More Bushwhacking

But Bush didn't stop there.

Many militants are part of a global, borderless terrorist organization like al Qaeda

Are they? It suits American purposes to make out that Al Qaeda is a SMERSH-like organisation, but Bush is aware -- anyone even slightly conversant with AQ is aware -- that belonging to AQ is a matter of self-identification as much as anything else. Al-Zarqawi for instance had nothing to do with AQ (and likely still doesn't) but started to call himself the leader of AQ in Iraq because identifying with AQ made him sound more important and garnered better headlines, or some such reason.

Islamic militants in one place or another are fellow travellers, not colleagues, more often than not. It's important to recognise that not just because it gives a clearer picture of what exactly we're up against, but allows us to be clear on what the aims of each group are -- and their aims often do differ. Most Islamic militants are fighting in nationalist, proindependence causes -- those in Kashmir for instance, or in Thailand, or in the Philippines.

-- which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists

Does it? I think it's probably true to some extent, because for instance funding and aiding British militants would be in AQ's interests. But the suggestion that AQ is behind every act of violence seems to me to be completely unfounded.

and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like the attacks of September the 11th.

It very rarely does so. It goes without saying that drama and brutality are much more the province of the United States than they are of AQ.

Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Algeria.

Most of these have few, if any, shared aims with AQ. Somalia is a shithole in which the varying factions are largely fighting for money and power -- the usual stuff. The Philippines is largely Catholic but has a Muslim minority, who feel aggrieved at their treatment by the majority. Pakistan is a wellhead of Islamism but it's wrong to characterise it as having a "paramilitary insurgency" or a "separatist movement". Chechnya has a largely, if not entirely, Muslim population that has been very poorly treated by the largely Orthodox Christian Russians, who invaded it a hundred and fifty years ago and conquered it with a great deal of brutality. When the Soviet Union broke up, the Chechnyans believed that they would be permitted the same right to self-determination that we stood up for in other parts of the Soviet Union, such as Georgia or Lithuania. However, because the Russians had never constituted Chechnya as an autonomous republic, they used the technicality of its being part of the Russian Federative Republic as an excuse to re-invade Chechnya and murder many of its citizens when they got uppity. Perhaps George Bush can explain how those who love "freedom" were so happy to see Lithuania become a nation but at the same time believe the Chechnyans are just separatists who deserve what they get from our Russian friends. Kashmir is disputed between India and Pakistan. Historically, the problem is that the majority of the population is and was Muslim, but its leader was Hindu and opted to join India, not Pakistan. That's a recipe for trouble, of course. Anyone in the least acquainted with Indian history will recall the terrible bloodshed that pursued Partition, and will not be so willing to dismiss Kashmir as a problem of separatists.

Algeria is an interesting case. Some time ago, Salafists -- Islamists with an agenda somewhat similar to that of AQ -- were set to win elections in Algeria. However, with Western connivance, the sitting government cancelled the elections and started to slaughter the Salafists instead of handing over power to them. We taught them a lesson about democracy then, which they remember very well. They know they cannot achieve the change they want through "democratic" means, because we will simply change the rules of the game to prevent them from doing so.

Still others spring up in local cells -- inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed.

I'll say not!

Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command.

This would be rather like saying that everyone who believes in "liberal democracy" is part of a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. This is clearly meaningless.

Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for the world.

Actually, they don't. It doesn't make them easy to deal with by claiming that they do, but it makes it easy to mould our response to what we want rather than what they want.

We know the vision of the radicals because they have openly stated it -- in videos and audiotapes and letters and declarations and on websites.

First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East

Yes, they do. I wonder whether George Bush would welcome AQ if they wished to interfere in America's internal affairs; if, say, they wanted to set up a base in Oklahoma, perhaps occupy Texas and attempt to compel it to nationalise its oil industry. Etc.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the mostly unfortunate and bad influence of the West on the Middle East to be removed! Whether the Middle East would be better for it is a moot question, because what AQ want is to be allowed to decide among themselves what is right.

because we stand for democracy and peace

No, man, because you're killing them.

Because you're getting your mitts on their oil.

Because you support the people who keep the poor poor, the dispossessed dispossessed. Because you support an aggressively expansionist Israel, giving it weapons to kill Muslims with.

Because you don't "stand for peace", but rather have involved yourself in more war than any other nation on this planet, bringing misery and death to more places than any other. You're murderers, thieves and liars. I wouldn't want you in my street either.

and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, their "resources, their sons and money to driving the infidels out of our lands." The tactics of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter of a century: They hit us, and expect us to run.

This simply isn't true. Most Islamic "extremists" have been focused entirely internally in the past 25 years. Mr Bush may or may not recall the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Those same "extremists" fought the Russians. Hey, George, remember? We helped them do it. They were our extremists then.

Last month, the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's number two leader, a guy named Zawahiri.

Was it though? There's no way to authenticate it. As I noted when it was in the news, it was rather convenient that Zawahiri said precisely what the Americans would like him to say. I'd like to see what a textual analysis of his letter would reveal.

And he wrote this letter to his chief deputy in Iraq -- the terrorist Zarqawi.

It's preposterous to call Zarqawi Zawahiri's deputy. He was a loose cannon.

I say was because there's no evidence that Zarqawi is actually alive. He is blamed for a lot of terror, usually before there has even been an investigation.

Interestingly, one of America's chief evidence's of Zarqawi's militancy is the Nicholas Berg video. But the guy they say is Zarqawi doesn't speak in a Jordanian accent (he should, he's from Jordan) and has miraculously, like a lizard, regrown his missing leg (he lost it in Afghanistan).

Bush continues to slander the opposition, etc etc, and many commentators have noted this. Apparently, you're practically a member of AQ if you think it was wrong to invade Iraq. The problem is, George, with the caveats I noted (about women and Jews in particular), I tend to find bin Laden's programme more acceptable than yours. You're both bloodthirsty warmongers, supported by vicious nuts who wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice me and mine to their "cause", in his case the Ummah, in yours the bottom line of your pals' corporations. But he at least wants me dead out of a sense of justice and equity.

posted by Dr Zen @ 12:14 pm