Reading the small print

Yes.
I was surprised by the sheer stupidity of some of those comments. It was as if the contributors (Cohen, for example) were trying quite hard to discourage any reasonable person from supporting the statement. I suppose that, come to think of it, that is their agenda; they want only hardline rightist militarists, preferably deeply dishonest ones. How else can one be certain of unity?

Marko : Are you serious?

Dr Quiggin gives a very clear reason as to why he won’t sign – namely that the petition conflates issues. It’s a legitimate reason.

Ultimately the petition appears to be a more sophisticated version of President Bush’s statement ‘That either you are with us or with the terrorists’ .

Nick Cohen:

The authentic Muslim has become the blood-crazed fanatic rather than the reformer. The authentic liberator has become the fascist rather than the democrat. This is a betrayal on an epic scale which casts doubt on whether it is now possible to have a decent left.

Still getting the retainer from Ahmad Chalabi, one presumes.

“A simple statement that terrorism, whatever the purported cause and whoever the perpetrator, is a crime against humanity …”

Since when? Why is this meme creeping over the internet? (I suspect it’s a marxisant tendency to think in terms of state terrorism, though clearly enough the term has morphed since Lenin and Kautsky’s spat to mean something quite distinct).

As Charles Townshend notes, a good definition of Terrorism (coming from an anarchist supporter) is as follows:

“It was first distinctly outlined in Johannes Most’s ‘Philosophy of the Bomb’, an anarchist tract of the 1880s, and rests on a number of connected propositions:
1. outrageous violence will seize the public imagination;
2. its audience can thus be awakened to political issues;
3. violence is inherently empowering, and ‘a cleansing force’ (as the later anticolonial writer Frantz Fanon put it);
4. systematic violence can threaten the state and impel it into delegitimizing reactions;
5. violence can destabilize the social order and threaten social breakdown (the ‘spiral of terror’ and counterterror);
6. ultimately the people will reject the government and turn to the ‘terrorists’.

Crimes against humanity are neither neccessary nor sufficient to define the tactic.

‘you will be on the side of best and the bravest.’

We live in a world in which Nick Cohen and (presumably) Oliver Kamm, and Peter Tatchell have (unilaterally) voted themselves the ‘best’ and ‘bravest’ people. Some clarification might be in order. Are they merely the best and bravest people in Britain, or are they actually the best and bravest people in the world? Or perhaps the Universe?

Now obviously, anyone in their right mind will agree with them. It is self-evident that as well as being brilliantly handsome, stunningly intelligent, and the greatest Sunday columnist for a mid-market broadsheet the world has ever seen, (for example) Nick Cohen is also fantastic in bed and can run faster than a train.

Nevertheless, unworthy as I am, I would still like to know more. Does he have any super-powers, like the Fantastic Four? Or is he, like Batman, underneath his brilliant disguise, merely a normal human who has raised himself to almost superhuman levels of ability via long study and training in the mysterious East?

It’s a shame that none of these people can use their ‘bravery’ to actually join the armed forces and take the fight to the enemy, but I’m sure they are all busy people, what with all the petitions they have to sign and so forth, and I’m sure the British and American (and Iraqi) soldiers currently coming home in boxes will understand.

Stephen Pollard:

The Guardianista fellow-travellers of terror, who stress its supposed causes, are the useful idiots of the Islamofascists. … it is imperative that those of us who believe in democracy and liberty stand up and fight. Not just against the obvious enemy, but also against the enemy within – those who claim to be on the Left, but whose views have nothing in common with the decency for which the Left ought proudly to stand.

Oliver Kamm:

… Conor Cruise O’Brien identified an attitude he termed “unilateral liberalism”. This is a stance acutely sensitive to threats to liberty arising from actions by democratic states, but curiously phlegmatic about threats to liberty from the enemies of those states.

… many of us on the Left can recognise a similar tendency, and worse, in the response of progressives to the atrocities of 9/11 and other acts of suicide-terrorism against established and emerging democracies.

Nick Cohen:

The Michael Moroonification of the majority of leftish opinion might not seem to matter greatly. Obviously, anyone concerned with upholding basic principles is going to want to oppose the apologists for the extreme right, mock their perfidy and correct their errors.

Lovely.

“The email summary is one all decent people would endorse. The full statement, while tendentious, is within the bounds of civilised discourse. The supporting statements (at least most of those I sampled) drip with venomous hatred that would not be out of place on a jihadist website.”

I am coming to the view that all of politics is organised groups mouthing boilerplate platitudes with vile small print.

http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.html

Just keeps getting better with age. I do wonder though if it was actually written at the time it proports to be. On the one hand, adequacy.org would never let truth get in the way of a good troll, OTOH they would prolly think that the 9/11 attacks were manna from heaven (in a trolling sense).

John,
I signed the statement because, well, I read it and pretty much agreed with it. I didn’t read the explanations of those who also signed it, and I’m not bound by or committed to their reasons for signing it.

I marched against the war in Iraq because, well, I was pretty much against it. I didn’t agree with many others who marched against the war, and I’m not bound by or committed to their reasons for being against it.

I fought the Israel boycott in the AUT because, well, I was pretty much opposed to it. I didn’t agree with some others who opposed the boycott, and I’m not bound by or committed to their reasons for opposing it.

There’s a pattern here. Perhaps I should not have done any of these things, because of this general problem of guilt by association. But that’s a recipe for generalised abstention. So there must be criteria that specify when those considerations kick in, and when they get overridden. And you must have such criteria, because you think they kick in on this occasion.

I think you set the bar pretty high, and I think other readers should read the statement, and, if they pretty much agree, should sign it.

Ah, Orwell. I wondered when he would show up. I was reminded of him by the nostalgic references to the IRA bombing campaign which have shown up in some recent commentary – how they used to phone the police with warnings and so forth. Orwell was struck by a similar nostalgia when the Germans replaced the V1 bomb:

V2 supplies another instance of the contrariness of human nature. People are complaining of the sudden unexpected wallop with which these things go off . ‘It wouldn’t be so bad if you got a bit of warning’ is the usual formula. There is even a tendency to talk nostalgically of the days of the V1. The good old doodlebug did at least give you time to get under the table, etc. etc. Whereas, in fact, when the doodlebugs were actually dropping, the usual subject of complaint was the uncomfortable waiting period before they went off. Some people are never satisfied.

Similarly, it seems that Islamist terrorists are somehow worse than secular terrorists.

Brendan,

Do you think disabled people should be allowed a view on the war on terror?

Brendan:

Must one join the police force before one can legitimately support a crackdown on organized crime?

Must one be willing to live under the rule of Saddam Hussein before one can legitimately oppose his removal from power?

In general, if you insist that people bear all the costs of the policies they advocate, who shall ‘scape whipping?

“Must one join the police force before one can legitimately support a crackdown on organized crime?”

If you’re going to quote someone who did just that, and compare the people you disagree with to the people who disagreed with him…

steve,

Why are you speaking of generalities? Is it because you don’t like the specifics?

The US Army is short of soldiers and it is not meeting its recruitment goals. That is how things are right here in the US and right now. Don’t give me a stupid hypothetical question.

Our army needs you right now. They need you. Right now. Why are you wasting time playing some stupid word game on the internet?

steve: had you not noticed that this is an academic website?

In what way does having an academic debate about some issue denigrate the efforts of those who are involved in that issue for real?

Who here is mistaking participation in such debate for a courageous act?

And what’s with the masturbation fixation?

ray: are you really under the impression that the argument: “my opponents are like the opponents of X, so I am like X” is valid?

I hope not.

But if it’s not valid, why do you think that someone who compares his opponents to the opponents of Orwell is even implicitly comparing himself to Orwell?

So far as I can tell, “I am not as good as Orwell, but my opponents are just as bad as his were, and for the same reasons” is an entirely cogent statement.

If you compare yourself to Orwell (as ‘eric’ implicitly does by comparing his opponents to Orwell’s opponents) when the only thing you have in common with Orwell is that, er, you disagree with some people, and you know, um, Orwell disagreed with some people too…

This is off topic, but pointing out Orwell’s views on intellectuals who were soft on fascism in the 1930s is in no logical way a suggestion that the author is comparing himself to Orwell.

For instance if I pointed out Alex Ferguson’s views on referees, would that mean I was comparing myself to Alex Ferguson? Or if I pointed out Nigella Lawson’s views on chocolate chip muffins, it would not mean I was claiming to wander around my kitchen in a tight cardigan suggestively sucking melted treacle off my fingers. Get a grip.

Finally, you say you found it a “highly unpleasant experience” to read statements “drip with venomous hatred” toward the perpetrators of these acts.

Alan, I think you have misread this part of John’s post. The “venomous hatred” in those statement is not directed to the perpetrators of acts of terrorism but towards those sections of the left (or “left” if you prefer) who disagree with Cohen, Kamm, etc.

The reason I don’t like this statement is that it’s either a pointless loyalty oath or it’s a blank cheque. Alan Johnson et al have not made it clear what is going to be done with their “Unite Against Terror Statement”. If it’s just going to hang around on the internet like a thinking man’s “werenotafraid.com” then it is a bit pointless. Also if that is all it’s intended for then it seems silly beyond belief to have prominently displayed personal attacks on many potential signers. In fact, it would be so silly to do that if it was just a unity statement (and to do so in an entirely one-sided manner; where are the statements criticising Blair and Bush for acts of state terror? I know I sent them), that I can’t believe that it is one. In any case, it’s usually good practice to refuse to sign pointless loyalty oaths because otherwise you tend to encourage the kind of people who create them.

It seems much more likely to me that this petition is going to be used in support of a much more specific political agenda. Specifically, Alan Johnson is going to use it as evidence of widespread popular support for some as yet undisclosed policy agenda, probably not a million miles distant from Labour Party policy. And anyone whose name on it who finds out that they end up disagreeing with what the “United Against Terror Coalition” say is going to feel a) embarrassed and b) used. It’s a blank cheque.

I think, by the way, that this silliness and hysteria is an example of what Nick Cohen meant by the Michael Mooronification of the left.

Oh lord. Invoking Michael Moore (ooh, sorry, “Mooron”) already. Tell me why we should take anything you say seriously ever again?

There really needs to be a new Michael Moore corollary to Godwin’s law, I think.

Oh, so _that_ is what he meant! Are you sure?

Anyhow, all I wanted to say is that I don’t see the hatred John Quiggin is referring to — whether directed at the pseudo left or at the terrorists, and in fact certainly not toward the pseudo left.

To call it such is an insult to Nick Cohen, Oliver Kamm, Stephen Pollard and Peter Tatchell.

Wow, steve, you and eric are just like the Sanhedrin, in their persecution of Jesus.

Jon’s attitude, “I marched against the war in Iraq because, well, I was pretty much against it. I didn’t agree with many others who marched against the war, and I’m not bound by or committed to their reasons for being against it” is a fair one, but I can’t believe it is held by most of the organisers or signatories to this statement. In fact the error of judgement of those who marched against the war, not for their political view but for marching with its unsavoury organisers, is one of their favourite subjects.

Furthermore at first, much like John, I thought it seemed a worthwhile exercise given the political disunity over the last few years. But then I read the ‘why I signed’ from far more politically aware people than myself, for example, Nick Cohen, Stephen Pollard and Peter Tatchell and I realised that their rationale for signing it was nothing to do with uniting against terror, and instead was to continue their campaigns (often going back decades) against other sub-sections of the “left”, in fact in Tatchell’s case not even a sub-section, rather one man, Ken Livingstone.

The problem then is not one of personal distate, (in fact I am normally a big fan of Tatchell’s work). It is that given this evidence as to what these signatories believe is the point of the exercise, it is wise to conclude that you have misinterpreted it badly, and withdraw swiftly.

My goodness Brendan’s a nasty piece of work isn’t he?

Anyhoo…

Are Messrs Quiggin and Dsquared really suggesting that Unite against Terror will be used to push a neo-con political agenda?

It’s what it says on the pharkin tin – Unite against Terror. Get a bloody grip.

Since it was organised by the Labour Friends of Iraq plus a leading pro-war website, since all of the “personal statements” appear to support a broadly neo-con agenda (in the sense that they believe that spreading democracy to the Middle East by force is a good idea) and since it is an utterly pointless exercise if it is not going to be used to push some political agenda then I would like to see a) some kind of promise that it is not going to be used for what certainly looks like its purpose b) some more obvious unity in the personal statements and c) fewer personal insults (ideally none at all) before I thought it was safe to sign.

‘A simple statement that terrorism … is a crime against humanity, would have been much more valuable than the tendentious analysis presented in this statement.‘

Is terrorism a crime against humanity? I keep on hearing this, and have asked people to explain why this is the case on various blogs, but have never got a response. This is a genuine request – I’m not a specialist in this area – and am willing to accept correction.

As far as I’m aware, according to the Rome Statute of the ICC ‘[murder] when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack‘ is a CaH. And:

‘“Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts … against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack‘

As far as I can see, terrorism often won’t meet all the criteria.

Brendan,

“And who mentioned volunteers? Not even i would actually expect the pro-invasion-as-long-as-someone-else-is-doing-it tribe to join the army and work without pay”

Neither would I, by the definition of your phrase, because if they joined the army it _wouldn’t_ be someone else doing it. Besides which, and this seems to be forgotten, is it only people with knowledge of the military and of servable age who are allowed to have an opinion on anything of this nature? I’d suggest that knocks most of us out of it for one or other reason. As you wanted to keep Saddam in power perhaps you could have volunteered as a pilot to patrol the no-fly zones to protect the Nothern Kurds? or been a Red Cross worker trying to save the lives of children dying from sanctions starvation? it’s a pointless argument.

I think a condemnation of terrorism that was serious would, at the very least, point the finger at the failure of financing governments like Pakistan’s, which have worked hand in glove with terrorism in the past, to “police” terrorism now; it would condemn any government or coalition that used the war on terror as a disguise to hatch a war for a very different purpose, as the U.S. and the U.K. did in 2002; and it would condemn the villification of real anti-terrorist measures (for instance, police measures) in favor of faux anti-terrorist measures (as in, military action against countries that were not generators of terror), such as happened in the last presidential campaign in the U.S. Any petition against terrorism that ignores the one glaring and salient fact — that the promise made by George Bush to bring down Osama bin Laden in 2001 was callously and criminally unfullfilled — doesn’t seem to me worth the piece of paper it is written on. Among the signatories are many, such as Christopher Hitchens, who have spent a lot of ink in the last two years trying to persuade people that Osama b is either dead or so crippled he doesn’t matter — a use of diversionary propaganda in support of the policies of the invaders of a bystander country that is, arguably, acting with extreme negigence vis a vis any terrorist threat, if not a passive aid to the terrorists themselves. I myself would sign an anti-terrorist petition that clearly outlined how a malign symbiosis between terrorists and “anti-terrorist” politicians in the West has left civilians more vulnerable to violent death or injury, and how anti-terrorism requires a global reckoning with this fact as a preliminary to a real anti-terrorist policy.

A lesson how to get a grip, Simon.

Widen your frame of reference in your personalised explanation for why you are signing.

In the meantime – how about signing a basic pledge of unity in the face of mass murder.

Or are we even quibbling about that?

Aside from the obvious logical stupidity of the ‘chickenhawk’ argument it seems to have escaped Brendan’s attention that the British army is a fully professional armed force and has not been calling for volunteers.

Curiously, it seems to have escaped Harry’s attention that the same applied to Bethnal Green & Bow.

Anyway, whenever Cohen invokes Michael Moore, we get to mention how he seems to think that ‘decent’ included carrying water for Chalabi.

I can only look forward for their ‘United Against Voldemort And In Favour Of Cute Kittens oh, and in favour of the neocon agenda’ petition.

I will point to one feature which is repeated over and over in allegedly anti terrorist material. This is an attack on “understanding” the terrorists.

Now “understanding” can mean many things. I will tell you right now that it has been used by the alleged anti terrorists to attack Michael Scheur (who I certainly don’t fully agree with) who uses it in the sense of analyze, understand goals and who specifically states theirs and ours are not compatible, but who is portrayed by the so called anti terrorists as fuzzy wuzzy appeaser.

People such as Generals Scharzkopf and Zinni called on us to understand the problems of invasion and possible civil war. They are ignored because they can’t be attacked. But anyone who calls on us to understand the situation is attacked if the information is not Panglassian.

This is “faith based reality” we deal with. It’s insanity has reached the point where the right is trying out the thesis that civil war in Iraq was George Bush’s secret plan:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/07/global-civil-war.html

“Understanding” is anything which is not blind acceptance of the rights perspective (the president is more reasonable than they) and it double plus ungood.

In faith based reality Iraq and the world don’t exist. It is about getting thiose liberals, the enemy within. Notice the complete lack of concern of the recent Iraqi agrements with Iran or with the recent (probably) Kurdish bombings in Turkey. Do the torture and murders of Sunni (allegedly) by Iraqi security count as terrorism?

There is a long list.

But that isn’t the point. A specific set of choices are made as the *only* legitimate response against terrorism. The success of these methods is not the issue, they are like the 5 year plans in the old USSR, they never worked, but the point was to BELIEVE!

Rather than sign vague petitions lets sign specific petitions such as Mr. President: We want 10,000 new qualified Arabic translators within our intelligencem, police, state department, military departments within 2 years and quite frankly we’re wondering why the hell yiou didn’t start taking care of it 3 years ago.”

Nah, can’t do it. That’s “understanding.” We oppose those who would understand terrorists.

‘On the other hand, where I disagree with Brendan, is that I see no reason why people who supported the invasion but who don’t go around levelling accusations of cowardice at their political opponents or proclaiming their own ‘bravery’ should be singled out for criticism because they aren’t actually making plans to serve in the military.

It’s a matter of calling the ‘fighting keyboarders’ on their hypocrisy rather than a matter of denying legitimate comment to non-combatants.’

Fair point, but as the pro-invasion people fail to point out, I have nowhere actually suggested that they be stripped of their right of free speech. Nor (to the best of my knowledge) have I ever suggested that because they do not fight this automatically means that their arguments are worthless or that any evidence they marshall is besides the point.

My point is much simpler. I simply do not believe that they actually believe their own arguments. I do think (and I mean this with no irony) that if any of us genuinely believed that ‘this is the 1930s all over again’ and that Iraq was Spain, we would give serious thought to picking up a gun and joining the International Brigade (or the equivalent). Obviously some of us might decide that we had families etc. and couldn’t go, which is fair enough. But we would at least think about it.

The reason I am pissed off with the pro-invasion cultists is that they obviously never gave a seconds thought, as they watched ‘our boys’ being shipped off to the desert, to the idea that one day the call might come for them, and that this war might lead to a situation where one day they would have to pick up a gun and fight.

Moroever it is clear that if this situation did arise none of them have the slightest intention of doing anything. I have made this point on a variety of blogs and sitautions and not once, ( not once ) has a pro-invasion type even hinted that they might be prepared to fight. It is obvious that they already have their excuses (bad leg, bad hair day, don’t have the change for the bus) already sorted.

And the reason they do this is because, deep down, they know this isn’t the thirties, that the threat is very different and that the situation is very different. Thet boast about their own bravery because they know they are never going to get called on it (they are probably right).

(incidentally I have debated with soldiers and ex-soldiers with their (sometimes pro-war) viewpoints on blogs and have found them usually far more reasoned, civil and decent than the middle class keyboard warriors who ‘support’ them. It is also noticeable that some of the most searching criticism of this war has come from current or ex-soldiers, something that the ‘pro-liberation left’ invariably ignore).

Brendan, there is one thing I don’t understand about your position. Why do you want people to join up to fight a war you obviously think is unjust? Don’t you think the logic goes the other way — that we should universalize the “let somebody else fight this war’ position of the chickenhawks, squeezing to death the armies of the coalition powers so that they are forced to withdraw from their ill judged war? I think counter-recruiters should take full advantage of the chickenhawk position to persuade young people that patriotism doesn’t require enlistment; the model, to me, is Dick Cheney’s statement about Vietnam: I had other priorities. Obviously, this did not impede his success — it in fact helped him get a head start as others fought and died in Vietnam. The moral is clear: sign up and become a loser, or refuse to sign up and become a success. Follow your leaders.

I think the co-author Alan Johnson (#34)unwittingly describes why the statement is divisive for some.

You ask “why be so specific about the kind of terrorism that is being condemned here?” Because we have to be in order to measure the threat, its source, and decide how to respond. Isn’t that just obvious?”

There is a large political divide in how to measure the threat, its source and how to respond. And in being selective, the statement hints at a specific political opinion. And those that see it that way are confirmed in that by looking at the previous statements by the authors of the petition, and by some of those “why I signed” comments.

Besides I can’t imagine anyone taking terror seriously, agreeing to statements like
These terrorists do not hate what is worst in the societies they attack, but what is best.

But that’s probably because I’m a hardcore “root causer”. It takes some juggling to combine the well founded opinions of Olivier Roy and Robert Pape, but the result is still miles off from the Decent Left frontier.

The statement hints at a specific political opinion

It hardly ‘hints’ at a political opinion – the whole statement is exactly that and makes no secret of it.

Of course it is a political opinion what else did you think it was?

And unless you think that gender equality, racial and religious tolerance and a commitment to liberty and democracy are not the ‘best’ of our society – or unless you believe that Bin Laden is lying when he says he hates all those elements of free societies then what possible objection could you make to the phrase:

These terrorists do not hate what is worst in the societies they attack, but what is best.

?

Brendan,

Both Ali and Milne are on record in the Guardian as supporting the terrorists in Iraq.

Yes it is indeed stupid to suggest they should join the ‘resistance’ they support – I was merely highlighting the crassness of your position.

brendan: I am glad to learn that your strictures only apply to people who say that “Islamo-fascism [is] the new fascism,” and that “Christopher Hitchens [is] the new Orwell,” and “we are only weeks away from Islamic hordes descending through Spain, overthrowing the EU and reinstating the Caliphate,” and “this is World War 4,” and “we face a terrifying and ‘unprecedented threat’, and those who den[y] this…have to ‘wake up’ before Osama Bin Laden set up public executions in our local town square,” and “Cherie Blair [will] be frightened to go out in daytime without the Hijab” and “this is really ‘a battle for Western civilisation,’” and “‘Islamo-fascism’ is the new Nazi-ism,” and “Osama Bin Laden is Hitler.”

Trouble is, you were ostensibly responding to eric, who didn’t say any of these things – or anything remotely comparable.

Engage in guilt-by-association much?

Since you obviously lack the intellectual and emotional discipline necessary to characterize the views of your opponents at all fairly, I would strongly suggest that in the future you refrain from attempts at paraphrase and stick to actual quotations.

That’s not fool-proof, of course; for example, to write, as you do, that Nick Cohen “refers to himself as amongst the ‘best and bravest’” is an obvious distortion, despite the inclusion of three words worth of direct quotation. (I mean, really: for Mr. Cohen to write that anyone who, like him, signs the petition “will be on the side of the best and the bravest” simply is *not* for him to say that he is himself “among the best and bravest.” This is *not* a subtle point.)

Still, it would preserve you from some of your most obvious and embarassing logical errors.

Brendan, I’m completely serious about the silliness of trying to get chickenhawks to sign up. The reality is, the war in Iraq is supported by both parties in the U.S. and by Labour and the Conservative parties in the U.K. So getting out of Iraq is not going to happen via the parties. Nor is it going to happen in the blogosphere, although I love writing about these things as much as anybody. It is going to end by squeezing the volunteer army until Rumsfeld has no more men to play with. It is already happening, in fact. There is discontent in the army about the home front ignoring soldiers; there’s been a severe shortfall in enlistment, which the army disguises by lowering its enlistment targets.

So the question is, what are the drivers of enlistment, and how to counter them? Patriotism and the goal of success are the two major ones, I’d think. The patriotism issue is easily addressed. Even if you support the war, on the copious evidence of the war supporters, it doesn’t require you to fight it. Among young people, leaders and role models are important, so it is important to emphasize, without any lack of respect, that the President and Vice President both supported the Vietnam war without going, and nobody is questioning their patriotism. Quite the contrary. So (to be sarcastic about it), if you support the war, start a warblog — don’t enlist.

The success issue is trickier. A lot of counter-recruitment people are simply against the military. I think that is foolish. Joining the military in time of peace is an option that makes some economic sense. But in time of war, I think the point can be made that you will probably have less success. Not only because of the chance of being wounded or killed, but because veterans of wars are looked at with suspicion. The last two elections are great examples. The democratic candidate, who did go to war, was trashed for it; the guy who got his legs blown off in Vietnam was laughed at as a drunk by prominent columnists. In South Carolina, there was a whispering campaign about John McCain’s pow experience: he was said to be a little nuts. I think, rightly expressed, this would make a big impression on young people, who are highly susceptible to honor arguments. Even the people who support wars despise the soldiers that fight them. Behind the yellow ribbons is an “apply elsewhere” sign. Besides being emotionally effective, this is also true — to put it bluntly, they send you there to be a garbageman, and when you come home, they slot you into a position as a garbageman.

This isn’t true for peacetime service. You can be a soldier, take advantage of the economic opportunities, and come out without having the “crazy” label attached to you. It is important to be honest about that, too.

Of course it is a political opinion what else did you think it was?

A political opinion, that hints at a specific other political opinion, that is otherwise known under the catch-all label of “Decent Left”.

But I do admire your naïvité.

I think a basic pledge of unity in the face of mass murder is a good idea. But why drag terrorists into it? If we’re going to be easy with our own violence, related as acts of martial duty told simply without dwelling on the horrors and orders of magnitude more victims, well then small wonder the species is hopelessly vicious squabbling pricks, isn’t it?

Damn dirty apes.

brendan: Nick Cohen does not “praise” George Bush as “the authentic liberator.” You are simply misreading him.

Here’s what he writes:

“What we have witnessed is a sinister attempt by liberal opinion to deny legitimacy to the very liberals, feminists and socialists who have a right to expect support. The authentic Muslim has become the blood-crazed fanatic rather than the reformer. The authentic liberator has become the fascist rather than the democrat. This is a betrayal on an epic scale which casts doubt on whether it is now possible to have a decent left.”

For your better understanding, let’s amplify the second and third sentences a bit:

“The authentic Muslim [according to a certain “sinister” segment of liberal opinion] has become the blood-crazed fanatic [i.e., the terrorist] rather than the reformer [i.e., the moderate Muslim]. The authentic liberator [according to said “sinister” segment of liberal opinion] has become the fascist [i.e., the terrorist and those he serves] rather than the democrat.

In short, Cohen is not praising *anyone* as “the authentic liberator.” He is complaining that certain segments of “liberal opinion” regard terrorists as “authentic liberators.”

This may or may not be a defensible claim. But your interpretation simply misses the boat.

Again, this is *not* a subtle point.

Read better.

Think harder.

Write slower.

Soru, I figure the crepuscule of senility will be brightened, a bit, by the thought that I helped save one man or woman from being chewed up in a purposeless vanity war. Of course, sweeping away the whole criminal lot that got us into that war would be nice, too, but I am not counting on my memories of our current epoch being that sunny.

Steve

I must apologise. Nick Cohen’s piece is so incoherent and borderline ungrammatical that I really don’t know what it means anymore. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to say ‘Fascists are taken for liberators. Blood crazed fanatics are taken for reformers’? That would at least have made clear, if inaccurate.

I’m not excusing myself here: I accept that your (tendentious) reading is possible but so are many others and i’ve read it about six times now. But now I am getting angry that someone who gets paid more than any of us ever will ( and earns his living from writing!! ) is simply no longer capable of writing a coherent line of English prose (neither is Christopher Hitchens anymore. Style is the physiognomy of the soul, as they say. Draw your own conclusions).

And then what does this sentence mean?

‘Can one perso here name one genuine secular democratic party in Iraq—or Iran, or Syria or Palestine—they support and which acknowledges their support?’

What is the purpose of that last clause? And what does it mean? Do Iraqi political parties now have to write back to acknowledge my support? Is my support invalid unless this is the case? If this point isn’t important why raise it? Doesn’t it bother people that someone who is employed by an allegedly serious broadsheet appears to be incapable of presenting a logical argument in clear, umambiguous prose?

Incidentally the sneering tone of ‘the novel thrill of intellectual honesty.’ as though that was an orgasmic experience Cohen experiences on a regular basis leaves me in no doubt that Cohen does indeed consider himself to be a brilliant, brave and super-moral fellow who has (through sheer power of intellect) seen through the lies of the fellow travellers of the ‘Islamo-fascists’. The pro-invasion left is increasingly resembling a schoolboy’s circle jerk in which the participants perpetually rock to and forth, hands in each other’s laps, experiencing the ‘thrill of intellectual honesty’, while Iraq burns behind them.

May I note, incidentally, that not one person has answered my point about Christopher Hitchens and his open and explicit support for a known murderer and torturer? Is Hitchen’s feelings for fascism now so well known no one feels the need to comment on it?

I do think that a lot of this debate could be avoided if we just realised that the question “why don’t you Unite Against Terror?” could be easily replaced with “why don’t you sign my web petition?”. Because the second question can much more easily be answered “Because it’s a pointless vanity exercise which I would only sign if I was one of your mates and in fact I’m not because you’re so bloody rude”.

Wow. Cohen’s comment is a beauty. Who else could take a war led by a president whose open goal is to tear up the last remaining shred of the social welfare network in the U.S., whose favored Iraqi leader was a man who defrauded a bank in Jordan of 40 million dollars, and whose occupation is shoring up a Taliban state in Basra and, according to the Kurdish press, a national government that is directed by fatwa — and pretend that it is a socialist project?

Throw the metrics out the window. Throw the language out there too. Haul into the socialist hall of fame General Franco (whose views on religion are secular compared to the leader of the SCIRI party) and General Pinochet (whose social security plan was the inspiration for the leader of the socialist invasion of Iraq). It is a new day for the intellectually honest left. What bliss, to march to Utopia with Karl Rove leading the parade.

Wow. I feel like Woody Allen (was it Woody Allen?) in that movie where he brings in Marshall McLuhan (was it Marshall McLuhan?) to contradict someone’s silly misinterpretation of same.

brendan: the fact that you found Nick Cohen’s remarks “incoherent and borderline ungrammatical” while I found them perfectly straightforward should give you pause.

I don’t think that you’re stupid – but I do think that you have a problem reading those who disagree with you with any degree of charity.

As for Christopher Hitchens, he can shuffle for himself.

…“the democrat” quite obviously means “those courageous Muslims who fight for democracy.”

That’s a pretty strained interpretation. Sure, if there are no foreign forces involved “a liberator” certainly means a local friend of liberty. However when the year 2003 is mentioned, given that the main event of that year was an invasion billed as a liberation?

But you may be right. I have no desire to represent myself as an interpreter of the writings of Cohen, since I don’t read them at all frequently.

OK. Here’s one reason for not signing. I don’t wish to ‘Unite Against Terror.’ We weren’t united before, and I’ll be damned if the terrorists change the way we live.

It was a hypothetical.

soru

bq. Do you people actually believe in anything other than being against Bush?

Yes.

Number 27 in a series of Obvious Replies to Stupid Rhetorical Questions (with apologies to “the Editors”:http://www.thepoorman.net/ )

…or unless you believe that Bin Laden is lying when he says he hates all those elements of free societies…

Harry

“Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush’s claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example.”

Osama bin Laden

BTW, to make some of you squirm, I’d also suggest that AQ and its fellow travellers are not “Islamo-fascist.” For one, their ideology has nothing to do with the nation-state, which is pretty central to any form of fascism I’ve ever read about. I’d grant you that Wahabbi Islam is totalitarian, but its not fascist. Indeed, I’d say its closer to revolutionary Marxism in its psychological appeal and in the nature of its adherents.

Really, this term has two uses, none of which are descriptive. For the right and left wing, it is used to pretend the historical moment is similar if not exactly the same to that faced in 1940 or thereabouts. While in moral and intellectual terms, I have sympathy for this argument, in operational and existential terms, this argument is patently absurd. If you can’t see the massive operational, financial, military, and infrstructural power disparities between Nazi Germany and AQ, its probably not worth continuing the discussion. But I think this whole “Islamofascist” thing is doubly useful for the “prowarleft” because it makes them feel that they are unequivocally good and moral through there choices, when in reality, I would argue that AQ is much closer ideologically to the western leftist tradition, as bothNiall Ferguson and Olivier Roy have argued.

Well done for making this chap, still clinging to internationalism and activism, feel like an old lefty for the first time in ages.

Presumably “feel like an old lefty” has its common language meaning here of “feel completely ineffectual and useless”. I see that “Activism” is also being used as a one-word oxymoron too, since what you’re actually supporting is a web petition which it has been specifically promised is not going to lead to any action.

“On your side!“

But specifically in respect of Al Qaeda it is the most accurate word available in English.

“Islamofascist” is English in much the same sense as “Muslimonazi” is English. AFAIK the former was coined by Hitchens, the latter by Fafblog. IMO the most accurate term for a group like Al Qaeda is “cult”. But I would be interested in other suggestions. “Islamofascist” is strictly a propagandist’s word; useful precisely because it is not accurate. Mussolini called himself a fascist; no member or sneaking regarder of Al Qaeda would accept such a description, nor would anyone seeking to describe the movement in a strictly factual manner.

No, it means looking for equivalents in the West is a rhetorical, not a sociological exercise. The rhetoric is all about projecting shame.

Roger, you do realise that your logic justifies “Bush = Hilter” perfectly, don’t you? Kevin got there first, but using “Islamofascist” in your way would justify calling abortionists (because they take innocent lives and it’s “all about projecting shame”) “fascist.” BTW, is it OK to shoot fascists?

…worshiped the cult of leadership….

If that’s true of Al Qaeda, as you claim, what’s “Islamo” about them? Islam is implacably monotheistic.

Use the term if you want readers to identify you as just another warblogger, neocon or stop-the-stoppers headcase. But since this thread is about a statement ostensibly calling for unity, it may be worth remarking that you won’t persuade even the most moderate Muslims with language like that. Juan Cole explains:

It is hard to see the difference between the bigotry of anti-Semitism as an evil and the bigotry that Medved displays toward Islam. It is more offensive than I can say for him to use the word “Islamo-fascist.” Islam is a sacred term to 1.3 billion people in the world. It enshrines their highest ideals. To combine it with the word “fascist” in one phrase is a desecration and a form of hate speech. Are there Muslims who are fascists? Sure. But there is no Islamic fascism, since “Islam” has to do with the highest ideals of the religion. In the same way, there have been lots of Christian fascists, but to speak of Christo-Fascism is just offensive.

Of course if you are partial to words like Islamofascist, probably Juan Cole is not your kind of guy and persuasion isn’t really your thing.

_In the same way, there have been lots of Christian fascists, but to speak of Christo-Fascism is just offensive_

How else would you refer to the League of Archangel Michael in 1930s Romania?

http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=04d3bc812d7c40d6bf4c3dd911e407a1&referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,9;journal,2,13;linkingpublicationresults,1:110543,1

_Romania’s most important fascist movement, the Legion of Archangel Michael (also called the Iron Guard), willingly inserted strong elements of Orthodox Christianity into its political doctrine to the point of becoming one of the rare modern European political movements with a religious ideological structure. It also drew on the support of the minority of Orthodox clergy that was devoted to it, a number of whom stood as Legionary candidates in the 1937 elections. However, Orthodox Christian spirituality underwent significant modifications within the Iron Guard mindset, owing to the attempts by the movement to canonise certain saints chosen from among the ‘Legionary martyrs’ as an integral part of its intense cult of death, instinct, the providential leader, youth and of martyrs to the cause of the nation. Thus despite its pronounced Orthodox character, Legionary mysticism did not signify the total assimilation of Orthodox theology by a fascist political movement. On the contrary, it is to be seen as an attempt at subordinating and transforming that theology into a political instrument in a way that made it the enemy of genuine Christian values and spirituality_

They were genuine christian-fascists, in a way nominal christians like Mussolini or Hitler, who rarely if ever quoted scripture in a political context, weren’t.

soru

Kevin Donoghue is wrong; ‘Islamofascist’ is a perfectly acceptable term. Islam is a set of beliefs that can be interpreted in different ways, and a minority of Muslims interpret it in a fascistic manner. Kevin is deluding himself if he thinks Al-Qaeda’s ideology has nothing to do with Islam; it just isn’t the only possible interpretation.

But for the record, as this is a democracy, we have every right to insult Christianity, Islam, socialism, fascism, liberalism or any other set of beliefs that we want.

Using Al Qaeda for both the actual organisation and the political philosophy would make news stories like Zarqawi announcing he was officially joining forces with Al Qaeda really confusing.

If anyone want to use the term ‘religious fascism’ instead of islamo-fascism, feel free.

If anyone wants to mount an actual challenge to the specific argument made that Al Qaeda is fascist to more or less the same extent the League of Archangel Michael was, feel free.

If anyone wants to go on thinking this is nothing but a matter of individual conscience, where essentially morally neutral forces happen to choose to abstain, or not, from incidental badness like torture or terrorism, feel free to get a clue.

soru

And what’s all this sutff about anyone who has the independence of spirit to disagree with you being in the pay of Chalabi? Can’t you jerks accept, if only for a moment, that people may truly believe you are fools, rather than be paid to believe you are fools — profitable though that may be. Is this what it’s come to at Oxford? Go with the dons or you are a crook?
I repeat, if you want to say you are on the left: tell me who your comrades in Iraq are or go home, read some books, make some phone calls and come back when you have something interesting to say.

Nick Cohen: what is this nonsense? “Go with the dons or you are a crook?” The commenter who mentioned Chalabi was the semi-anonymous “Nick” posting from a dialup service somewhere in the US (I’ve checked the IP).

I’ll take up Nick’s challenge:

For one, I don’t identify with the left, certainly not as it is historically understood in a European sense. I’m only on the “left” in the US because there is no significant “left” in the United States in the terms European leftists define. I’m left insofar as I’m “not a movement conservative.”

As to signing the pledge (or not), it has nothing to do with supporting the insurgency. I agree that the insurgency is certainly nothing anyone reasonable should stand up for or support. This is separate from the logic of the pledge. Is its against terrorism or Wahabbi Bolshevism? I know its kind of hard to get straight, but we’re not fighting terrorism – which is a tactic. Even the Bush administration has started calling the war as being “against violent extremism.” For which I commend them.

Ben P

Marko Attila Hoare,

Kevin Donoghue is wrong; ‘Islamofascist’ is a perfectly acceptable term.

I’m sure they use it all the time on Little Green Footballs. I did a quick check to see who has been using the term in recent days. Using Google News and sorting by date, the most recent users are: RedState.org, the Washington Times, RenewAmerica.us, The Omega Letter, and FrontPage mag (DissidentVoice used it in a piss-take).

So “Islamofascist” is acceptable in certain circles, which does not come as a surprise. Indeed that was my point: people who want to flaunt their hostility to Muslims will find “Islamofascist” a very useful term for that purpose. The other points you made are pure straw. I am not deluding myself about Al Qaeda and I have not sought to restrict anyone’s right to free speech.

Let me make it clear: I do not believe that Nick Cohen was on Chalabi’s payroll, and any suggestion thereof can be attributed to the defensive sarcasm of someone who doesn’t particularly enjoy being conned.

In the meantime, still no signers for my ‘United for Cute Kittens and Impeaching Bush’ petition? Why do you hate kittens?

The payroll argument is a red herring. The argument about Chalabi and Allawi is pretty simple. Those who really support secular and socialist, or secular and conservative, or secular and liberal movements in the Middle East will discredit all secular movements if they support an invasion with the purpose of putting a secular criminal on the throne. That’s the end all and be all. If a group of people with my Keynesian liberal believes invaded the U.S. and attempted to install some Keynesian liberal variant of Ken Lay or Timothy McVeign in the Oval office, I would not greet them as brother’s in arms. In fact, there is no better way to delegitimate the role of secular politics, which is how the elections happen to have been won by various shades of the Khomanei party.

Of course, I am writing this as if it is possible to respond logically to Mr. Cohen, but his comments, so far, have been puzzlingly obscure and bizarre. It is as if this is some playground pissing match. Nah, this is about Iraq, not about whether you have made phone calls to buddies in Baghdad. I do hope you have, and they gave you an earful. Maybe, before you supported Chalabi, you should have dialed a few of your buddies in Jordan.

Marko: this is a stylebook issue. I can’t find a single use of the word “Islamofascist” on Google News that isn’t from a source at least as rightwing as the Washington Times (unless you count Julie Burchill). When a word is heavily used by wingnuts and hardly at all used by people who are not wingnuts, then those stalwart souls beloved of HW Fowler, “careful writers” will avoid it.

By analogy, the State of Israel is a state and it is by definition Zionist. But I would not use the phrase “the Zionist state” to describe the state of Israel in anything I wrote, because I happen to know that 99% of the people who do use that phrase are nutters.

Marko Attila Hoare,

Fond of building straw men, aren’t you? Chop them up to your heart’s content, the exercise will do you good. But people who are sufficiently interested to have read this far down in the thread know the views usually associated with the use of words like Islamofascism. They will also know better than to use it in any effort to promote unity against terrorism.

Maybe in time the word will become mainstream. Having googled for a while, I found one use of “Islamofascism” by a Muslim, Farish A. Noor (on muslimwakeup.com). So it is acceptable to some Muslims. Even in that article however the term is used for its shock value, which is presumably what Christopher Hitchens was aiming for when he coined it in the first place. The shock-value has pretty well worn off and now all that’s left is the power to irritate, as kids do when they chuck an obscenity into every sentence. Unless one is looking for that effect it is (at best) a useless term.

If you are wondering how people can get by without “Islamofascism” take a look at the writing of Marc Lynch, a political scientist and Middle East specialist who has numerous posts about Islamism on his blog and doesn’t use “Islamofascism” in any of them.

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/islamism/index.html

bq. Sorry, but I use words to mean what I want them to mean

Marko, meet “Humpty-Dumpty”:http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm . Humpty-Dumpty, meet Marko.

I borrowed Lewis Carroll’s phrase deliberately, because it’s a great phrase. Carroll (through the mouth of Humpty Dumpty) was making a profound and subtle point about the use of words and language – a point that is obviously lost on Henry and Kevin.

I agree with Carroll – I suggest you both re-read his whole chapter and work out what he was trying to say…

My problem with “Islamofascist” is that is inaccurate term and the people who have adopted it have done so just to a) make themselves feel better about themselves, and b) for propaganda purposes.

Fascism does not describe the Taliban. Indeed, I would argue fascism has nothing to do with religion. Whatever you may think, AQ regards its philosophy as utopian and millenial, which to me makes it much more like Marxist or various forms of religious thought. It makes claims that are universal, and is a set of beliefs potentially accessible to all humanity. Nazism or Italian or Spanish fascism wan’t. All the various fascisms of the 20th century were predicated on chauvinism surrounding the nation state. AQ’s view of Islam (and perhaps the ultimate result of any religion) makes a claim that transcends national borders.

Whether the Taliban (or AQ, or various revolutionary Marxisms) are totalitarian then I would agree with you. Most value systems that claim universal applicability are totalatarian if taken to their logical extreme.

Ben, the term ‘fascism’ is itself highly controversial and open to wildly different interpretations among students of the subject. Some would argue that Nazism is not fascism, precisely because there is a racial dimension to its ideology that transcends the nation-state.

I don’t think the border between the religious and the national is as clear-cut as you suggest; Nazism clearly borrowed from traditional Christian anti-Semitism.

As for Al-Qaeda, its ideology may be theoretically universalist, but its goal of reestablishing an Islamic caliphate stretching from Indonesia to Spain seems to me to resemble the ‘great nation’ projects of the fascists. And its mobilisation of chauvinistic violence and glorification of killing outsiders (Jews and Christians) seem to me to resemble the fascist or Nazi attitude toward national or racial minorities. Add to that the fact that Al-Qaeda is a modern revolutionary organisation, as was the Nazi party, and I think ‘Islamofascism’ is a pretty apt term.

For the German and Italian fascists, the nation came first, so ‘Christo-fascist’ wouldn’t be an appropriate term for them (though it might be appropriate for some of the Christian fundamentalists in the US South). But for Al-Qaeda, Islam ‘is’ the nation.

Islam is, it should be said, much less readily compatible with national divisions than is Christianity – as Adrian Hastings pointed out in ‘The Construction of Nationhood’. So fascism is going to take a somewhat different form in the Islamic world.

Funny how you cannot close without making yet another snide remark, Kevin, but you seem to be applying the Humpty Dumpty principle yourself: you are defining fascism to mean what YOU want it to mean, not what it necessarily does mean. And that is the whole point…

Final comment.

Anybody can become a fully “equal” member in AQ. Anybody can become a Muslim. Or a Wahabbi. Presumably even conservative, but not radical Islamists think you go to hell if we don’t convert (as is the case with evangelical Christians). This is the same with Communism. Anyone can “sign up.” Lots of AQ’s membership has origins outside the traditionally defined Islamic world. This was not the case with Germany or Italy or Spain or Greece in the 20th century under varying “brands” of fascism. For Hitler, if you were Jewish or Black or even a Slav, you could never claim to be a part of the Reich.

Ben P

Backward Dave

You are so right: I take it all back and now hold a position diametrically opposed to the position I stated above, although I reserve the right to change my position 180 degrees again by teatime and then savagely attack anyone who held my first position as being a ‘fool’ and ‘coward’.

And I might do the same (except in reverse) tomorrow.

Can a column in the Observer be far behind?