Fascism was a socio/economic system established by Binito Mussolini in Italy in the 1920s. Fascism can exist only in an industrial based advanced society. Basically it calls for a close association between government/industry. Private property is permitted to a selected few but it is tightly controlled and governed by government. The entire economic market is controlled by government.
Fascism requires a totalitarian state because it must be imposed.
Islam is the enemy. Don’t qualify it by falling for the conventional wisdom that only a few “extremists” Muslims are attacking us. Certainly there are no doubt Muslim dissidents, as there are in every war.
We did not say, for example, that “250,000 extremists Germans hailed Hitler at the Nirenberg rallies.” We did not say that only extremists Japanese danced in the streets on December, 7, 1941. We went to war against all Germans and all Japanese wherever they were found.
It is not politically correct, but it is surely factually correct that the Islamic world is at war against civilization. Where there are Muslims, there is our enemy. Deal with it.
So the term IslamoFascism might be used to indicate -- very much like the word does -- the joining of these two pernicious manifestations of evil.
While you are right to point out the infelicity of the phrase “Islamic Fascist” (though it would apply to the late phase of Ba’athist Iraq, once Saddam added ‘Allahu Akbar’ to the Iraqi flag), the inistence that Islam as a whole is our enemy deprives us of the useful strategy of divide and conqueror.
In Iraq we have Muslim allies and Muslim enemies. If we insist on fighting against all of Islam, we have handed Al Qaeda a victory by uniting the ummah against the West—precisely what they vainly hoped would happen in the wake of an American over-reaction to 9/11.
We have Persian Shi’ite Twelvers, and their proxies (Al Sadr’s Mahdi Army, Hamas and Hezbollah), and various assorted restore-the-Caliphate Sunnis ranging from Al Qaeda to Hizb ut Tahrir as active enemies, the Alawite Ba’athists in Syria as bad actors, sometimes helping Iranian proxies, but not directly hostile (and intermittently cooperative against Al Qaeda, since an Al Qaeda-inspired Sunni uprising would threaten their hold on power).
On the other hand, the vast bulk of Kurds, most Iraqi Shi’ites, an increasing number of traditional Iraqi Sunnis, are all active allies, as (with dubious reliability) is the Sunni regime in Pakistan, and the secularized, but still Muslim, Turks. Shi’ite Seveners (Ismaelis) and Ziyadhis (Fourers), while not actively helpful, are not openly hostile to the West in any way, and tend to be persecuted by groups which are.
It is not useful to insist that Islam is the enemy, any more that it would have been to insist the East Asians were the enemy in the wake of Pearl Harbor, thereby adding our allies—the Chinese—to the list of enemies and perhaps pushing the Japanese to adopt more humane treatment of them, to coopt them and cement them into the “Greater East Asian Coprosperity Sphere”.
Making a distinction, whether in felicitious language (say denouncing as our enemies Salafists and Tahkfiri—terms Muslims themselves use to describe the political and doctrinal tendencies represented by Al Qaeda—in the case of Sunnis—and Hojjiatieh—the Muslim term for the doctrinal position of Ahmadinejad—in the case of the Shia) or infelicitious language (Islamic Fascism), between that part of Islam which is actively hostile to us, and the part which includes actual and potential allies is useful to our cause.