In Repost

My self-edited post (deleted before seeing the light of blogger, which might have eaten it anyway) was a judgement on the BushCheney insistance that they are "fighting a global war on terror."

Hmmm. Propagandists and spin doctors know there's nothing like using the war metaphor to light fires of affirmation among the voting masses. It works on so many levels: there's war fever itself, which seems to inflict especially young males, there's the call to duty and sense of obligation--and, of course, this being Bush, there's the chance to tar and feather anyone questioning the wisdom of a "war" with the label of enemy-lover, or perhaps even traitor.

However, I will grant BushCheney one thing: terrorism IS a global issue. In that sense, the attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta can be seen in the context of BushCheney's "war" on terror. And, if we look at it that way, we beging to see some disturbing trends. Like the fact that we're LOSING.

Now, I don't place any faith in pronoucements of the kind uttered by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who suggests that the Taliban (and, by extension, Al Qaeda) are ready to retake major parts of Afghanistan. In fact, the announcement is significant only for the timing--Oyster has posted to the effect that the grapevine has been stirring with the possibility of bin Laden on a leash--a US leash. Perhaps Zawahiri is trying to soften the blow among the fundamentalist loonies if/when Osama does the Frog March.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that Afghanistan is not at all the place it was supposed to be when we went on a terrorist butt kickin' mission. Let's see: the place is now more or less Heroin House, where you buy in volume and save. I'm sure Karzai has a nice place in what's left of Kabul, but to even speak of a single nation is awfully optimistic.

Iraq, as noted here often, is a mess. Once again, I'll link to Today in Iraq for anyone wanting details. In particular, here are two articles of interest--one on the loss of territory within the country to rebel forces--the very definition of losing--and the other a pogniant article in Navy Times focusing on the wounded. I'm constantly amazed at the lack of attention this story receives--one can hardly read this article and not feel empty, angry, disheartened, and sad simultaneously as a young man and his wife discuss the life-altering aspects of his injury.

But I digress, even as I strongly encourage anyone with the time to take a look at the link immediately above.

When BushCheney use the paradigm of a global struggle, I think it's appropriate to consider any action that qualifies as countering their rhetoric to be worth analysis. The bombing in Indonesia is example front and center. To ignore it invites the same in the event of another terrorist attack here.

Unfortunately, we as a country have more or less ignored terrorist actions in all kinds of places since 9/11, even as Al Qaeda jerks our chain over and over as they "chatter"--knowing that right now we're adopting an overcautious response (and, sadly, at times a political respose, like when we heard this summer about warnings in New York and DC that turned out to be from the summer of 2001). In fact, we've not only ignored some events, we've also castigated the Spanish for their actions following a catastrophic attack on their soil. Lord only knows how the world will respond to a subsequent attack here in the United States.

Then we have the specter of the evil Dick rattling the bars of the cage in his cranium as he threatens the United States with attack in the event of a Kerry victory come November. This after railing about Kerry's correct use of the term "sensitive," which to old Dick means something similar to "girlie man" these days (once he scrubbed the collective brain cell of the SCLM, who otherwise might have caught the evil one or his mad stepchild president using the exact same term).

But the fact is that we'd better start thinking about a more sensitive, nuanced approach, because the Cheyenne Shyster and his Texas Souffle have proven beyond a doubt that the one-trick dog and pony policy of all-war, only-war, DOESN'T WORK. Duh. Freelancers like nutcase Osama don't need countries as partners. And, by invading Iraq, we haven't "taken the battle to their location" by a longshot. We've simply added a training target for some of the lunatics, while native Iraqi resistance pecks away at our skeleton force.

Hell, if you think about it, the invasion itself was a tremendous blunder. Sure, the dash to Baghdad was exciting, but in retrospect, it was like watching a football team which planned all week for a single quarter of action. Now it's the second half (to continue the metaphor) and the coach has nothing more in the playbook. I mean, gee, it was nice to move faster than any army ever--but wouldn't it have been better to, say, slow down a bit and secure the ammo and weapons dumps. I mean, jeez, what the hell were they thinking?

But again, I digress. My point is simply that the "terrorists" find themselves in relatively good position. And, quite honestly, BushCheney is too stupid to come up with a solution that will change this.

It's time that we DID take a more nuanced approach. If you have a problem with termites in your house, for instance, you could solve it with gasoline, matches, and several hours of combustion. However, I don't think most folks would willingly destroy their domicile to get rid of a problem like this. And that's what we need to do if we want to "win" the war.

The first step towards that goal, by the way, is getting out of Iraq. I know Kerry can't call for that right now. But, if he wins in November, here's hoping the anti-war movement is granted an audience...