Beyond that, the fact that Germany was one of the most advanced economies in the world is of no small consequence to tis ability to do what it did in the 1930s.

As such, the analogy to al Qaeda and friends are strained. The historical analogy doesn’t hold.

But then again, that’s part of the point of why flinging words around, as well as historical analogies, aren’t the way to figure out these complex problems.

Once that small difference is overcome, fascism and radical Islam basically meet the same criteria; a philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation/religion above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader (or dictatorial group), severe social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. I see no reason not to associate the evils of radical Islam with the evils of fascism.

Next, I agree that Al Qaeda is not in a position to take over the world militarily (and I won’t digress into a debate over whether Germany could have actually taken over the entire world either), but it certainly can do great damage on a terrorist basis at the present time. More importantly, Islamofascism is much bigger than just Al Qaeda; it applies to the millions (hundred of millions?) of radical Muslims who would side with Islam against democracy and freedom of speech and religion.

2000 years ago, you would have been thought insane if you predicted that Christianity would one day be the dominant force ruling the world. 1300 years ago, the thought of Islam being Christianity’s only major competition for that dominance would have also seemed ludicrous. However, that is the current world situation.

It is not a mere coincidence that these two religions became the Hertz and Avis of world dominance. They both had the same “game plan” and executed it very efficiently; use force and intimidation to force their beliefs on those who would resist. It didn’t happen over night, but over centuries the result is obvious.

However, all of Christianity went through a reformation and abandoned this “game plan” a few centuries ago, but Islamofascists haven’t. They still feel that it is their duty to spread the word by force if necessary, and that it is not only permissable, but their duty, to silence all those who would speak out against their beliefs (eg. Salman Rushdie). It is this denial of freedom of speech that makes Islamofascists so evil and dangerous.

So, while some may think there is rhetorical overkill when speaking about Islamofascism, some of us others think that the ones who say that just don’t understand the nature of the evil that threatens the free world; much as those who didn’t recognize the evil in 1935 that Nazi fascism presented.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE JIHAD.

You state:

You actually were criticizing not Norman Podhoretz but the NYT version of him, taken from a negative review of his book that was published in a newspaper with a decidedly anti-neocon bias. Proper diagnosis requires you to analyze Podhoretz himself.

On the one hand, fair enough, although the post above was as much directed at Honza Prchal as it was Podhoretz. Beyond that, however, I note two things: there were quotations in the NYT piece to which I could directly react, and later I did post on a Podhoretz column that confirmed that the NYT column was not mischaracterizing his positions.

Indeed, I would counter your criticism by asking where you would note that either the NYT piece by Beinart or my own positions mischaracterizes Podhoretz’s positions. Ultimately, it seems to me that there is nothing here that incorrectly identified his arguments.

And, btw, the conflation of radical Islam in general (i.e., Iran + al Qaeda and so forth) is not orginal to me. Podhoretz’s own WW IV concept does that without my participation (and again, that is a fact confirmed by looking at Podhoretz’s own writing).

You also state:

I think you don’t like anti-war moves like the Move-on.org ad that called Petraeus names, either. Hysterical or sloppy thinking against an interventionist foreign policy is no more persuasive than hysterical or sloppy thinking in favor of it.

True, but aside from being an additional example of hysteria and rhetorical overkill, I am not sure what relevance it has in terms of determining the validity or usefulness of Podhoretz’s arguments.

In sum, I am not sure that you have actually addressed anything that I actually said.

“So yes, I call “foul” on hysteria and rhetorical overkill.

Words matter. Proper diagnosis and analysis matters. And one of things we don’t need is a major presidential candidate being advised by someone who wants to engage in sloppy, hysterical thinking on national security issues. That is why I wrote the initial post in the first place.”

You actually were criticizing not Norman Podhoretz but the NYT version of him, taken from a negative review of his book that was published in a newspaper with a decidedly anti-neocon bias. Proper diagnosis requires you to analyze Podhoretz himself.

Likewise, elsewhere you identify Al qaeda with the anti-American threat of radical Islamicist terror, conveniently eliding other non-state entities and, most importantly, the putatively WMD-seeking theocracy of Iran. Yet it is Iran (and its president’s promise to wipe out Israel, for starters) at which Podhoretz aims his advice to every Republican and Democratic candidate.

I think you don’t like anti-war moves like the Move-on.org ad that called Petraeus names, either. Hysterical or sloppy thinking against an interventionist foreign policy is no more persuasive than hysterical or sloppy thinking in favor of it.

And on the point, as is obvious, I really do disagree–for the term to have meaning al Qaeda and their ilk would have to have something very specific in common, ideologically, with fascism–nihilism isn’t enough to cut it, analytically speaking. And just because it distinguishing two eras doesn’t mean it is accurate.

It’s not the use of Islamofascism I thought you objected to so much as the “treason” language and personal attacks.

Islamofascism is a pretty good analytical term, actually, capturing the nihilism of the present in a way that distinguishes it from the Holy War and raids for profit that distinguish more historical expressions of Islamic terror.