The enemy is Bin Ladenism

When Ronald Reagan used the term “evil empire” in his 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, it was clear and obvious to all that communism was the philosophy--- the “-ism”---of the evil empire. In the aftermath of September 11th, President Bush used the term “axis of evil” in an attempt to brand the enemy. Terrorism was and is the –ism that threatens liberty.

In 1983, it was easy to identify and label the advocates of communism; the Soviets were the advocates of communism. Soviet communism was the enemy opposed and defeated in the Cold War, not the Russian people. The Russian people were beneficiaries of the Soviet communist defeat.

Unfortunately, it hasn’t been so easy to label with clarity the advocates of the twenty-first century’s pre-eminent threat to liberty. “Islamic” is the term most often used to characterize the terrorism that threatens freedom. This has resulted in rhetorical backpedaling and a defensive posture in the court of world opinion. The juxtaposition of “Islamic extremism” on one hand and “[i]ts teachings are good and peaceful” on the other produces confusion and results in suspicion of American motives in the Muslim world. Linking the terms “extremism”, “fundamentalist”, and “radical” to the phrase “Islamic terrorism” hasn’t been sufficient to clear the confusion and allay suspicions. Many words have been written and spoken in an unsuccessful attempt to clear this rhetorical cloud. The failure to clear this cloud has given cover to those around the world who prefer to sit on the fence, awaiting the result in the battle between terror and liberty.

But as President Bush said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” The fence sitters are at best an obstruction in the fight against the terrorists. A new –ism is needed to disperse the rhetorical cloud and allow the fence sitters to confidently side with liberty (or, should they so choose, side with terror---to their destruction). The –ism we are fighting is Bin Ladenism. There is no need to qualify Bin Ladenism as an Islamic phenomenon, just as there was no need to qualify communism as a Russian phenomenon; it is instantly recognizable for what it is. By sticking to the term Bin Ladenism, fence sitters---Muslim and non-Muslim alike---are free to oppose the terrorists without being accused of anti-Islamism, just as opposition to Soviet communism didn’t raise the suspicion of hatred towards the Russian people. All peoples will benefit from the defeat of Bin Ladenism.

Bin Ladenism conjures up images of innocents leaping from flaming towers, suicide bombers, tribalism, exploding trains, brutal oppression of women, kidnapping and bloody beheadings---all done in the singular service of destroying liberty. Pundits can argue all they like about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, but the only thing that prevented Saddam Hussein from joining in September 11th or perpetrating his own act of terror against America was fear of being fingered with the deed. No one can argue that the now deposed Saddam wasn’t a Bin Ladenist.

Each individual will have to decide for his or her own self if Bin Ladenism is a natural outgrowth of Islamic theology. But whatever the answer, let’s clear the rhetorical smoke cloud: Death to Bin Laden. Death to his fellow travelers. Death to Bin Ladenism.

Well written and thought provoking. I was trying to get the magazine link that the essay came from when I realized that it was your blog. My first thought is 'what's wrong with the word 'terrorism' but that word has gone the way of so many words (oh yeah, well George Washington was a terrorist too nyah nyah nyah). We really need a word that means what terrorism meant way back in the last century, namely

the systematic use of violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

the systematic use of violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

The only thing that Webster left out was that 'groups' should have be qualified as secretive and non-governmental. Of course, when the terrorist is killing Americans, they call him an 'insurgent'

a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

--a definition that at one time would have included Washington. Bottom line, if the word terrorism is corrupted, Bin Ladenism will have to do. We may eventually have to drop the capitals for common use, to 'binladenism', kind of like what happened what happened to Tom Crapper's last name.

Thanks for the ping, and your thoughtful essay. I would have to say, that the problem with equating the fall of the USSR, while important and probably decisive for European communism, wasn't in any way the death knell for communism. We tend to forget China and for now I would have to say they are probably quite content to let us bleed slowly over this other "ism."

So it would probably be useful to at least see the current struggle against Islamofascism as a piece of a global instablility that stems from cultures and ideas(some of which are Islamic) that seek to dominate others, ensure their own survival by repression and/or the perversion of religious fervour. I think it would be useful to define the specific enemy in this case as Islamic fundamentalism, and if it be binladenism, that's ok. It focuses attention on a man. Easier to disavow.

But the larger point I think is that as things stand now, the usefulness of Islamofacism to nation states cannot be underestimated. It serves various nation states as a plausibly deniable, cheap and effective weapon against an exogenous enemy, focusing anger and unrest outward.(that would be against us) Of course, like all good revolutions, it can devour its own, just ask the Saudis. So I think the trick is to develope a strategy that understands that nation states seek their own survival. And that it would be in their interest to restrain the elements that would seek to threaten us, and help us.

Lets face it Gorbachev didn't embrace detente because he decided to be a good guy, but to save the USSR and communism. It took someone like Reagan to perceive the underlying weakness and sieze the moment. The unrest and failure of the system were bringing it down, not any external threat. It was a mistake to think then that they wished to approach us in the spirit of an equal, when it was in fact an approach from weakness. It seems that fact must always be examined. But those who feared keeping up the pressure were ignorant, fearful and wrong. They wanted to negotiate from the old perceptions that the communists were going to be in power for a long time and were in fact equal to us in every way. Of course, you don't negotiate an enemy back to a position of power when he is on his last legs, you dictate terms.

I remember the good general Musharraf's address to Pakistan on the eve of cooperating with the US to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. He had a number of pious and spurious reasons, but the one thing that mattered was the survival of the state(himself of course,as a champion for Islam) It was the move of a taliban supporting dictator, complete with his nuclear tips.(and didn't that scare the hell out of everyone at the time?) How did we accomplish this turn? Perhaps this is a much more effective strategy than can be imagined.

But the problem with Islamofascism, isn't so much with it as an idea, but as a direct form of action incited by certain religious teachings that cannot be divorced from Islam. And you don't need to raise a massive army, just a relatively small number of true believers, with a modern weapon of mass destruction. And every failed system has its supply of true believers. AFter all the apologists for communism seem to still think it viable but simply not practiced effectively where it failed. They don't see it as a failure of the idea, just its practice.

So Islamofascism exploits some of the more brutal teachings. Because it sees any failure perhaps as a failure of practice, not of understanding. And it does so at the expense of its "peaceful" passages. As it stands now, the "Religion of Peace" trope is threatening to become meaningless, but it doesn't have to be. I would hope that the voices of reason begin to sound or I will be afraid they don't exist. I think that is the point to which we are coming when there is no strong steady outcry against brutality. I need to hear it, I think most reasonable people expect the same. It isn't unreasonable to confront that. Or racist or bigoted either.

Anyway, I just have to offer, for hope, the idea of the Arab street. Our actions were going to provoke a huge uprising and swelling of protest, unrest, terrorism and violence. Massive demonstrations and death and destruction. What is remarkable to me is the silence for the most part. Now why is that? Well perhaps most of the Muslim world wants what we want, to just raise a family, worship and make a living,or perhaps the leaders of other Muslim countries are afraid of stirring that beast because it can quickly turn on the guy with the stick. They are a little reluctant to unleash that particular force. Believe me, if their interest is served in not going there, there will be passages found which support them. Wouldn't it be nice to encourage that? You can only do that from a position of strength tho. I don't want to be in the position of accepting terms. It is unrealistic for Islamofascists to expect a return to the glory of the Caliphat, but true believers have a hard time accepting that. That should be their hard luck, not ours.

And its beyond sad to me, that the situation in Iran is so completely ignored. There you have Muslims demonstrating for freedom, the street rising on its own, not at the instigation of a coercive government. Its important and I only hope that they recieve help. Meanwhile I keep them in my thoughts. Perhaps the future for Islam will begin with them.

So yeah, its about a religion, but also realpolitic, and we are so loathe to say its a religious war. Its a number of things, but it motivates from its religion. That makes it difficult to confront, which means you have to approach the flanks. And that is states that use and promote it, for their own power. And its a religious war that's been delcared against us by Islamofascists, not the other way round, and used cynically for politcal power. The axis of evil after all consisted of one secular Muslim state, one fundamentalist one, and one kleptocratic, non Muslim cult of personality. It's about more and less than just religion. And of course without the immense wealth from oil, most of this would be just a regional thing as it has been for hundreds of years. But its power comes in large part from that vital fact. But the soft underbelly of Islamofacists is in fact the states that harbour and use them. And their interests are going to ulitmately be their own survival. Get it on that basis I think. We live in interesting times.

sorry for the length.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.