The danger is not al Qaeda per se. Rather, it is the totalitarian ideology that animates it and other counterpart Sunni and Shiite cabals. Were we to focus exclusively and successfully on Osama bin Laden and his followers — an idée fixe for many Democratic politicians — we would simply ensure that we are destroyed by other Islamofascists, instead. ~Frank Gaffney

Yes, if we focused too much on the groups that attacked us, we might someday bring an end to the conflict, which will hardly be very helpful for those who would like perpetual war.  Never mind that every significant attack in Europe and here has been launched by al Qaeda or one of its associate groups, including the foiled plot to attack the jetliners.  No, the threat must not be al Qaeda per se–that would be all together too rational and predictable! 

But why would we “be destroyed” by other “Islamofascists”?  Just because.  That’s about the level of insight Mr. Gaffney has to offer us.  Does he really suppose that we will “be destroyed” by any of these people?  Threatened, yes.  Harmed, possibly.  But destroyed?  This over-the-top rhetoric made sense in the heat of the moment five years ago.  Now it is just embarrassing.

Also, I am making a rule.  You may call it Larison’s Rule, if you like.  Here it is: each time someone uses the word Islamofascist (a term whose absurdities I lay out here) or a variant thereof, his credibility on whatever topic he is discussing in relation to said “Islamofascist” decreases by 10% on account of the apparent lack of understanding of who and what we are fighting.  In Mr. Gaffney’s case, he used Islamofascist or a related term four times in the course of his short essay, costing him -40% of whatever credibility he had to start with. 

Update: Here is a fine dissection of the basic problems with the term “Islamic fascist” or Islamofascist.