"To promote peace and stability in the broader Middle East, the United States will work with our friends in the region to fight the common threat of terror, while we encourage a higher standard of freedom. Hopeful reform is already taking hold in an arc from Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain. The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future. And the great and proud nation of Egypt, which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show the way toward democracy in the Middle East."

"To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act -- and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

President George W. Bush, 2005 State of the Union Address

In The Shield of Achilles, Philip Bobbitt looks the interrelationship between law, strategy and history, and how these subjects influence the course of nations. The reasons nations choose to go to war cannot merely be distilled down to greed or malice; wars are ultimately determined by constitutional issues (not always a “document”, constitutional can also mean the makeup of the nation) and the need to grant legitimacy to the constitutional order. Changes in the constitutional order of states contain “the seeds of future conflict”; the “peace” outlined at the end of World War I provided the “seeds” that led to the outbreak of World War II, and the “peace" established at the end of World War II led to the Cold War.

The primary example used to explain this idea is “The Long War”. The Long War, which he states spanned most of the Twentieth Century, from 1914 to 1990, was fought over the legitimacy of three competing and incompatible forms of constitutional governments – Parliamentarianism, Communism and Fascism. After Fascism was defeated in WWII, the fight for legitimacy between Communism and Parliamentarianism continued during the Cold War, which included battles of the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the crises of the Berlin Blockade, Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. According to Mr. Bobbitt, the Long War ended with the fall of the Soviet Union and the defeat of the Communist constitutional form of government.

Did the Long War End?

The question that ultimately arises is: did the Long War actually end in 1990? While Fascism and Communism were ultimately defeated in Europe, these forms of government have not been eradicated from the rest of the world, particularly Fascism in the Middle East and Africa. It can be argued that these leftover Communist and Fascist states are remnants of the defeated European versions; however these states have remained in existence well after the end of the Long War. Before we move further, perhaps it will help to define the nature of the regimes we are discussing. And lest I be accused of using the term Fascism incorrectly, the textbook definition of Fascism is as follows:

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

We can generalize a bit and break out the regimes of the Middle East into two types of states: (1) the Dictatorial Fascists states such as Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, the Palestinian Authority and the former Baathist government of Iraq; (2) the Islamist Fascists states such as Iran, Afghanistan’s former Taliban government, and perhaps Sudan. Saudi Arabia could easily be classified in either category. An overriding commonality of both types of states is their acceptance, permissiveness or open support of Sunni Islamist ideologies of Wahhabism and Deobandism (even Iran, a Shiite Islamic theocratic state, cooperates with Sunni Islamists, and of course sponsors the Shiite terrorists of Hezbollah). These states use Islamists as a “relief valve” to detract from the failings of the regime as well as a clandestine external arm of state power. The Islamist ideologies themselves can be traced back to fascist origins (see part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4 in this series for a full explanation).

Framing the Conflict

Last evening’s State of the Union Address cemented President Bush’s bold vision of promoting democratic forms of government throughout the world to defeat the bankrupt Fascist forms of constitutional governments prevalent throughout the world. He has properly framed the conflict between parliamentary governments against Fascist governments that are the wellspring of terrorism. Like the “Cold War”, not all conflicts will be “hot” (open warfare). President Bush was clear in his statements that he desired internal changes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and will work to promote these changes peacefully.

But also like the Cold War, there will be active conflict. Afghanistan and Iraq required war and occupation to affect the necessary constitutional change in the regions, much like the defeat and occupation of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were required to force constitutional change in Europe after WWII. President Bush laid down the gauntlet to Syria (the mention of the Syrian Accountability Act (PDF) was quite clear on this point) and Iran, leaving them an opening to push forward internal changes and renounce terrorism and the pursuit of WMD technology. He was explicit in his wording that he would not shy away from active conflict if needed: “we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder.”

Mr. Bobbitt's concept of "epochal war" applies to this very conflict. Iraq and Afghanistan are merely individual battles in the great war currently referred to as "The War on Terror", which will not be won until the current incarnations of Fascism are wholly discredited. It looks to be yet another long war, if indeed the Long War ever ended.

Additional Reading:

Joe Katzman has additional thoughts on the SOTU, spanning domestic to foreign policy issues.

Michael Meckler writes on the CIA’s resistance to releasing records pertaining to cooperation between suspected Nazi war criminals and the United States government.