Imagine the chagrin of the Bush Administration that that darned uncontrollable liberal media has gone and started calling the civil war in Iraq a civil war. Hilarious was Tony Snow’s attempting to define exactly what a civil war was and, in doing so, described exactly what was happening in Iraq…only to try and backpedal moments later and explain why, no, no, that’s not it at all.
Ostensibly the administration is concerned that referring to it as a Civil War could further voter discontent and objection to the war. It’s hard to believe that discontent could be more profound than approval ratings in the 30s and an election that turned the government back over to the Democrats, so clearly the major worry is that the GOP candidate for president in 2008 is going to suffer from his predecessor’s actions having launched a civil war in another country.
Indeed, the only thing we’re waiting for now is assassination of the current Iraqi leaders and a military overthrow of the current Iraqi government, which seems to be on the very close horizon. Indeed, the *only* thing that may be preventing that is the presence of our troops, and I suspect even that isn’t going to hold matters in check forever.
In any event, with the current battering the Bush Administration is taking, this blog will try to display some sensitivity. We here will NOT be referring to the Iraqi situation as Civil War. Instead we will refer to the overall situation as the CW, and events that transpire there as CW Programming. That sonds a lot friendlier.
PAD
• 
Posted by Bill Mulligan
Ok, here’s MY crazed scenario–Bush is killed, Cheney takes over but is prevented from picking a vice president and immediately impeached, leading to Nancy Pelosi as president
Wan a real nightmea? Thats’s only if it happens after she officially takes the position (with the beginning of the new session). Until then…
We can no longer plan on long wars.
Unless France and Germany ally against us and seize all US business interests within their borders…
Posted by Shawn Backs at November 29, 2006 01:30 PM
I often wonder if this war really is another vietnam or if that’s just the way it’s being spin doctored.
Instinct would lead me to think politicians would know not to get into situations like that anymore, and that protestors like to protest. But my faith in humanity and logic is constantly at question lately.
“Lately”?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 29, 2006 01:08 PM
Oh, believe me, I know. Things have not yet reached their nadir. That’s what really scares me. Not just how bad it is… but how much worse it could get.
“What worries me is that things may never get back to normal – or, conversely, that they may already have.”
Posted by Rob Brown
The sad thing is that you could do that with just about any symbol. What if some murderous, Nazi-like regime put the cross on their flag?
The Teutonic Knights?
The Crusaders?
Imperialist England?
Posted by Den
Now, I know there’s zero chance of it happening, but I’d love see what would happen if the Bush Doublemint Twins got drafted. Dodging IEDs in Iraq might not be as much fun as running naked in an Argentinian hotel.
I’m not sure they’d be eleigible for military service with their civilian records.
Posted by Sasha
That’s pretty much the gist of the plot for ULTIMATES volume 2.
Story from the Viet Nam era (forget which magazine published it, probably Galaxy or if:
Elite Special Forces and Spetznaz units, fed up, hold secret conferences in deepest Viet Nam – the part where there woudn’t ever be any politicians, just real soldiers – and then, in simultaneous daring midnight raids, kidnap their respective “leaders”, take them to some Godsforsaken part of South America, give them AK’s and 16’s, and let them do the fighting for a change…
Posted by Micha
Bill Myers, not all Fascism is Nazism. Nazism was distinctly secular, Italian Fascism less./i>
As a matter of fact, Mussolini bascally coined the term, to apply to a form of strong centralised government that was not – as originally visualised – very much, if anything, like Nazi-ism. The term derives from the latin “Fasces” – literally a bundle of sticks – which refers to one of Aesop’s fables, and, as a bundle of sticks bound around a woodman’s axe. was a majuor symbol of Mussolini’s party.
Incidentally, if you happen to have a Mercury dime (the previous design to the current Rooesevelt one) you might be amused by the Fascist symbol on its reverse. (http://www.cmf5.com/headtails/Mercury/1939.htm)
al-Maliki has said that the Iraqi forces will be able to take over security by June, and that US forces will just be needed for training purposes. I want to believe that. But when he’s facing a revolt by a large chunk of the Iraqi government, I have to wonder just how realistic that is. Maybe, if it all happens as planned, this will be the confidence builder the new Iraqi government needs, creating trust in the new system, but I don’t know. What do you guys think? Is this a good sign? Am I being pessimistic or realistic?
“As a matter of fact, Mussolini bascally coined the term, to apply to a form of strong centralised government that was not – as originally visualised – very much, if anything, like Nazi-ism. The term derives from the latin “Fasces” – literally a bundle of sticks – which refers to one of Aesop’s fables, and, as a bundle of sticks bound around a woodman’s axe. was a majuor symbol of Mussolini’s party.”
I don’t think that is accurate. On the one hand, Mussolini said he coined the term and then developed the ideology, But on the other hand, fascism is much more than strong centralized government.
Here is the definition from the article I linked, which is similar to what I’ve studied in the university.
“Since there is no agreed definition of Fascism, and Fascist regimes differed, perhaps the best way to decide if a movement or regime is Fascist is to make a list of defining characteristics and then determine the extent to which different regimes conform to those characteristics. Here is one such list:
A Fascism Scale
– Leadership Principle – absolute rule by an individual
– Group is superior to and more important than the individual
– Own group is superior to other groups
– Veneration of heroic traditions and (sometimes mythical) bygone days (eg: Romans, Norse sagas, Samurai, imperial Spain)
– Struggle and death are glorious – cult of heroism
– Cult of action and activism
– Frustration: sense of collective injustice inflicted by foreign enemies.
– Militarist expansionism – World or regional domination is a central goal
– Political repression: Suppression of liberty and intellectual life
– Racism”
The Nazi regime was modeled in many ways on the Italiam regime, but added to it the strong focus on racism. Hitler’s imperial dreams seem also to have also been on a larger scale than Mussolini.
The fasces was a roman symbol carried before roman consuls — a bundle of sticks around an axe. It goes back to the famous roman story about the father that showed his sons that they will be stronger together by showing it is easy to brake a single stick or arrow, but hard to brake a bundle. There is a famous painting by David of this story. Italian Fascism wanted to return to the glory of Rome, so it was used as a symbol. Hitler picked a sign associated with the Indo-European Aryan race.
The United States, from its beginning, was influenced by Roman symbolism too, but for different reasons.
“osted by: Bill Myers at December 1, 2006 07:23 AM
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 07:00 AM
That’s not necessary, since altimately we agree.
This is the Internet, Micha. We’re not supposed to do that. 😉 “
Bill, I enjoy talking, and sometimes arguing, with people like you who understand the complexity of issues, but also know how to deal with disagreements. It is not necessary that we always agree, so long as the purpose is to increase our mutual understanding of the issues. But it is nice to agree too.
Only idiots will spend month arguing about the meaning of a word, and allow themselves to lose the temper over it. We would never do something like that. 😉
Not so, idiots:
Christo-fascism is just as valid a term as Islamofascism, but the first is persistently denied by those who employ the second — as demonstrated here. Invasion hawks simply employ the latter term to blame ideology for feeding the insurgency rather than the bogus invasion itself.
I’m not sure they’d be eleigible for military service with their civilian records.
The way that the army has been lowering standards lately, they might still be able to get it.
I know, zero chance of them volunteering or getting drafted. But I can dream 🙂
I think the bottom line with fascism is that, like nazism, it’s become a catch-all perjorative term for any political opinion or action that people perceive as infringing on their freedoms or that they just don’t like.
There are still remnants of the fascist movement in Italy, although they’ve merged with other political parties. I remember reading about how Mousolini’s granddaughter had gotten elected to parliament and she said something to the effect that she was hoping people would stop being embarrassed by being called fascists.
Well, I hope you don’t lump me in with those folks. 🙂
Given my generally low opinion of pundits. there’s little chance of that!
But I wonder — are we not diluting the meaning of the word if we use it to lump together the Nazi ideology (gah-gah-Godwin’s Law violation!) and radical Islam? The former was not based in religion. The latter is.
A good point–but that would explain the islamo part. Were Iran exactly the same but without the religious component I don’t think too many would be troubled by calling it fascist.
The articles Micha linked to have some interesting things to say. It’s true that racism is not an essential component of fascism, though the two are often linked. A Jew in fascist Italy was more likely to survive the war than one on France. I don’t think that Franco’s Spain was particularly racist.
Now, I know there’s zero chance of it happening, but I’d love see what would happen if the Bush Doublemint Twins got drafted. Dodging IEDs in Iraq might not be as much fun as running naked in an Argentinian hotel.
I’m not sure they’d be eleigible for military service with their civilian records.
The armed forces excludes kids who have been caught drinking before they’re 21? Wow, it’s amazing they have been able to fill their quotas!
It goes back to the famous roman story about the father that showed his sons that they will be stronger together by showing it is easy to brake a single stick or arrow, but hard to brake a bundle.
There’s also a great version of this in Kurusawa’s amazing film RAN (a samurai take on King Lear). If stranded on a desert island with a DVD player and a long extension cord, one could do far worse than to have Kurusawa’s oeuvre to pass the time away.
A Fascism Scale
– Leadership Principle – absolute rule by an individual
– Group is superior to and more important than the individual
– Own group is superior to other groups
– Veneration of heroic traditions and (sometimes mythical) bygone days (eg: Romans, Norse sagas, Samurai, imperial Spain)
– Struggle and death are glorious – cult of heroism
– Cult of action and activism
– Frustration: sense of collective injustice inflicted by foreign enemies.
– Militarist expansionism – World or regional domination is a central goal
– Political repression: Suppression of liberty and intellectual life
– Racism”
So let’s see if Iran applies:
A Fascism Scale
Leadership Principle – absolute rule by an individual
They have some supreme religious leader who’s word is superior to all–one reason why democratic reform is unlikely.
Group is superior to and more important than the individual
The glorification of the suicide bomber seems to indicate a rather cavalier attitude to the value of the individual life
Own group is superior to other groups
A no-brainer. Not only is Islam the only acceptable religion, it has to be THEIR version.
Veneration of heroic traditions and (sometimes mythical) bygone days (eg: Romans, Norse sagas, Samurai, imperial Spain)
There has been a lot of talk about the good old days when Islam had Spain and was poised to take over Europe.
Struggle and death are glorious – cult of heroism
Obvious parallels.
Cult of action and activism
ditto
Frustration: sense of collective injustice inflicted by foreign enemies.
ditto again. Israel and the USA get blamed for everything, including earthquakes.
Militarist expansionism – World or regional domination is a central goal
Listen to the talk coming out of Iran. One is tempted to shrug it off as just bluster…a mistake, I think.
Political repression: Suppression of liberty and intellectual life
Would anyone even argue this point?
Racism
The anti-Jewish component could be passed off as more political than racist and the general anti-Arab sentiment often found in Iran could also be more of a religious quarrel than a purely racial one. I’d give Iran a partial pass on this one, though the Holocaust denial and use of Nazi era anti-Jewish propaganda tilts them pretty clearly into the racist category.
So if one accepts this scale as accurate, it would seem that Iran clearly is a fascist state.
Bill, I think it is better to reserve the term fascist to the group of movements that emerged after WWII. While using a different term, like Islamic Radicalism or something like that, that addresses to unique quallities of this movement.
Bush used the terms Islamo-Fascism and the Axis of evil as solgans in order to evoke similarities to WWII. But we should require of ourselves to be smart enough to understand the nature of Islamic Radicalism, and oppose its negative qualities (some of which resemble fascism) without resorting to a misleading label. Just as we should require from ourselves to understand that Islamic Radicalism is a movement that emerged inside Islam, and derives its legitimacy from Islamic tradition, but that it is not Islam.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 08:35 AM
Bill, I enjoy talking, and sometimes arguing, with people like you who understand the complexity of issues, but also know how to deal with disagreements.
Thank you, Micha. I feel the same way.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 08:35 AM
It is not necessary that we always agree, so long as the purpose is to increase our mutual understanding of the issues. But it is nice to agree too.
Again, I feel the same way.
Posted by: Micha at December 1, 2006 08:35 AM
Only idiots will spend month arguing about the meaning of a word, and allow themselves to lose the temper over it. We would never do something like that. 😉
You are obviously trying to trigger within me an attack of post-traumatic stress disorder.
By the way, regarding whether Nazism was secular: the Nazi movement borrowed from religion. Still, the focus ultimately was on the state and not on God. Whereas Islamic fundamentalism is ultimately about Allah, and involves groups like Al Qaeda that are not limited by national boundaries.
“There’s also a great version of this in Kurusawa’s amazing film RAN (a samurai take on King Lear). If stranded on a desert island with a DVD player and a long extension cord, one could do far worse than to have Kurusawa’s oeuvre to pass the time away.”
Couldn’t you just build a raft and use the extension cord to pull yourself back to civilization?
Posted by: Den at December 1, 2006 01:56 PM
Couldn’t you just build a raft and use the extension cord to pull yourself back to civilization?
You owe me a new computer monitor. You made me spit coffee all over the one I was using.
Throwing this out for the gallery:
Should Godwin’s Law be expanded to include fascism?
Discuss.
“Whereas Islamic fundamentalism is ultimately about Allah, and involves groups like Al Qaeda that are not limited by national boundaries.”
That raises a question that’s been living in my head rent-free for a while now. Are the leaders of these Islamic groups true believers like they seem or are they just using the religion to stir up the people around them? Seeing as how the most extreme religious people I’m ever around are a couple devout Baptists and a couple devout Pagans, I don’t have too much experience in this arena. Are they the devout or do they just play the devout in front of the audience?
Should Godwin’s Law be expanded to include fascism?
Then how will the members of DailyKos ever be able to discuss the Bush administration?
Couldn’t you just build a raft and use the extension cord to pull yourself back to civilization?
Well, I …dámņ.
You know, maybe I WANTED to be alone with my collection of Kurusawa DVDs! Is that so wrong?
Then how will the members of DailyKos ever be able to discuss the Bush administration?
Plenty of other adjectives:
incompetent
deceitful
lying
inept
corrupt
stupid
totalitarian
authoritarian
anti-freedom
You get the idea.
“By the way, regarding whether Nazism was secular: the Nazi movement borrowed from religion. Still, the focus ultimately was on the state and not on God. Whereas Islamic fundamentalism is ultimately about Allah, and involves groups like Al Qaeda that are not limited by national boundaries.”
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the point of reference of nazism was the German people and Pagan, Christinan and secular German culture. the point of view of Islamic Radicalism is the Islamic Umma (nation?), and Islamic culture (as viewed by them).
————
Should Godwin’s Law be expanded to include fascism?
Yes. I’m stopping now.
“That raises a question that’s been living in my head rent-free for a while now. Are the leaders of these Islamic groups true believers like they seem or are they just using the religion to stir up the people around them? Seeing as how the most extreme religious people I’m ever around are a couple devout Baptists and a couple devout Pagans, I don’t have too much experience in this arena. Are they the devout or do they just play the devout in front of the audience?”
there is no real way to determine. But the answer is probably yes.
Posted by: Den at December 1, 2006 02:02 PM
Throwing this out for the gallery:
Should Godwin’s Law be expanded to include fascism?
Perhaps. I’m comfortable with abandoning the topic.
But, to be fair, I don’t think I’ve sent this thread off the rails (others, yes, I’m ashamed to say, but not this one) by starting a discussion about fascism. The thread topic was the Bush administration’s denial that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. The major players in that war include some powerful radical Islamic clerics, making Islamic fundamentalism a logical — and related — topic. Someone used the term “Islamofascist,” and I thought I’d discuss it. I’ve found the exchange to be illuminating.
I don’t think it’s quite like someone dropping the Nazi bombshell into a thread about macrame. 🙂
You owe me a new computer monitor. You made me spit coffee all over the one I was using.
Actually, I think I might have an old one that still works.
A bit off the thread of “islamodrama” and Iraq but what the hëll happened to Afganistan?? You remember, Afganistan was the country we actually thought bid Laden was in. (as opposed to the country one of his Lieutenants had a cappaccino with Saddam in)
Remember November 2001, where very few if any Middle Eastern countries disputed our war with the Taliban? The Taliban wasn’t popular even with Islamic countries let alone the West. What would the region have looked like if world leaders from East and West came together to help Afganistan get back on it’s feet from Taliban rule?
Even if I agreed with the “we-need-to-go-it-alone-and-create-a-Muslim-democracy-in-the-Middle-East-to-stop-terrorism” policy of the neo-cons (which I DON’T) wouldn’t it have been better to rebuild Afganistan with the help of the world community (read: Middle Eastern countries sick of the Taliban.) instead of wasting time in Iraq?
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO…..
We had to go to Iraq and after three @#@$##@$ years Osama’s probably having a iced frapaccino someplace in backwoods Pakistan yelling “Come and get me Oral Roberts!!”
1. Where the hëll is Osama?
2. Why the hëll are the Taliban coming back?
3. If Bush is so tough on terrorists why do I have to ask questions one and two?
Captain Naraht
Y’all do realize Godwin’s Law simply states that an online discussion’s length increases the likelihood a comparison to Hitler or Nazis will be made, yes? Godwin makes no prohibition against making such a comparison. The misinterpretation of Godwin sounds like an excuse to shelter predatory agenda.
Other metaphors for predatory agendas can be found.
“Should Godwin’s Law be expanded to include fascism?”
Yes
1) Because comparisons to fascism can have a similar negative effect on the understanding of issues as comparisons to nazism.
2) Because it is equally likely to shift the discussion from the original issue to a historical discussion of fascism.
“But, to be fair, I don’t think I’ve sent this thread off the rails”
You didn’t. This discussion was mostly conducted in good faith in order to bettererstand Islamic Radicalism. and Fascism is an interesting historical subject.
“I’ve found the exchange to be illuminating.”
It was. But it is good that Craig mentioned Godwin’s law, so as to divert us back to the original issue of the thread — macrame.
Do people get very upset when a thread goes off the track? I kind of enjoy the organic nature of the thing and there are few topics so fascinating that they can sustain days worth of focus.
Unless there is someone trying to deliberately make themselves the subject of the thread (and such people are best ignored, as we’ve seen) I rather like the way we bounce around, especially when it’s illuminating, as this one has been.
Well, hëll, why am I citing 6-year-old quotes by Garrison Keillor, when Kos is finding the commentary on Virginia’s new senator floating around perfectly fitting:
Just so long as we get to discuss zombies, vampires or really bad science fiction at least briefly, I don’t care where a thread ultimately goes.
🙂
This thread could go off the rails a few times and be fine as the news could bring relevant information to it every few days or so. Besides, I’ve noticed that the little derailments sometimes break the thread’s downward slide and it then returns to its main point with a bit more strength. It’s only the really big derailments that seem to be a sure sign that the thread has lived past its intended function.
Now, something in the threads general topic: The CW.
I may have to change my position on Iraq if the news continues to worsen at this rate. I had hopes that Iraq had not yet crossed its point of no return. Between the (yet another) sharp increase in the level of open violence amongst the Iraqi peoples, the Iraqi government seeking an almost partnership like relationship with Iran, the semi-frosty meeting dropout between our Prez & theirs from the other day and the walk out of huge numbers of Iraqis from all areas of their government last week, I think we’ve hit the the tipping point.
I think I misjudged our timetable a few weeks ago. I really wanted us to have enough time to right the mess that Bush inflicted upon the world with his ill advised crusade. I no longer know if I can truly say that I believe we have the time to do so now.
“Just so long as we get to discuss zombies, vampires or really bad science fiction at least briefly, I don’t care where a thread ultimately goes.”
yes
But that’s not how much of official Washington reacted. Columnist George F. Will was the most offended, declaring civility dead and Webb a boor and a “pompous poseur.”
Of course, in order to make his case, Will used heavily edited versions of the comments, deleting Webb’s use of the honorific, “Mr. President” in his replies to Bush.
I can’t believe they would not first target Israel–and if they use atom bombs on anyone, even fellow Muslims, the Israelis would probably take the opportunity to make sure they weren’t the next target.
Iran would make sure to hit them first if they were to get the bomb.
I feel like I’ve just read an issue of Tales of Suspense. Who still uses these expressions “get the bomb”? Isn’t the atom bomb collecting dust at the Smithsonian? I was under the impression that creating a nuclear device is quite simple, providing you aqcuire the necessary materials (plutonium, uranium, or hydrogen isotopes). The more challenging aspect is actually delivery. It may be assumed that any nation can develop long range, even intercontinental missles, but remember that only a handful of nations have had space programs, and that even Iraq hadn’t progressed past scud missles, which have limited range and are inaccurate.
Further complicating the ability to deploy WMDs are superior defense systems. The Patriot missle cam knock out ICBMs with decent results, and unless Iran has developed stealth bombers, any aircrafts of unknown origin nearing Israli airspace will be swiftly downed.
For all of these reasons, the most likely scenario for a nuclear attack is a dirty bomb. The device fits into a large briefcase, and can be hand-delivered. This makes it far more clandestine and accurate than any other option. Furthermore, the culprit of the act could remain a complete enigma, making reciprocity an excercise in pure conjecture.
So while Steve Rogers might have been our best bet against atom bombs, what the world needs now is Jean Grey (although I wouldn’t object to her wearing her old-fashioned midi-skirts, a little nostalgia is allowed).
John Kinney,
Making an atomic bomb once you have the necessary nuclear materials may not be that hard, but based on what I’ve read, making an A-bomb that will fit into the nose-cone of a missile is very hard.
As to Patriot missiles, it’s my understanding that they aren’t a great defense against even crappy missiles like scuds and are useless against ICBMs. This is not meant to be a dig against the Patriots, ironically. I seem to recall from the first Iraq war that the Patriots were originally design for some other purpose and were pressed into service because we needed scud defense. As to ICBMs, the U.S. is currently lined up to spend an additional $200 Billion (after the first 200) to try to develop a missile shield to protect us from rogue states “such as” North Korea. And it’s never worked in any test where the target didn’t have a special transmitter to allow it to home in on the thing. The last test I heard about was canceled because of rain (maybe the [fill in enemy of choice] will be kind enough to attack on a sunny day). No one should be deluding themselves into thinking that any nation has a workable defense once the missiles actually start flying.
I’m not really worried about missile, however. I’m much more worried about the sieve of U.S. Customs that inspects 5% of incoming cargo reacting synergistically with us not making a big enough priority of locking down possible loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. Why let the whole world know you’re a Nuclear Madman(TM) by launching a missile right out in the open, when a Van-Based Delivery System(TM) will get the job done and leave much less evidence?
Cold War II = CWII
Building a working nuclear weapon once you have the materials is not that difficult. Getting weapons grade uranium or plutonium is very hard though as the processing is very intensive and is strictly monitored by countries that already have nuclear technology.
David is right, though, making one that can be launched in a missile is very difficult. However, building one that can fit in a cargo container or the back of a truck is child’s play. Iran wouldn’t need to have a missile capable of delivering a nuclear device to Israel. They could put one into a cargo container and smuggle it into Tel Aviv. Would smuggling it through Israeli border security be tougher than smuggling it into say, NYC? Sure, but it wouldn’t be impossible.
And they’d only have to succeed once.
I’m sure the NSA, CIA, and FBI have ‘bots that scour the Web looking for talk about building nuclear bombs. I’d be curious to know if we’ve made it onto their radar screen yet. 🙂
Considering the opinions about the Chimp-in-Chief, we’ve been on their watch list for a while.
To borrow a phrase from Dennis Miller (back when he was funny) “My phone is so tapped I have more clicks on my line than a Ubange marital spat.” (I just know I spelled that tribe’s name wrong…)