Dusting off the T-word

There is a specter haunting the United States, and it is the specter of totalitarianism.

Or so a modern day Marx might have begun a manifesto written in the last twenty-four hours. Because Marx or any student of social theory today would know that terms like fascism and totalitarianism mean something, and that the powers of a corporatized unitary executive fit many of their connotations.

Yet our president has been applying these terms to OTHER areas of the world in ways that should make even a High School social studies student blush. It is easy to say he just doesn't understand the meanings of these terms. Hogwash. I will argue in this diary that reading recent comments carefully, he is invoking the rhetorical ghosts of World War II and the Cold War with a specific purpose in mind: demonizing Islam in preparation for an attack on Iran.

First, let's recap the two formulations he has used in the last few week. On  Monday, August 7, 2006, Bush used the term "Islamic Fascism":

They try to spread their jihadist message -- a message I call, it's totalitarian in nature -- Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism, they try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom.

In doing so, he radicalized more moderate Muslims. Charles Recknagel gives the example of a popular newspaper editorial in Pakistan:

The Islamabad-based newspaper "Ausaf" writes today that the words are an "insult to the religion" of Islam. The high-circulation Urdu-language daily added that "at a time when Washington gives full support to Israel in its fight against Lebanon, such words only harm the United States' reputation in the Islamic world -- a reputation that is already decreasing day by day."

(Okay, I suppose it is a stretch to think that any Urdu speakers would ever constitute a threat. There's the weak link in my argument.) Regardless of the impact abroad, it is simply a stupid thing to say. Juan Cole explains one problem with Bush's phrasing:

It is a misuse of the word "Islamic." "Islamic" has to do with the ideals and achievements of the Muslims and the Muslim religion. Thus, we speak of Islamic art. We speak of Islamic ethics.

There can be Muslim fascists, just as there can be Christian fascists (and were, in Spain, Italy and Germany, and parts of Central and South America; the Spanish fascists and the Argentinian ones, e.g., were adopted by the United States government as close allies.)

But there cannot be "Islamic" fascists, because the Islamic religion enshrines values that are incompatible with fascism.

Then today, we get a radio address from the same President that says that:

US President George W Bush says Hezbollah and alleged UK air plot suspects share a "totalitarian ideology" they are seeking to spread.

Wait a minute. I thought they were intent on proving a link to the Sunni al Qaeda, not the Shiite Hezbollah. Perhaps that's why there is actually no statement of an operational link between these groups. But, Bush says, they all have the same "totalitarian ideology" and so they're all part of the same threat.

Note that in both Bush statements, totalitarianism is invoked, despite its singular inappropriateness in the context of Hezbollah, which is not a "state," although it pretends to be one. But our foreign policy recognizes a different government in Lebanon, and indeed Hezbollah is an organization but not a state. Hezbollah's violence as well as its social programs grew from the germ of Iran's opposition to Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. At that time, the enemy was the PLO, but Israel was similarly intent on clearing out a "sphere of influence" along its borders.

But that is not all that is happening, and it is Bush's seemingly inappropriate word choice that convinces me of that. When he says "Hezbollah" is a totalitarian threat, he clearly means Iran. The intention is to conjure an image of a pan-Middle Eastern theocracy under the auspices of Iran (never mind that Bush's foreign policy has thus far done everything by sign over our Treasury to make that future a possibility.) But the rhetoric is an unmistakable attempt to justify military intervention by invoking the favorite US enemies of the Twentieth Century: Fascists and Totalitarians.

Remember when people like Daniel Pipes invented the study of a diabolical and almost omnipotent Soviet totalitarian threat? Let's see what he as to say about the word today? From "Can Hezbollah and Hamas Be Democratic?"in the New York Sun (March 22, 2005):

These organizations are important elements of the Islamist movement that seeks to create a global totalitarian order along the lines of what has already been created in Iran, Sudan, and in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Same old song, second verse. Really, this was a complete pipe(s)-dream several years ago, because sectarian differences made the notion of a generalized "Islamist" threat impossible. But gosh! Would a Moslem reading about charges of "Islamic Fascism" be driven to make common cause with other Moslems because of this? Maybe. Would a single religious enemy function to simplify things for the agents of the military-industrial complex who would thereby justify a decades-long "crusade" type adventure in the Middle East. You betcha!

Let's see if this is just a coincidence or an actual rhetorical plan? Cue Rick Santorum (who did not come up with the exact same language on his own, folks) in an August 1, 2006 speech quoted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on August 1, 2006:

"That's why it is absolutely incumbent on us not to agree to a cease-fire at this point," Mr. Santorum said during a campaign appearance in Green Tree. "It would be a horrible sign for all of us who believe that the only way to defeat Islamic totalitarianism, Islamic fascism, is to stop them. ... They are not going away."

How about Tony Snow in a August 9th White House briefing?

We have made it clear and this president has made it clear that we are in it to make sure that the people of Iraq do in fact have the opportunity to live free and in a democracy. And to walk away from that vow would send not only a sign of weakness but also of American unreliability, and it would enable forces of oppression and totalitarianism to rise again within Iraq and elsewhere. A white flag, in short, means a white flag in the war on terror.

This seems to be a concerted effort to rebrand the conflict in the Middle East as an ideological one, as the Cold War all over again, but this time with an Islamic enemy. It might be Cheney's pre-emptive anti-terror rationale applied to Iran that is actually driving this, but they know that trumped-up estimates of Iranian WMD won't work this time around. But for whatever reason, this is the current pitch. As an interesting background piece by Edward Luce ("Bush 'believes conflict is a US-Iran proxy war'" FT.com, August 11, 2006) explains:

The first is the president's visceral instinct to support Israel against its enemies, which he sees in terms of democracy versus totalitarianism. "People should not underestimate just how strongly the president feels in support of Israel and in his anger towards Iran and Syria [because of their sponsorship of Hizbollah]," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former senior official at the Central Intelligence Agency and now at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

The second is Mr Bush's belief that the fighting between Israel and Hizbollah is a proxy war between the US and Iran's theocratic regime, which Washington sees as the most serious threat to stability in the region and beyond. US officials say they have intercepted communications between Tehran and Hizbollah that show Iran continues to supply arms to the Lebanese group.

There's the t-word again. I guess we better get used to it.

Am I right about the engine driving this new, seemingly over simplistic rhetoric? I don't know, but Pipes sure is one of the horsemen of this apocalypse. I was thinking about it, and here is a quick test other signs to watch for:

- Does the White House begin to ascribe their failure in Iraq to Islamic radicalism, or to Iranian interference?

- Will the White House continue to use the word "Islamic" to refer to Syria, to Lebanon, and to other entities where it is clearly inappropriate?

- Will "totalitarian" and "fascist" start to come out of the mouths of Fox newscasters with increasing frequency in the context of the Middle East?