineptitude of the fledgling Iraqi police and military, as well as to the lack of internal resolve shown by Iraqi legislators in planning to recess for two months during the summer, while US, Coalition, and Iraqi troops continue to do battle with terrorists and insurgents on their behalf.

Nothing happens overnight. Rome, they say, was not built in a day.

Previous posts in this thread have illustrated the steady progress being made in training the Iraqi forces to both handle their own security needs, and to assist in the ongoing regional efforts against insurgency aimed at destabilizing western-aligned governments, and to effectively contain the violent jihadic elements.

Jihadic Islamofascism and the mice that roared …

In a recent op-ed to the Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117928391134704472.html?mod=todays_us_opinion Princeton professor Bernard Lewis makes the following observations:

“During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward …”

Professor Lewis makes the point in his article that, to the Islamic world-view, there is “an ongoing struggle between the two world religions – Christendom and Islam – for the privilege and opportunity to bring salvation to the rest of humankind, removing whatever obstacles there might be in their path.”