Do These Two Have Anything in Common?
President Bush has equated Islamic radicalism with communism. Is the comparison sound? Is it wise?
By Zbigniew Brzezinski

Sunday, December 4, 2005; Page B02

In a series of recent speeches to the American people, President Bush has sought to equate the current terrorist threat with the 20th-century menace of communist totalitarianism. His case is that the terrorist challenge is global in scope, “evil” in nature, ruthless toward its foes, and eager to control every aspect of life and thought. Thus, he argues, the battle against terrorism demands nothing “less than a complete victory.”

In making this case, the president has repeatedly invoked the adjective “Islamic” when referring to terrorism and he has compared the “murderous ideology of Islamic radicalism” to the ideology of communism.

Is the president historically right in his diagnosis of the allegedly similar dangers posed by Islamic extremism and by totalitarian communism? The differences between the two may be more telling than their similarities. And is he wise to be expounding such a thesis?

Today’s The Washington Post runs an op-ed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, arguing that President Bush is making an error in calling Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups “totalitarian”. He does not believe they are, citing how the 20th Century’s totalitarian governments were responsible for the deaths of millions.

He says:

Underlying the president’s analogy is the proposition that bin Laden’s “jihad” has the potential for dominating the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions of people across national and even religious boundaries. That is quite a compliment to bin Laden, but it isn’t justified. The “Islamic” jihad is, at best, a fragmented and limited movement that hardly resonates in most of the world.

In a sense this is correct. People who devoutly follow other religions are not going to be swayed by Usama Bin Laden’s dream of a caliphate. However, there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Not all are immune to the message of Bin Laden, as events have well shown. American Muslims, British Muslims, Australian Muslims, Arab Muslims, South East Asian Muslims have all answered UBL’s siren song. This week, we learned that even Caucasian, Belgian, female Muslims are not immune.

While UBL’s image has suffered over the past couple of years, his popular support is still strong in the Islamic world. He offers a vision of Islam regnant, of an eschatological victory over evil (as he defines evil). He is dangerous not because he believes deluded things, but because he is able to convince large numbers of Muslims that not only is his way the right way, it is the only way. If that’s not totalitarianism, then the world’s dictionaries need correction.

It seems apparent that Mr. Brzezinski hasn’t actually read what Bin Laden promises. UBL’s vision is totalitarian, there is simply no other word for it. He seeks a world ruled under his interpretation of Islam, has no room for infidels, and only scarce space for “People of the Book.”

The only difference is one of time. So far, UBL has not been responsible for the deaths of millions. His tally reaches only into the thousands. Is Brzezinski suggesting that until UBL gets into seven or eight digit numbers we needn’t take him seriously, needn’t act against him?

Brzezinski is not an unintelligent man, obvious. Here, though, he displays appalling ignorance of what UBL himself has said of his goals. It is not a world compatible with human rights or religious freedom.

Perhaps UBL could be diagnosed with monomania. Were he alone in his delusions, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But the fact–and it is a fact–that he is able to convince vast numbers of people of the rightness of his delusions must be considered totalitarianism. I don’t think the world needs to wait until he reaches a magic body count to treat him accordingly.