Islamofascist

However one rates George W. Bush's skills as a wartime leader, said
Harvey Kushner in Newsday, we should at least all be grateful that he's
finally identified the enemy. After five years of 'œpolitically
correct' blather about the 'œwar on terror,' the president last week
called the foiling of a plot to blow up trans-Atlantic airliners as a
victory in 'œthe war against Islamic fascists.' This is not a president
known for his tact or verbal deftness, said the Fort Lauderdale
Sun-Sentinel in an editorial, but for once he got it right. The term
Islamofascism may not sit well with some Muslims, but the fact is that
'œa significant segment of the Muslim faith has been hijacked by
fascists, so why not call them that?'Â

This isn't a matter of political correctness, said linguist Geoffrey
Nunberg in the Los Angeles Times. It's a matter of accuracy, and by that
standard, 'œthe war against Islamic fascists' is just more fuzzy
thinking. Islamic terrorists are not, properly speaking, fascists.
Fascism, as practiced by Hitler and Mussolini, exploited national pride
and glorified the power of the state. Islamic fundamentalists like Osama
bin Laden and Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah owe no loyalty to any state.
Their loyalty is to Islam, as they understand it. By lumping secular
ex-Baathist insurgents, Shiite death squads, al Qaida, Hezbollah,
Palestinian militants, and disaffected British-born Pakistanis under one
term, Bush reduces 'œa complex story to a simple fable.' The deception
is deliberate, because it enables Bush to lump the unpopular war in Iraq
with the conflict against terrorists who've targeted the U.S. and the
West. All these various enemies are dangerous, 'œbut that doesn't mean
they're all of a single mind and purpose, or that a blow against any one
of them is a blow against the others.'

Jonah Goldberg