Professor Keith Burgess-Jackson does not think President Bush should have used the term "Islamic fascist" to describe the Islamic enemy, and he would prefer the president use the term "Islamists." (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

I'm not in the business of defending Bush, and while it may be true that he wasn't strictly accurate in his use of the term, common sense suggests he wasn't that far off.

I don't like quibbling over terminology, and while I don't use the term "Islamic fascist," I regularly use the term "Islamofascist," because I think for a variety of reasons, it fits. (Once again, I'm neither an expert nor a war blogger, but I also see that Austin Bay has no problem describing the enemy as "fascist.")

First of all, Saddam Hussein's Baathist Iraq was modeled on fascist lines, as is Baathist Syria. Baathism may not have originally been a religious movement, but under Saddam Hussein, that changed.

The connection between right wing Muslims and fascism dates back at least as far as Palestinian Islamist leader Haj Amin al Husseini, shown here meeting with Adolf Hitler:

If that doesn't convince you, here's a picture of him reviewing Nazi SS troops:

And with his own SS "Handschar" division:

Nazism is not exactly fascism, of course. It might not be completely accurate to call such people "Islamic fascists," but it's close enough for me.

The main reason Burgess-Jackson would exclude Islamists from the definition of fascism is because they're not statists:

The reason it’s inappropriate to describe Islamists as fascists is simple: They’re not statists. To Muslims, including that subset of Muslims I call Islamists (see below), a state is at best a temporary thing, performing certain administrative, organizational, or ideological tasks. It has no independent significance, as it does in, say, the Christian tradition. (“Render unto Caesar” and all that.) Islamists aren’t trying to create a state in which all the parts work as one; their ultimate goal is a stateless world in which everyone worships Allah.

If the Iranian mullahcracy is any example, Islamic statism has certainly been alive and well since 1979. It might not follow the Mussolini Fascist Party platform, but in terms of restrictions on freedom, government control, lack of free speech and general repression, I think it's close enough to fascism of the small "f" variety. Once again, here's the dictionary definition:

fascism n. 1. [often cap.] The principles of the Fascisti; also, the movement or government regime embodying those principles.

2. Any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Webster's New International Dictionary (Second Ed., 1958)

True, the Islamists who are waging war right now might not have all the trappings [or identical music] of fascism, but on the other hand, take a look at this picture:

That's Hezbollah, of course.

I don't think it's a mistake to call them fascists -- even if they're just fascists of the small "f" variety.

I'd prefer Bush use the expression "Islamofascists," but considering the overall historical context, and his well known tendency to misspeak occasionally, I honestly think he deserves a pass on this one.

UPDATE: Also via Glenn Reynolds, Extreme Mortman has a huge photo display on the subject of Islamic fascists. Notes Mortman,

For the President, that description is rare and recent.

Search “Islamic fascists” at Whitehouse.gov and only three other instances pop up of the President saying it: May 25, June 14, and August 7, 2006.

I'm thinking that maybe I should upgrade the "pass" to something more along the lines of a "THANK YOU."

UPDATE: Professor Burgess-Jackson has updated his post by offering the following syllogism:

1. All fascists are statists (by which I mean people who assign intrinsic moral significance to the state).

2. No Muslims are statists.

Therefore,

3. No Muslims are fascists.

Therefore,

4. The concept of an Islamic (Muslim) fascist is incoherent

Here's Dean Esmay, in a comment to the Burgess-Jackson post:

I've been calling it "islamic fascism" or "religious fascism" or just plain "fascism" for years, and strongly urging others to do the same. It is a perfectly appropriate term to describe the philosophy and brings with it a desperately needed moral clarity. This is why I am utterly delighted to see that the President has finally adopted it himself.

American Heritage gives this as the second defintion of fascism:

2) Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Wiktionary gives this definition:

fascism

1. A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalting nation, state, or religion above the individual
2. A system of strong autocracy.

That seems clear enough to me, whether it describes Sdaddam and Assad's more traditional, Nazilike fascism, or the "Islamic Republic of Iran" led by the theofascist dictator Ayatollah Khamenei, the Taliban's draconian rule of Afghanistan, and bin Laden's dreamed-of global caliphate.

No, the original fascists were not strongly religious. But this is why adding "theo" or "Islamo" or whatever as a prefix adds clarity.

The enemy today is fascism, just as it was in 1942. It's fascism with a new face but it's fascism still.

UPDATE: Forgot to link the photos -- some of which came from this incredibly cool site -- which also features this all-time classic example of -- dare I say it? -- Islamic fascism!

Heil Khalifah, baby!

MORE: If there are no Islamic fascists, could someone please explain why Islamists would name their sons "Hitler"?

Sentimental reasons, perhaps?

But- but- but- "Der fuhrer never said baby!"

(To which I say, "picky, picky, picky!")