Watching A Regime Crumble?

Saif al-Islami Gaddifi, the usually well oiled, politely mannered, western-style number one son of the Libyan Brother Leader has become the public face of the embattled regime.  Given Brother Leader's unusual shyness this is an expectable move.  Saif is seen both inside Libya and by foreign observers as a rational, reform-minded, and totally adult sort of guy, quite unlike either his father or younger brothers.

However the message delivered by Saif was not one of peace, reform, and good feelings.  Rather he warned darkly of "civil war" and "hundreds of thousands dead" in appearances on state television.  Events over the past twenty-four hours show his remark must not be taken as hyperbole.

Neither should his observation that his father would fight to the "last man, last woman and last bullet."  The blood spilled in Benghazi coupled with the horizontal escalation of the violent protests to other cities including Tripoli show the matter has become existential to the regime--and family.  The uprising is already existential for the protesters.  If they fail in their goal of ending the Gaddafi regime, the agents of the regime will end them, if not today than certainly in the days and weeks to come.

When conflicts are seen by both sides as directly existential, it not only increases political will, it assures the struggle will become continually more lethal until one side or the other in effect is obliterated.  This has raised the Libyan internal conflict well above those waged in Egypt or Tunisia--and perhaps above that in Bahrain where voices of compromise are still speaking.

As the Gaddafi government stepped up its suppression with the use of fast mover aircraft, it accompanied the purely military and Saif's propaganda with pro-Brother Leader demonstrations in Green Square, Tripoli.  The carefully orchestrated show of popular support for the Gaddafi regime was unintentionally undercut by reports of both airstrikes and automatic weapons fire being heard not far from the Square as the demo went down.

Nor is the legitimacy of the Gaddafi regime enhanced by such high profile kicks in the crotch as the mass resignation of the Libyan delegation to the UN under the leadership of its deputy permanent representative.  It is not known if the Libyan ambassador to the UN shares the views of his mission.  What is certain is the families of the dissident diplomats back home in Libya are not good life insurance risks now--unless the regime collapses.

Perhaps more alarming to the Gaddafi family enterprise is the reported defection of members of the armed services.  Reportedly the defectors include two air force officers who took their jets to Malta rather than attack civilians in Benghazi.  One of the two pilots, both of whom claim to be colonels, has taken the wise precaution of requesting political asylum.  Can't be too safe--if the insurrection fails of its goal.

Other, far lower ranking defections from the army and other security forces have also been alleged.  The allegations are most probably accurate, particularly if those changing sides belong to the same tribe or clan as those being attacked.  Clan, tribal, and regional loyalties trump mere institutional affiliations in Libyan life.  They can even trump religion qua religion.

The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, the primary opposition group among the rudimentary political culture which has survived the forty years of suppression, is ginning up for a return home.  Its Washington based spokesman, Ibrahim Sahad, has not received much play in American media but has been quoted overseas as predicting that this time the Brother Leader cannot survive.  He offers no reasons for this conclusion beyond the self-evident and widely known failures of the Gaddifi regime and the impetus given by the use of mercenaries, heavy weapons, and aircraft against the demonstrators.

While no objections can be offered as to Mr Sahad's arguments regarding the weakness of the regime, his group can not yet offer a clear vision of what must be done the day after the regime collapses.  Nor does he make any useful suggestions for the role which might be played by Western governments in facilitating regime change in Libya.  These lacks are indicative of the large, very large problems which will confront the Libyans in the wake of a collapse of the Gaddafis, particularly if the collapse is preceded by a welter of blood letting, a potential which must be taken seriously by outside observers.

Considering that the web of internal security and domestic intelligence organizations involves as many as one in six Libyans, there are a lot of asses in the sling potentially.  This implies there will be no going gently into that good night of exile.  Considering further the conflicting tangle of tribal, clan, and family alliances both for and against the status quo and the large number of potential scores to be settled, betting on a peaceful and orderly transition (such as is pro forma called for by any number of outsiders) is about as likely as a cold day in August in the dunes south of Tobruk.

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is, sadly, almost certainly correct in averring that "rivers of blood" will ensue unless the protests stop.  As there is no high likelihood of the anti-government folk packing it in and waiting to be arrested by the internal security wallahs, the number of bodies is doomed to grow--perhaps exponentially.

The US, the EU, and the UN have been dithering too long already.  It is more than passingly strange that the Security Council can get its collective panties in a twist over a person being killed in Lebanon but remain totally unconcerned about the looming slaughter in Libya.  It is equally interesting that the US, which has shown a remarkable capacity to work itself into a lather over other, less bloody exercises in repression, has been tongue tied about Libya.  Then there is the EU.  That organization can work itself into the highest of high dudgeons over the allegation of a single Palestinian dying at the hands of the IDF but has confined itself to the barest sighs of concern over the use of heavy weapons against civilians in Libya.

Italy and the UK both have large direct investments in Libya,  Italy is the preferred destination of any and all of those who can board a boat on the Libyan coast.  It surpasses understanding why both London and Rome have not become directly, substantially, and materially involved in ending the crisis in Libya before the worst realistic case comes to pass.

Admittedly, Brother Leader is not the poster boy of rational policy or carefully considered reaction to outside influences, but that is no reason to sit back with folded hands as the escalating dance of death continues in Libya.  As the American ambassador to the Court of St James is reported to have said yesterday, Her Majesty's Government bears a measure of responsibility for enhancing the international legitimacy of the Libyan dictator.

The fact that the enhancement occurred during the previous New Labor government is all the more reason the Coalition has both the political freedom and ethical responsibility to take the lead in the EU to seek ways of effective intervention in the Libyan crisis.  While Italy may have a greater direct stake in the outcome of the events in Libya, the current political state of affairs in that country shifts the load to the UK, which has both means and justification for seeking action on the part of the EU and UN.

The US can and should play a supporting role to any British initiative.  The current weakness of the US not only in the region following the incomprehensible veto of the West Bank settlement resolution in the Security Council as well as the all too obvious working both sides of the street during the "Lotus revolution" has drastically curtailed our diplomatic influence and prestige and thus ability to directly operate in Libya.  But, we can still back the play of another responsible actor--and the UK is the best candidate for the role.

It is critical that the end of Gaddafi come before the body count grows much more.  As is the case in every internal war in human history (and most all inter-state wars as well) the dead dictate policy.  The more protesters who are killed the more vengeance will be demanded.  The more vengeance which is feared by partisans of the status quo, the more desperate and lethal the attempt to suppress.  The cycle is clear, and, once started, not easy to interrupt before it has run the full course, until people are simply sickened by the slaughter they have perpetrated and suffered.

Time is running out.  It is running out for the Gaddafi regime.  It is running out for the international community (whatever that might mean in this context) to take measures intended to limit the suffering, end the killing, and start a new clock on a new future.

The Game Is Getting Much Rougher In Libya

The Geek has to admit his hot wash on the initial unrest in Benghazi missed the mark.  He discounted the demonstrations too much because Benghazi has been the epicenter of Hate-Brother-Leader since the prison massacre in 1996.  He also overestimated the positive impact of Gaddafi's unique brand of tribal based politics which is omnipresent even in the army.

It is true that the ongoing protests have centered on Benghazi.  The second largest city in Libya has had the greatest butchers' bill by far.  And, most importantly, the protesters have matched the government in the escalation game.  

Not only have the anti-government forces matched the security wallahs in vertical escalation, they have engaged in successful horizontal escalation as well.  Other cities in eastern Libya have now joined the violence.  Tobruk of World War II fame as well as Al-Bayda, Ajdabiya, and Darnah have seen violent unrest.  In Darnah the insurrectionists briefly seized and held an arsenal, finally leaving with an unknown amount of weaponry.  

In Ajdabiya the protesters burned down several buildings including the local headquarters of Gaddafi's political party and declared the burg to be a "free city."  In Benghazi, the central government in effect has been run out of town.  The anti-government groups attacked the military base (which contains Gaddafi's "Eastern Palace") with an explosives laden vehicle at one point--and with an armored vehicle at another.

The focus on the military installation is understandable given that hours earlier security forces had sallied forth from it in order to attack the funeral demonstration which was carrying the bodies of those killed the previous day to the graveyard.  In an important development, reports from Benghazi indicate that Gaddafi has brought in mercenary troops from Chad to do the dirty work.

The mercenaries whether from Chad or elsewhere were described by locals as kill crazy, a sort of "wild eyed pistol waver not afraid to die."  Grisly tales of people jumping from a bridge to avoid the mercenaries and their bullets compete for attention with stories of helicopter gunships spraying machinegun fire on fleeing civilians.

While it is not possible to divine the truth in the welter of words, it is unmistakable that Brother Leader has decided to ramp up coercion to a degree surpassing that employed in Bahrain or Yemen.  He must be feeling more than a tad desperate.  

The desperation is powered by a fear that the entire east of Libya will go the way of Benghazi, setting the stage either for a tumbling row of dominoes ending in Tripoli or a resumption of the inter-regional warfare which existed prior to the Italian occupation a century ago.  Either development would be fatal to Gaddafi's idiosyncratic forty-two year old regime.

So far Brother Leader has kept a low profile, appearing on state television only briefly.  Apparently, he has given over day-to-day control of the security operation to his number three son, Saadi.  The son is a thirty-seven year old former vocational soccer player who has been described as "fiercely loyal" to dear old dad as well as a potential follow on to Gaddafi senior in running the family business.  He is probably more than tough enough to oversee very robust repression.

In addition to using mercenaries, automatic and even heavy weapons, the Gaddafi regime has taken the customary step of pulling the plug on the Internet and blocking other horizontal communications methods.  Libya is already one of the most isolated countries on the planet and became even more so with the ending of cell phone and Internet communication.  Given the vast distances involved (Benghazi is a thousand kilometers from Tripoli), this does hurt the anti-government movement significantly.

Merely impairing the communications capacities of the protesters does not address the basic conditions which have produced the violent unrest.  Unemployment is at least thirty percent.  Housing is scarce and usually allocated on the basis of political connections.  There is no true national identity but rather a patchwork of clan, tribal, and regional affiliations which are reflected in every institution of state including the armed forces.  There is absolutely no organized political opposition to the Gaddafi regime and its political party expression.  Nor is there any excuse for an open and free media.  In comparison, Egypt was a wide open boisterous democracy and Tunisia a free for all.

The Gaddafi regime has expended (squandered?) vast amounts of its oil and natural gas revenues on utter non-essentials including support for foreign insurgencies, a quest for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, a military without a real mission, and grandiose schemes to drill deep wells in the south to bring water to the north.  Very little money has gone to long term development needs whether in infrastructure or education or economic alternatives to the oil and gas.  What did not go to the quixotic delusions of Brother Leader went to the pockets of the well-connected.  The combination has assured damn little has been left over to benefit the Libyan in the street or provide any basis for either long term order or the slow emergence of stability in an evolving national system.

The overthrow of Gaddafi would be a good thing for the Libyans--maybe.  The caveat comes from the simple fact that the four decades of dictatorship have left the country without any semblance of a political culture.  This means Libya is starting from less than Tunisia or Egypt.  In both of those countries there had been a long history of organized opposition.  The opposition might have been suppressed but it was never eliminated.  Even if in exile the opposition continued to develop, to plan, to prepare.  The suppression by Brother Leader has been so complete, so absolute, so far reaching that there is little in the way of an organized and forward looking political alternative to the status quo.

The situation in Libya is also complicated by its having no clear national identity well supported by national institutions.  When even the army reflects tribal and clan roots, it is hard to see from where a unified sense of being Libyan will be found.  Taken in aggregate these factors assure that any overthrow of Gaddafi will not result in a quick transition to a democratic government.  It is not easy to see just who will run the country on even a caretaker basis should Brother Leader and his sons catch the next flight to the Land of Unemployed Dictators.

Both Italy and the UK have large exposures in the Libyan oil and natural gas industry.  Both governments should be working overtime right now on just what can be done practically to keep the trains running on time as well as dissuade the Gaddafi family from further very robust exercises in suppression and set the ground rules for a post-Gaddafi government.  It is not practical to suggest that some foreign or international entity step in to secure a peaceful transition, such would not be acceptable to any Libyan in the street, but the so called international community needs to shoulder a legitimate burden in the sense of aiding the endgame and the emergence of an organic Libyan government.

At least the Obama administration has been mainly silent on events in Libya.  This is as it should be.  Libya is one of the few spots in the Mideast or North Africa where the US interests are minimal.  But, our government would be well advised to nudge the UK, Italy, and the EU generally in the area of contingency planning for the day after the revolts succeed in their goal--or the day the security forces violate any sense of decency in their shedding of demonstrators blood.

It's called being "proactive."  Sadly, the record shows this is an area where the US (and the West) is more than a little deficient.

Comes Now The Fallout

All political turmoil has fallout.  The more dramatic and seemingly revolutionary the turmoil, the more intense, long lasting, and unpredictable the fallout.  So it is with the "Jasmine" and "Lotus" events of Tunisia and Egypt.

The first signs of the spreading wave of destabilizing aftershocks of the overthrow of Ben Ali in Tunisia have shown themselves most dramatically with waves of illegal immigrants hitting the rocky shores of the microscopic Italian island of Lampedusa.  The mass (more than five thousand and counting over the weekend) of economic refugees has panicked the Italian government.  With good reason.

Italy has already been the target of opportunity for refugees from much of Africa usually funneled through Libya and thence by small, overloaded boats to the outpost of Lampedusa.  The Italian government howled last year as the waves crested and beat down on the shores of the island.  Already facing high domestic unemployment, a yawning budget gap, threatened default on sovereign debt, the last thing the always rickety government needed was the burden of refugees in numbers almost beyond count.  Nor has it helped that most of the economic opportunity seekers are Muslim, which fact exacerbates the large and growing sense of alienation within their own country felt by Italians (and many other nationalities as well.)

The European Union has been generous in its initial offering of economic assistance to the transitional regime in Tunisia.  The organization has committed itself to a 347 million dollar gift between now and 2013 with an immediate tranche of 23 million underway.  Yet even this generous an offer to a country of eleven million is not sufficient to provide an instant economic boost sufficient to offset the unemployment and underemployment crisis which did so much to trigger the overthrow movement.  Even if the US comes through with an equivalent or greater amount, the aggregate will not be sufficient to meet the expectations of the successful practitioners of "people power."

The necessary inference is that more Tunisians will get on board more boats and hope to get to Europe.  Italy being the closest place, it is only expectable that the current flood (described by an Italian official as "Biblical") will continue and grow.  The Italian proposal to "assist" the Tunisian authorities in stemming the flow by stationing Italian police and other security forces in Tunisian territory was a rational albeit politically ill-considered response to the looming crisis.

It is not surprising that the transitional government rejected the Italian offer as an insult to Tunisian sovereignty and national dignity.  The Tunisians may need the assistance desperately, but there is no way foreign security forces can be accepted without fatal political consequences.  Revolutions, even those of the leaderless sort, are not known for rationality.

It is a bit harder to understand the thundering denunciation by the German ForMin of Italy's plea for a unified European Union stance on the migration crisis.  Herr Westerwelle undoubtedly understands that the EU is already threatened by losing control of its collective external border as has been underscored by the massive influx of Turks across the border into Greece and thence throughout the Union.  The addition of economically motivated masses from Tunisia--and quite probably Egypt as well--will have severe internal political consequences for both the EU and many of its member states.  The anxiety felt by many Europeans over the growing Islamization of the region is not baseless and is not going to go away soon.

The possibility of Egyptians joining the exodus should not be discounted hastily.  The removal of Mubarak will not create any new jobs.  Even a robustly prosecuted campaign to retrieve the billions allegedly stolen by the  Mubarak family and cronies will do nothing in the short term to address the very real economic problems confronting the Egyptians.  Given that the tourism industry has been damaged by the events of the past three weeks and that the extent of the damage is not yet known, there is a high probability that unemployment and its evil twin underemployment will continue upward.

The bitter truth has not yet spread through the enthusiastic "revolutionaries" of Tahiri Square:  Removal of a dictator, no matter how odious, does not in and of itself do a damned thing to enhance the economic quality of life generally.  When the realization does sink in, the consequences are not predictable in detail, but it is fair to posit that one result will be a flow of Egyptians from the Land of the Nile to anywhere north where jobs might be found.  Being a lot larger in population than Tunisia, it is safe to assume that even if the percentage of economic refugees is small, the aggregate number will be large.

The EU had best take note of what is happening in that small and distant rock of Lampedusa and pull together a common stance on the question of economic refugees generally--or simply surrender to the latest outbreak of Volkwanderung.  Economic grants alone will not do the job of keeping Egyptians home.  Considering the structural problems of the Egyptian economy, the size and characteristics of the Egyptian population, there simply is not enough free money floating around to reconstitute the Egyptian economy fast enough or completely enough to seduce the folks into staying where they are.

Refugees are only one of the fallout aspects attendant upon the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak.  There is another, potentially far more damaging bit of unintended consequence at work here.  That is the status of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.  The Supreme Military Council could not bring itself to mention that treaty specifically.  Instead the assembled generals confined their commitment to maintaining all currently extant "international agreements."

It is known that the generals are not of a single mind regarding the treaty.  Some, like the current Minister of Defense and de facto chief-of-state, are in favor of keeping it intact.  Others are in favor of either scrapping it or seriously restructuring it.  A leading moderate, secular political leader, Ayman Nour, has opined that the the treaty is finished.  He is in favor of a total renegotiation of the historic agreement signed by Anwar Sadat over thirty years ago.

The treaty is the single greatest reason the US tied itself so closely to both Sadat and Mubarak.  We were willing to ignore the many ways in which Egypt violated the spirit of both the Treaty and the Camp David Accords as long as the peace held.  The government of Israel was willing to do the same.  Keeping a peace, even a very, very cold one, was much preferred over allowing the resumption of war either direct or via proxy.

Arguably, the Mubarak regime became less and less willing to avoid war by proxy given the greater flow of weapons to Gaza in the past few years.  Certainly, there is no love lost for Israel either at governmental or popular levels within Egypt.  Nor is the Muslim Brotherhood solely responsible for the monolithic hatred of Israel or the burgeoning industry in antisemitic film, written materials, or television programs which exists in Egypt.  It is fair to conclude that the Muslim Brotherhood is not the only group in Egypt endlessly hostile to both Israel and Jews.

While there is very little probability of the Egyptian military undertaking another war with Israel in the event the treaty is nullified, there is every probability that Egyptian support for proxies such as Hamas would increase.  This is likely to occur even if the Treaty is allowed to soldier on in formal existence.  Mubarak had been trending in that direction as a sop to public opinion if for no other reason, and it is most probable that both the transitional government and whatever successor finally comes to power will do the same--just more openly.

Democracy will do nothing to assure the peace continues.  No blathering about elections, people's will, transparency, and other nice sounding warm, fuzzy words will do one iota to keep the peace.  Nor will these words create jobs, fix broken economies, feed the hungry, or do anything else real and material.

The American administration as well as its European equivalents will be well advised to keep this in mind as they pull out the stops on promoting democracy.  It ain't a magic wand.  It neither keeps peace, assures prosperity, or ends hatred.

Human "Rights" Versus History--And Reality

A few days ago the European Court of Human Rights made a decision which boggles the mind of anyone even dimly aware of the sweep of history in that tight little region. The Court's action is one more example not only of "hard cases make bad law," but also of the contemporary phenomenon of fearing to give "offense" to supposed "sensitivities."

The case arose from the "offense" taken by an Italian citizen of Finnish nativity. She alleged that the presence of crucifixes in some of the schoolrooms attended by her two children violated her rights of parental control. When the case was first filed in a local Milan court it was dismissed. The woman was undeterred in her search for justice and filed her case with the Strasbourg based Human Rights Court.

The Strasbourg crew ruled in her favor ordering the Italian government to pay several thousand Euros to the woman as damages. The Court did stop short of ordering the Italian government to pull the crosses out of the schools. But, the firestorm of protest and outrage with which the Italians greeted the decision could scarcely be increased had the Court gone to that extreme.

The Italian Prime Ministers and many others noted sharply that the cross was far more than a purely religious symbol. They protested that the cross and the Christian religion of which it is emblematic are a part of European history which is integral and cannot be separated from all other aspects of the European past--and present.

The Geek has no personal dog in the fight. His religious preferences are both loose and varied. However, he is a historian by both education and propensity. As such he has both studied and taught the role of the Christian religion in all its many denominations in the weaving of the historical tapestry in both Europe and the US.

Indeed, the Geek's emphasis upon the critical role of religion, particularly the Protestant flavor in US history caused significant friction with his coworkers in the Grove of Academe. The importance of Protestant theology and its secular outgrowths in the American historical experience cannot and should not be understated, but this reality was seen by the vast majority of the academics at three universities as both unfortunate and unworthy of mention.

The reasoning for this anti-historical conclusion was (and is) difficult to fathom. At least some of the Geek's fellow professors did use a line of logic resembling that taken by the Human Rights Court: Religion should be excluded from the public square as it was (A) a matter of personal values, (B) a source of "offense" to those who do not share the religion, (C) without a complete silence on religion it would be impossible to construct an impermeable barrier between the secular state and the assorted communities of faith.

The Geek is a very strong proponent of the separation of faith and state. But, this does not mean eliminating either discussion of the role of religion in the historical development of a state or the abolishment of symbols emblematic of that reality.

The Christian religion in both its Catholic and Protestant forms is integral to the history of Europe generally and Italy in particular. Whether the elites of the European Union are comfortable with that reality or not is irrelevant. Whether the elites of the European Union are happy with the centrality of Christianity having defined the very nature of Europe is also irrelevant.

Far more relevant is the view held by most of the hoi polloi of Europe. That view is simply that Christianity is so central to the European identity as that has developed over the centuries that any attempt to extract it and its symbols serves to destroy both the power of the past and the identity of today.

A survey of the European media (including the "new" media) indicates that this view is prevalent from Ireland to the Eastern Marches of Poland and Slovakia. Implicit in this view is the understanding of the role of intangibles such as history and religion in history as a source of collective identity at a time of homogenization. The perceived triumph of transnational corporations, the seeming victory of transnational cultural products, music, TV, films, fast foods, shopping malls, combine to reinforce the centrality of symbols which contain historical resonance.

Like it or not, the crucifix is one of the most potent symbols in the establishment and heralding of community (and, often, personal) identity. The power of the cross in this very role is underscored by both the lawsuit itself and the Court's ruling.

The Court pointedly argued that the presence of crucifixes in classrooms might serve to discomfort people who were not adherents of the Christian faith as well as atheists. The Geek doubts that too many non-theists would be so perturbed as it takes a strong sense of personal identity and value to let go of the comfort blanket of faith and its expressions. So, the crux of the case is the fear that Muslims would find themselves offended by this particular symbol of European history.

The Geek makes this surmise on the following predicates. First, the record shows both in Europe and the US that few, if any, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, or others find themselves "offended" by the presence of Christian symbols ranging from towering spires to simple wooden crosses with or without a suffering human body. Second, Muslims alone have been pushing repeatedly for special protection against any symbol or word which they subjectively define as offensive or defamatory. Third, only Muslims have demonstrated a propensity to attack symbols or expressions they consider "offensive" or "defamatory" with physical violence.

In short, it seems quite probable that the Human Rights Court was influenced in its attempt to deny the reality of the past not only by the multi-cultural fads of today but also by an unexpressed fear of Muslim actions. Implicit in the Court's ruling was a genuflection to the fear that, unless placated, some Muslim or another would express personal outrage by perpetrating public outrage via the suicide bomb or some other expression of jihad.

Placation or appeasement by self-inflicted denial of one's own historical past and its direct connection to the present is a very short-sighted action. It is doomed to fail. Not only will the casting of a steak to the wolf not convince the critter to become a vegetarian, it excises the historical backbone of a community. A community like an individual cannot live long without a backbone.

The Italians and others are absolutely correct in flipping off the Court. By so doing they are acknowledging a great truth.

The community or the person who casts off his past is forsaking his future. The past is never dead and without the past being fully accepted it is not possible to have the solid base necessary to have a future.

The greatest human right of all, a right tossed in the ditch by the Court, is the right to have a past and express it in the present. After all, what are we, any of us, any of our communities, without a past?

And, if we do not know who we are and whence we came, how can we hope to have a future?

(Islamo)fascism--We've Seen It All Before

Norman Podhoretz has written a new book. Comments concerning it have been bouncing around the blogosphere. (The title is World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamophobia.)

Even though Mr Podhoretz is the Godfather of the Neocons, the Geek is inclined to align himself with much in this effort. Much of the thrust of Poehoretz's effort can be accurately characterized as seeing the current struggle between the West and the ideology of Islamisim as being a Second Cold War. That has long been the Geek's view.

So, what's bothering the Geek?

The use of the term "fascism." You have to remember that the Geek is a product of the Sixties. During that decade the words "fascism" and "fascist" were used by many to disparage anyone whose social and political views were to the right of far, far left.

Fascist and fascism are still used so loosely that their meanings are blurred to the point of disappearance. That's what is rankling the Geekmo.

Let's go to the videotape.

Fascism and its derivatives is an English translation of an Italian term which came into currency during the 1920s in this country. The initiating event was the March on Rome by Mussolini and his Blackshirts.

The March ended with Mussolini in power as prime minister and the Fascist Party seen by many in Europe and the United States as having saved Italy from socialism and chaos. The Fascists with slogans extolling "obedience," "nation," "work," "sacrifice," and "progress" were widely hailed on both sides of the Atlantic.

When the Great Depression hit hard in the early Thirties, Americans saw Fascism as a possible salvation for the economic crises and the resulting socio-political turbulence. Certainly most Americans saw Mussolini's fascists as a lesser evil than the Bolsheviks of Lenin and Stalin.

The anti-materialistic rhetoric of the Italian fascists along with their tub-thumping on behalf of family values, religion, and self-sacrifice resonated with many Americans. Not even the hyper-nationalistic militarism of so many of Mussolini's speeches chilled the affection for Fascism felt by so many Americans of the discontented middle class or the fearful upper class.

A close scrutiny of both the practices of Italian fascism and the American perception of these shows several high profile features. Italian fascism was authoritarian, anti-democratic, and subordinated the individual to the needs of the state. It was anti-libertarian. Fascism was intensely nationalistic with a broad interpretation of the nature and extent of the Italian nation It was expansionistic, militaristic.

Critical observers of Italy and the American fascination with Mussolini's movement noted that fascism had much in common with Soviet communism. They correctly emphasized that both were dictatorial internal security states which relied on a mix of internally directed semi-messianic propaganda and brute force to keep the population marching in the appointed direction.

That was true. As far as it went. There were overlooked differences though. Fascism was inherently backward looking. It asked and answered a question which had high emotional appeal and factual irrelevance.

The question?

Once we were so great. Now we are so small. Why?

Fascism Italian style categorically held that by returning to the abandoned ways of stern Roman ancestors, by forswearing soft, indolent practices like democracy, individualism, and the entire sweep of Nineteenth Century European Liberalism, Italy could recapture its former greatness. By sacrifice, obedience, family values, morality, and solidarity, Italians would stand tall and proud again.

The messages both explicit and implicit had powerful appeal to people who felt themselves betrayed by "history." People robbed of their greatness by "others." The words of fascism had an almost hypnotic effect on those who needed something to believe in, to join that was larger than the individual, inherently heroic. For the person who believed himself to be meaningless, marginalised, without a substantial future, fascism had the appearance of answers.

The messages, both explicit and implied, of Islamist ideology is very close to that of Italian fascism (and its clone National Socialism.) Islamists ask the same question as did the original Fascists. Islamists answer the question in a manner virtually identical to the Blackshirts.

Islamism and its militant expression, Jihadism, appeals emotionally to those who believe themselves to have been victimized by history, robbed of their past greatness by "others," and made impotent by imported decadence. For the guy who feels himself meaningless, pushed to the far fringe of life despite education or affluence of background, for the guy in need of a cause in which to submerge himself, Islamism has the appeal today that Fascism had seventy-five years ago.

The Islamist has powerful tools in his propaganda arsenal. He has the sense of injustice felt by many young men both in the Mideast and in either Europe or the United States. The Islamist can appeal to nationalism and to victimization whether actual or simply self-perceived. The Islamist can invoke family, the warrior tradition of the Mideast, and a sense of honor impugned.

And, the Islamist can use a mechanism denied the Fascists in recruiting, motivating, organizing and using the bodies and minds of men. Religion.

Islam, in common with other creedal religions, is filled with inconsistencies and ambiguities. The Holy Writ of Islam, as with other religions, allows even demands interpretation by humans. As a result, the Islamist has an advantage denied the Fascist. He's got the old time religion to use, whether he believes what he says or not.

In a very real and basic sense, the contest between Islamism and the West is a battle of ideology, of world view, of understandings of the relations between individuals as well as individual and state. The Islamist-West contest is the same as earlier struggles--the Cold War and World War II.

A quick, cursory consideration of the original Fascism shows that it is not unfair to apply the term to the Islamists. There are sufficient points of identity between fascism and Islamism to justify the linkage of the words.

Having conceded this, the Geek still is uncomfortable with the term. Not only is it intrinsically redundant, it allows an unnecessary and counterproductive conflation of Islam with fascism.

Islam isn't the enemy in the new Cold War. That distinction belongs to Islamism. It's practitioners, both Islamist and Jihadist, are the opponent. Not Muslims.

We have to keep a firm grip on that difference. If we don't, we will make more Islamists out of the Muslim population.

If we do remember the difference, we have the chance of isolating the Islamist and Jihadist sharks from the Muslim sea.