H.L. Mencken on lawyers

..."are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizen has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow . . . we’d all be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost a half."

Is Islamofacsim just pro-war propaganda?

Is the word Islamofascism a textbook definition of propaganda? That is what I wanted to see so I did a little digging into the Merriam Webster dictionary for the basic definition to see what I could find.

From www.m-w.com is the definition of propaganda:

1 capitalized: a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also: a public action having such an effect

We'll ignore the first definition as irrelevant to the modern definition of the word. However let's look at the 2nd and 3rd definition. There is know doubt whatsoever, in my mind, that the use of the word Islamofascism buy those that support military action throughout the middle east to limit the influence of extremist Islamic governments is an example of the definition of the word propaganda as given by the 3rd definition above. By identifying the radical Islamic governments of places like Iran and the Taliban of Afghanistan as well as radical movements such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and others with the word "fascist" the users of the term are trying to identify these Islamic movements with the truly fascist movements of Hitler's National Socialist Party of Germany and Mussolini's Fascist Part of Italy. Once that identification is made it becomes difficult to oppose the use of force against regimes that are compared to the horrible regimes of Hitler and Mussolini. Who wouldn't fight Hitler if he had the chance?

But are these regimes "fascist" in the technical sense?

Here is the definition of fascism from www.m-w.com:

1 often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

At a glance the first definition would seem accurate however Islam in general and radical Islam specifically is a movement that expands beyond the boundaries of any single nation or race. The "radical Islamists" who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 were Arab, most of which were from Saudi Arabia, however in indirect response to these attacks we invaded and overthrew the secular government of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iraq, according to Wikipedia from the CIA World book has a population that is 75-80% Arab, 15-20 Kurdish, and the balance being Assyrian, Iraqi Turkmen and others. Saddam was notoriously a secular ruler and that while the majority of his people were Muslims he himself used religion as just another tool to secure his power.

The current enemy of those who favor using our military to shape and mold the Middle East is Iran. According to the same source the peoples of Iran are made up of the following groups: 51% Persians, 24% Azeris, 8% Gilaki-Mazandarani, 7% Kurds, 3% Arabs, 2% Baloch, 2% Turkmen, 2% Lurs, and 1% others. While it is just a simple majority, the majority of the Iranian peoples are ethnic Persians and Arabs in Iran are a small single digit minority. The peoples of Saudi Arabia are: 90% Arab and 10% other. So if we stick to the strict wording of the first definition then the first part of said definition does not fit. Islamofascism exalts no singular nation or race; however it does exalt the word and power of God, Allah, over all other interests. But the exaltation of God as government is not fascism, by definition. Such a government is described as a Theocracy.

Per www.m-w.com here is the definition of Theocracy:

1: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2: a state governed by a theocracy

The Mullahs who are the ruling powers of the Iranian government I'm sure see themselves as guided by the divine word of Allah as set down in the Koran. This is not perhaps a perfect definition, but in my eye is more accurate a description than "fascism" fore these same Mullahs are seeking to exalt the word of God not there Persian race or their Iranian nation. So why is it that these people use of the word fascist to describe this movement that has expanded well beyond the borders of a single nation and incorporates many different races when the definition itself implies the exaltation of a singular race or nation? Perhaps it's just a bit of laziness that also allows the common man to tie these Islamic militants to the most evil peoples of the 20th century, Hitler and his Nazi's.

Let's review the 2nd definition of fascism from above:

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

let's also compare this definition to two other words: tyranny and dictatorship. Here is the definition of tyranny according to www.m-w.com:

1:oppressive power tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government tyranny of a police state>
2 a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>
4: a tyrannical act tyrannies>

According to the first definition tyranny is oppressive power exerted by government. Certainly living under a government run by Sharia Law would seem oppressive to anyone whose cultural heritage is the European Enlightenment; people such as Americans and most Europeans. Saddam Hussein's picture could have been place next to the second definition as a visual example of a tyrant. If the reports of his power are to be believed he was the absolute power of Iraq. I'm not sure that the ruling elite of Iran fits this description however. While the true power lies with the Mullahs, the Iranian people do have a limited representative power and there are regular national and local elections. One of my thoughts was that perhaps the users of the term Islamofacism were more accurately describing an Islamic tyranny, but after analyzing the meaning of tyranny, it is far too vague to be a truly accurate description. How about autocracy or dictatorship?

Well according to www.m-w.com an autocracy is:

1: the authority or rule of an autocrat
2: government in which one person possesses unlimited power
3: a community or state governed by autocracy

And dictatorship is:

1: the office of dictator
2: autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3 a: a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c: a despotic state

Looking at these definitions we see an emphasis on the rule of a single leader, dictator, or autocrat. While I'm sure that these definitions do accurately identify the leadership of many Islamic nations it would be hard to use them to describe the movement as a whole. So is fascism the correct label? This question takes us back to the second definition of fascism which is "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control." This is interesting because it shows that the word fascism is synonymous with absolute or concentrated power in the hands of one person or a few persons.

While semantically fascism may be an appropriately applied word to the spread of radical Islam, it is so only in the most general sense. The most accurate label would be an Islamic Theocracy because it is the Koran and the word of god that is driving and inspiring these people. Even if you look at recent elections in the region you will find that it is the radicalized parties that are growing in power and popular support and that is true in non-Arab Muslim countries as well.

So it seems that the users of word Islamofascism get the best of both worlds because they are accurately describing most of the governments of the Middle East and get to raise the specter of the return of an evil that was last seen over Berlin of the late 1930's and early 1940's. This evil was battled by our fathers and grandfather in a manner that deserved our utmost respect. Should we not respect the combatants in this battle of evil in the same manner? In my mind the answer to that question is moot because that question shows the propagandizing label of Islamofascism.