The United States will never win the "war on terror," in part, because George W. Bush keeps applying elastic definitions to the enemy, most recently expanding the conflict into a war against Muslim "radicals and extremists."
With almost no notice in Official Washington, Bush has inserted this new standard for judging who's an enemy as he lays the groundwork for a wider conflict in the Middle East and a potentially endless world war against many of the planet's one billion adherents to Islam.
Indeed, it could be argued that the "war on terror" has now morphed into the "war on radicals," allowing Bush to add the likes of Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and the leaders of Syria and Iran to his lengthening international enemies list.
Bush's twists and turns in defining the enemy in the "war on terror" started more than five years ago, in the days immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Amid the nation's anguish, Bush spoke in grandiloquent and quasi-religious terms, vowing to "rid the world of evil," a patently absurd task that never received the ridicule it deserved.
But Bush then settled on a more practical aim, defeating "terrorist groups of global reach." Though that formulation still presented some problems of definition – what does "global reach" exactly mean? – at least it offered measurable terms.
A "terrorist," by definition, is someone who commits violent acts against civilians to achieve a political goal. "Global reach" narrowed the enemy even more by excluding local forces that attacked civilians from the same country or a nearby region.
These parameters made sense because they spared the U.S. military from intervening in every local struggle where some rebel or paramilitary force may have committed an atrocity, but one that didn't threaten U.S. national interests. The United States also was freed from having to pick sides in conflicts where both sides accuse the other of "terrorism."
In other words, Bush's early goal of defeating "terrorist groups of global reach" was narrow enough to be achievable.
The war, in effect, targeted al-Qaeda and similar organizations that not only embraced terrorism as a tactic but had the capability to reach across international boundaries to inflict civilian casualties, like the 9/11 attacks. Bush also added to his hit list governments, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, that harbored these terrorist groups.
However, after the quick U.S. victory over the Taliban in winter 2001-02, Bush shifted the war's focus in two important ways:
First, the war against "terrorist groups of global reach" transformed into the "global war on terrorism," an important distinction.
Suddenly, U.S. Special Forces were not responsible for just defeating al-Qaeda and a few other groups with global ambitions but were instead waging a global war against a variety of terrorist groups that presented threats mostly to local authorities. Some were "home-grown terrorists" with no links to al-Qaeda or other international organizations.
Second, Bush decided to settle some old scores with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was despised by Bush's neoconservative advisers who dreamt of remaking the Middle East into a land of passive Arabs who would take direction from Washington and accept peace terms from Tel Aviv. So Arabs wouldn't think this was all about them, Bush coined the phrase "axis of evil" that lumped together Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
To further meld Bush's "war on terror" with the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration also hyped and fabricated evidence to link the secular Hussein to Islamic terrorists allied with al-Qaeda's Osama bin Laden, though in reality the two were bitter enemies. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "How Neocon Favorites Duped U.S."]
Insurgency or Terror? Since 2003, after the U.S.-led invasion toppled Hussein and an Iraqi insurgency emerged to fight the occupying army, the U.S. news media has lent a hand in blurring the American public's distinctions between the Iraq War and the "war on terror."
Iraqi insurgent attacks on U.S. soldiers, especially the deadly roadside bombs, often were described as "terrorist" incidents by the American news media, though the attacks didn't fit the classic definition of "terrorism."
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at
Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
That anyone could actually sit down and analyze the words of a madman to the extent that you have. My god...that is the longest most analytical discourse on ravings that I have ever read. To tell you the truth, I never gave what Bush said much thought, I always considered him just a shade off kilter. You have apparently. Save these...maybe if you dissect what he says in the future, you could put all of this together and submit them as a dissertation on madness and get a PHD for it. I've seen less scholarly tomes get the person that wrote them the title of "Doctor". You could end up being "Doctor of Political Syntax".Very interesting article.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 4:13:31 PM
That all it is. Cheap button pushin' PR. And Bush is the salesman. The American people are the suckers that buy this crap and send their sons and daughters and money to be apart of this PNAC. It just doesn't pay to be a believer in anything anymore. Becoming a Believer is the first step to being a SUCKER.
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 339 comments)
on Friday, December 22, 2006 at 8:06:01 PM
when it comes to such clear analysis of of our current state of danger, especially from within.
Let me say what Bob did not, but which is clear as day to me:
To the Bushites, all dissent is radical and extreme, especially if expressed.
I think that by March of 2007, we will know just how far Bush is willing to go, when defining radicals and extremists, as American dissent descends on Washington, D.C. and refuses to leave, until Johnny comes marching home and there is accountability for crimes committed by this administration and all of their enablers, both in and out of government.
The gauntlet is about to be thrown down, in a very public way. Who of you will be with us. Who of you will support us, if you cannot be there?
The time has come, January through March.
To every thing there is a season; turn, turn, turn.
The season for massive public dissent, non-violent civil disobedience, comes with the new light of a new year and will bloom, in full, in the Spring.
It is as it has always been: a good thing, while on this earth, to understand the seasons. But, it is a wise thing, to be able to see and understand the seasons of the spirit.
The spirit of dissent is now evident in and to the whole Net-connected world. It cannot but be manifested soon.
I implore the people of peace to remember who they are and where they come from. We will be totally ineffective if we do not.
by
wintefire6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments)
on Saturday, December 23, 2006 at 8:56:21 AM
