« Supreme Court Update | Main | Party at the Death Star »

Common Foes

For some time, I've been watching the fighting between Little Green Footballs and various and sundry European White Supremacist groups. It started when the Eurofascists (as Charles calls them) started fighting against the Muslim assimilation of Europe, and started looking around for allies. They found Charles Johnson and his gang of anti-jihadists, and sought to band with them.

Charles was having none of that. He told them off in no uncertain terms, and they declared him an enemy. They're trying to paint him as an ultra-liberal and Muslim apologist (from what I understand, Charles is rather liberal apart from this one area -- kind of like Joe Lieberman) and all sorts of other awful things.

This got me wondering about some things. What do you do when you find yourself opposing a very powerful and very dangerous enemy, and then discover that others are fighting them, too? The natural instinct is to cooperate against the greater threat.

But there are times when your reputed allies might be just as vile as your enemy. You have a common foe, but your motivations are vastly different and in the absence of that enemy, you two very well might be at one another's throats.

The idealist says you never choose the lesser of two evils, you never aid evil and cooperate with evil, even at the benefit of defeating the greater evil.

The pragmatist says that you determine which is the greater threat, then cooperate with the lesser one just long enough to make certain that the greater threat is defeated. Then you go after the lesser one.

Alternately, you go after the one that is the more immediate threat, and aid the long-term one until the immediate threat has passed.

Let's go back to my favorite analogy, World War II. In the leadup to the war, there were four great movements in the world: Imperialism (Japan), Fascism (Italy and Germany), Communism (the Soviet Union), and Democracy (The US, the UK, much of western Europe).

We can drop Imperialism from this discussion. How to act towards them became a moot point after Pearl Harbor.

At first, it looked pretty bad for Democracy. The Fascists and the Communists teamed up, and steamrollered right over most of Europe. But then the Fascists turned on the Communists, and the game was wide open again.

In the long term, Communist proved the greater evil and the greater threat. Communism killed far more people than the Fascists ever did. But at the time, it was the less immediate threat. So the Allies chose to make common cause with Stalin (possibly the greatest mass murderer in history; I believe the death toll runs well into 8 or 9 figures) and supported the Soviet Union in its fight against Nazi Germany. The Commies were our buddies, or at least our allies of convenience. The industrial power of the West sustained them and kept them in the fight long enough to bleed Germany white, and lead to its eventual destruction.

And all that good will evaporated right alongside the Third Reich. Once the Nazis were out of the picture, there was no more common foe, no common ground, to keep the West and the Soviet Union from seeing each other as enemies. It was only the presence of nuclear weapons that kept the Cold War from running hot -- and even so, the seemingly endless proxy wars and skirmishes still kept the butcher's bill appallingly high.

So, let's look at the Eurofascists and the Jihadists. Both are despicable, loathsome groups. Both have hatred and conquest as their core ideology. And both are quite ready -- if not eager -- to use force to achieve their goals.

Of the two, then, which poses the more immediate threat?

I'd have to say the Jihadists. They have numerous advantages over the Eurofascists: they have numbers, they have considerably more financial resources, they have a greater willingness to resort to violence and savagery, on a far more horrific level, than the Eurofascists. They also have a greater body count, by several orders of magnitude. And they're killing people all over the world now, while the Eurofascists are mainly concerned with simple thuggery.

In brief, the Eurofascists crack heads; the Jihadists sever them.

But do the Jihadists pose enough of an immediate threat that it would be wise to accept the Eurofascists as temporary allies of convenience? Should we encourage them to fight the greater foe, assisting them as needed, keeping them going long enough to weaken the Jihadists?

Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

The U.S. spent much of the Cold War finding and supporting some of the nastier dictators and thugs around the world, as long as they were sufficiently anti-Communist. We overlooked hosts of human rights violations and horrific corruption just because they were saying (and, occasionally, doing) the sorts of things we wanted against the Soviets (and, occasionally, the Chinese).

In the end, the Soviet Union fell without ever waging war against the West.

My instinct says Charles is right to reject the Eurofascists out of hand. They are some of the most loathsome, despicable, vile human beings on the face of the earth. (I might be prejudiced, though -- ethnically, I am pretty solidly in the camp that they say they are fighting for. The group they say they are championing is mine, and the're committing their heinous deeds in "my" name. I take that very personally, and the times I've been called such things as "race traitor" and the like are moments of pride.)

But while I do think it's a good thing to reject any sort of alliance with the Eurofascists, I am not certain. Starting a second fight while we're still fighting the Jihadists does not seem like the wisest move, and there's always the concern that the Jihadists and Eurofascists might come to some sort of modus vivendi and turn on us.

It's a very tough call. I don't envy Charles for being put on the spot over it.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/26825.

Comments (23)

Unlike the Soviets in WWII,... (Below threshold)

Unlike the Soviets in WWII, the corrupt South Vietnamese government and those fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, who all needed our active support, the eurofacists don't need much from us, they're more than willing and capable of carrying the fight to our common enemy with expressions of solitude or the like.

Nor should we go to battle with them. They're a much lesser threat to us (heck, they're not even much of a threat in their home countries) than the jihadists and while I don't worry about them finding common ground with one another, I don't want to distract ourselves from the fight we need to have in order to have a fight we don't need to have.

So we don't go out and sing songs of solidarity with the knuckleheads in Europe, but neither do we go out of our way to incite a fight with them.

The enemy of my enemy does ... (Below threshold)

The enemy of my enemy does not have to be my friend.

I don't think we have to fight with everyone we disagree with, so I don't see anything to be gained from confronting the Eurofascists, but we don't have to consider them our friends. They are just the first ones that the Jihadists (Islamofascists) are going to subjugate and put under Sharia Law, and we can point out those aspects of what their concerns that we agree with, without having to embrace all of their beliefs.

The Eurofascists should be ... (Below threshold)

The Eurofascists should be fought tooth and nail at every turn, and the reason why is something I did not see in your essay.

If we ally, talk to, do anything but repudiate with every breath the Eurofascists, then the Fascist Left will be able to smear the anti-Jihadist movement as a bunch of Nazi sympathizers.

In a world where the media is not in collusion with the fascist left, this wouldn't be a problem. All views would be heard. But that's not where we are. This is a brush of tar you do NOT want to hand to our enemedia.

I think one MUST defeat the... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

I think one MUST defeat the GREATER evil at all costs. If that includes SUB-contracting/working with dubious people/groups so be it. The greater evil is attacking US as a whole, the sub-group are just useful idiots.

Police use informants...usually criminals or undesirables, who get rewarded...it serves a greater purpose.

Like the fuel tanks that lift the shuttle into space, once the goal is achieved the tanks are dumped.

As stated thanks to MSM libtards, things would have to be handled delicately.

"This got me wondering a... (Below threshold)

"This got me wondering about some things. What do you do when you find yourself opposing a very powerful and very dangerous enemy, and then discover that others are fighting them, too? The natural instinct is to cooperate against the greater threat.

But there are times when your reputed allies might be just as vile as your enemy. You have a common foe, but your motivations are vastly different and in the absence of that enemy, you two very well might be at one another's throats."

Sort of puts me in mine of Ron Paul and his White Supremacist supporters. But Paul has not even 1/8 the integrity of Charles and will not tell these people to kiss off.

There's an old saying in Te... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne :):

There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, flocks of feather, birds, uh - birds flock feathers together.

Frazetta_girl, You... (Below threshold)
Phoenix:

Frazetta_girl,

Your labelings are rather juvenile, if not silly. You ought to go back to remedial Poli Sci and learn what the hell "fascist" means. Or just try a 6th grade civics book.

Jay,I have been read... (Below threshold)
Thor-Zone Author Profile Page:

Jay,
I have been reading your stuff for a while, and I think your basic instincts on this one are correct. You seem to be true to what you have written in the past.

I don't think we need to start a fight with the Eurofascists while we fight the jihadists. I think we should choose our battles wisely.

We can fight the jihadists now and let the Eurofascists fight the jihadists at the same time. Nobody says we have to support the Euros or to team up with them against the Jihadists....let them do their thing and we'll do ours. When the fight with the Jihadis is over we can deal with the Euros then.

While idealism is the ideal... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

While idealism is the ideal, it is rarely practical. When you have two groups that are equally repugnant (for different reasons) and are faced with the question of collaborating with one to defeat the other, then the first question you should ask is do you need one to defeat the other. In this case, the answer is no. In the case of WWII, given the realities of Russia tying down 70% of the German army, I think the answer was yes.

If you don't need one to defeat the other, then you should ask can you afford a two front war. The standard inclination is no, but then WWII showed again that a two front war is not necessarily unwinnable (Germany couldn't do it, the US could, the UK made an effort in the Pacific but focused on the immediate threat, the soviet union declined to engage in the two front war waiting to defeat the more immediate threat first).

Absent additional information, the Eurofascist fall more into the annoyance than direct threat. They are probably best handled by the standard law enforcement than by national intelligence agencies and military fire power.

So I think Charles made the right call and it also happens to coincide with the idealisticly right stance.

Charles is not fighting the... (Below threshold)
Clavius:

Charles is not fighting the Eurofascists, he is just not letting them BS anyone about their true nature.

There aren't enough of them to matter, and extremism of their type (or the Islamo-fascist type) should never be taken as an ally.

Considering how little powe... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Considering how little power was left in the Emperor's hands, I'd say 'Imperialism' is a misnomer for Japan circa 1935-45.

Eurofascists aka........ so... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

Eurofascists aka........ soccer hooligans

Phoenix, what exactly are y... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Phoenix, what exactly are you objecting to? Her use of the phrase "fascist Left"? If so, it is you who needs a history lesson. Fascism was in fact an offshoot of the Left. It was the Marxists who started claiming that Fascism was a right wing movement as part of their policy of redefining all of their enemies as "right wing".

Neo-fascist movements are more clearly right wing than the originals - Italian Fascism and German National Socialism but that does not change the historical foundation.

National Socialism being Ri... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

National Socialism being Right Wing has never sat correctly with me. Maybe they were or weren't socialists so much as statists. But neither of those are automatically Right to me.

Charles Johnson is an ideal... (Below threshold)
Corky Boyd:

Charles Johnson is an idealist.

He rejects both Islamofacisn and white supremacists, as do most of us. He was at the forefront of exposing the Rathergate fraud and still uses his flashing default Word/CBS "authentic" documents to invalidate any Rather claims to the contrary.

He exposes the sources of Islamist death threats from an individual working at a major wire service. He is a courageous blogger who fears no one.

He stands up to the greatest threat facing the western world.

The world needs more Charkes Johnsons.

We're America. We can figh... (Below threshold)
LenS:

We're America. We can fight them both at the same time. The Eurofascists are a fringe element of societies already dying demographically. They're irrelevant on a geopolitical scale. Besides, they're just as jealous of America's continued success so they can't be trusted to work with at all. The US is already two generations ahead of the rest of the world militarily. And that's just going to get worse (for them). We're fighting the current war with a tiny fraction of our economy. We haven't even begun to tap into our resources yet. So we continue to keep the vast majority of our wealth invested in creating more wealth. The dirty secret is that if the rest of the world ganged up against us, we'd still win easily if we actually mobilized.

Johnson and LGF approach is... (Below threshold)
chris:

Johnson and LGF approach is correct for his spehere of the GWOT.

Effectiveness in this part of the fight relies on reputation and integrity.

Highlighting the anti-Liberal (big L) foundational leanings of several prominent Euro blogs puts you on notice regarding your potential allies. Getting close to many of them can undermine all your credibility once the smear machine targets you.

Ask Ron Paul about not paying attention to whom you hang out with. I doubt he holds all the opinions that surfaced in the last few days but the damage of being associated with people that held those views just tanked his message and relevancy to 2008 and beyond.

I keep seeing this term "Eu... (Below threshold)
mikem Author Profile Page:

I keep seeing this term "Eurofascists" thrown about as if it is a well defined term. Anybody care to explain what a Eurofascist is or, at the least, how it is being used by LGF and others.
Secondly, I have followed LGF and Charles Johnson's transformation from a valuable (and courageous, as in first) resource of what Islamic extremists are actually saying to the current Islamophobic mocking of billions of Muslems with the regular ROP features. It is ironic to see Charles trying to separate himself from other bigots.
I look forward to the day when he drops the Muslim mocking and goes back to reporting, a job he did very well and with my gratitude.

"I keep seeing this term... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"I keep seeing this term "Eurofascists" thrown about as if it is a well defined term."

Supposedly, its meaning is similar to Eurofanatics, but neither of these words haven't yet been given a formal definition. To me, it sounds like anti-old school European, or anti-European currency. I would like it explained better, too, since you can't even find this in the Urban dictionary.

If the Eurotrash-fascists w... (Below threshold)

If the Eurotrash-fascists want to fight the jihadists, let them. Put them up front.

But that doesn't mean we have to like them, approve of them, associate with them, or worry if they happen to catch some "friendly fire."

Chris hit on an aspect of t... (Below threshold)

Chris hit on an aspect of this that crossed my mind immediately. Charles is exposing ugly Muslim extremism by the pen, while these "Euro-fascists" are using a more direct means; action. And their actions are abhorrent. Their core beliefs are also quite different. For Johnson, it's about ideology. For these supremacists it's about race.

To join up with them would be a mistake. Sure, they have a common enemy, but how many others do the supremacists have? Many. Johnson has considerable weight in the blogoshpere and lending them favorable "pen time" would be seen as a defacto endorsement of their core principles which would assuredly result in a loss of support from many who back him now.

In addition to that, an inordinate amount of time would need to be taken up explaining his strategy and defending him. That's time and effort that can be avoided.

I think he's doing the right thing.

Give Oyster a big bingo. F... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

Give Oyster a big bingo. For the Eurofacists, it's all about race. If we try to make common cause with them, then the first time they spot a Jew or a black guy or an Asian or etc. in our ranks, they will raise holy hell. And, putting morality aside for just a moment, they wouldn't even make very good allies. They aren't the Soviet Army; they have little resources and their presence or absence in the fight will hardly make any difference.

The other thing about skinheads is that they are all basically attention whores, and when attention and praise are the currency, they are for sale to the highest bidder. They will make common cause with the jihadists in a minute if they think they will get more favors that way. We know this because it's already happening with the American skinheads, e.g., David Duke who has been hanging out in Syria a lot recently.

"If we try to make common c... (Below threshold)
matthew:

"If we try to make common cause with them, then the first time they spot a Jew or a black guy or an Asian or etc. in our ranks, they will raise holy hell."

You have ranks? Are you sure you aren't thinking of the armed forces?

I don't find Islamic extremists frightening. I find the fear they incite in you to be Orwellian. But insofar as you're concerned, Cousin Dave et al, why not find a more constructive way of fighting them other than talking about how nasty they are with other conservatives on the internet who already share your views? If they're so bad, kill a few. There's a large armed group currently recruiting for this specific purpose. They'll even fly you over there and feed and pay you.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy