Because if he isn't, he should be. Read his column today in The New York Times in which he dispels the myth of "Islamofascism," a philosophy invented out of whole cloth by the neoconservatives "because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t."

Much like we envisioned communism during the Cold War as a monolithic philosophy operated from an underground bunker in Moscow, Muslim extremism is all the same no matter where you go. All Muslim terrorists want the same things, they should be treated the same way, and are, in all significant ways, the same. A nuanced view of foreign relations -- one that takes into account the individual histories, geographies, economics, and politics of the countries involved -- is for pussies.

Krugman also points that bombing Iran wouldn't do very much good, and points to last year's week-long war between Israel and Lebanon as an example. "Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead," he says. The news stories out of last year's war were not that Israel successfully defended its territory, "winning" the war. The stories instead focused on how much Hezbollah was able to resist the Israeli attack and defend itself. Everyone in the international community was surprised that Hezbollah wasn't as damaged as they thought it would be. Hezbollah itself even declared a strategic victory, since they were able to take everything Israel threw at it. The international community would respond with super condemnation if the United States attacked Iran.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believes in diplomacy in Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney wants to nuke 'em. Thankfully, it appears that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is on Condie's side. The United States couldn't handle a war with Iran; every one of our military brass has said that we're stretched too thin to afford another war -- unless we held a draft, which no civilian and no military commander wants.

In his excellent and oft-cited (by me) essay, "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell condemns the use of the word "fascism," since its meaning has been so diluted by people who throw it around at anyone they dislike. "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different," Orwell writes. This is particularly true of words used in politics. Though the word theory has a technical definition among scientists, it can just as easily have a pejorative meaning among like-minded creationists for whom the "private definition" of theory is "something that hasn't been found to be true," as in, "It's just a theory." Orwell offers examples of words like "democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice." All these words have technical definitions, but are manipulated so as to allow the maximum amount of demagoguery to be extracted from them.

Krugman correctly points out that "Islamofascism" is something made up by the Right to justify a continued War on Terr' -- including a War on Terr' that has nothing to do with al-Qaeda, the people who originally attacked us on September 11, leading to this War on Terr'. In fact, thanks to our neglect, al-Qaeda is now just as powerful as it ever was. As we have spent the last four years alternatively fighting in Iraq and then cleaning up the mess we caused, we have ignored al-Qaeda and Afghanistan.

The truth is that terror, as Mark Jurgensmeyer can tell you, doesn't come from a particular religion, or even a particular desire. People are motivated to terrorism in all religions, and for different reasons. It's too bad the American people aren't smart enough to understand that they're being duped. Thanks, Paul, but I fear that you're preaching to the choir. The people who read NYT already know this!