A War against Islamic Fascism?

Following the thwarted attempt to blow up ten airliners over the Atlantic, President George W. Bush declared that the world was at war with ‘Islamic fascism’. It was the first time the President publicly described the challenge in these terms. No doubt, the phrase is catchy, but does it actually make sense? The concept itself is not new. In the widest sense, it draws on Francis Fukuyama’s idea that liberal democracies are under siege, and that, consequently, they need to be strong in defending freedom against the temptations and vicious attacks by totalitarianism and its various ideological manifestations. First Nazism, then Communism, now, it seems, Islamofascism. To my knowledge, Christopher Hitchens coined the expression ‘fascism with an Islamic face’ in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. It was the critic Paul Berman, however, who developed it into a mature intellectual concept. In his book, Terror and Liberalism, he wrote: ‘The Terror War is… the same battle that tore apart Europe during most of the twentieth century – the battle between liberalism and its totalitarian enemies. Islam is not the cause of this war, [but it is] the arena in which the war is presently being fought’. Initially, the idea was to make the ‘war on terror’ a Liberal imperative. If this wasn’t the clash of civilizations but a conflict between freedom and fascism – so the argument went – then, surely, Liberals could join the ranks of those who wanted to be tough on the terrorists. As Hitchens pointed out, the motivations of the Islamofascists were essentially ‘anti-human’, and should be opposed – in particular – by those who have fought for enlightened, cosmopolitan ideals their entire lives. That the concept has now been adopted by the President will make Hitchens and Berman proud. It is highly questionable, though, whether – beyond convincing some dithering Liberals – it will contribute anything to the fight against terrorism. On the contrary, there are at least two reasons why the phrase should be eliminated from the President’s vocabulary as quickly as possible. First, it is bound to be misunderstood. Worse even, it is almost certain to be seized upon by Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri and everyone else who wants to portray the ‘war on terror’ as a war against Islam. Like Bush’s earlier idea that a ‘crusade’ was what’s needed in order to defeat radical Islam, the subtlety of the comment is likely to be lost the second the sound bite has gone out. For Muslims – a majority of whom believe the U.S. government to be latently Islamophobic anyway – what will remain is the impression that the President thinks of Islam and fascism as one and the same thing. Indeed, like the idea of a ‘crusade’ against terrorism, the concept of Islamofascism is likely to require much explanation and contextualisation, with Secretaries of State giving interviews to Arabic satellite channels and American embassies in places like Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia working long hours to explain what the President ‘really meant’. Whatever the merits of the phrase, is it really worth all that effort? The second reason is that many moderate Muslims will find the phrase objectionable. The problem with the concept of Islamofascism is that Islam is not just an ideology like Communism or Nazism. It is also a religion which millions of people consider to be an important part of their identity. Notwithstanding the small band of true believers, Communism and Nazism never inspired much genuine affection by the populations that were, by and large, forced to live under them. People in a country like Poland didn’t take much offence when the American President described Communism as an ‘evil ideology’, because very few of them identified strongly with Communism. But, surely, even the most fervent anti-Communists would have been upset had President Reagan referred to ‘fascism with a Polish face’. Needless to say, when Bush is referring to Islamofascism, he doesn’t mean the majority of moderate Muslims. But even those who understand the distinction will have problems with a turn of phrase that lumps together fascism and what they believe to be a religion of peace as well as their personal source of spiritual fulfilment. If the ‘war on terror’ is a war of ideas, as we are always told, then language matters. The concept of Islamofascism is an interesting intellectual concept, and people like Hitchens and Berman may be correct in pointing to the similar ways in which fascism and militant jihadism are trying to impose a form of totalitarian ideology. As a government policy, however, it does more harm than good. At the very least, it is an unnecessary obstacle in winning the war for hearts and minds.