Standing in the Rose Garden beside Iraqi PM Allawi (9/23/04),
President Bush said: "When governments negotiate with terrorists, everyone in the free world suffers." That kind of simplistic, intransigent attitude has been a hallmark of his public persona and the fundamental foundation of whatever remaining popularity he enjoys. But it is a fiction that is increasingly difficult to sustain. It is becoming more and more evident that Bush's strategy for "winning" the war on terror has more to do with re-defining the terms than any real success. As Democrats, we need to hold him accountable for that. And it is especially true in light of that fact that this bullshit will be an important pedestal in the Repug message this election year.
More after the fold...
In Dec 2005 we heard that well before the recent Iraqi elections the US started a campaign to do exactly what he pledged not to do - to
negotiate with people defined as terrorists. But apparently that was okay because, prior to the news breaking, Bush went on record to
carefully distinguish between "rejectionists," "Saddamists" and "terrorists". So suddenly (POOF!) the "rejectionists" and "Saddamists" weren't "terrorists" anymore. In keeping with that new distinction, and as the cited Washington Times article indicated,
"Several thousand lower-level prisoners are to be released in the next few months. The Bush administration is pressing for a softening of anti-Ba'ath legislation through an announced review by the Iraqi Presidency Council." And indeed the prisoner release has begun.
Perhaps one might surmise from this that the Bush administration has finally developed a (much needed) appreciation of thoughtful nuance - something that we Democrats have been shouting about in various ways since before the Iraq invasion. If so, it is a very welcome development. But if you heard (or read) Karl Rove's speech the other day it appears that they once again intend to lose that nuance in the coming year, as the mid-term elections approach. Thus it is exceedingly important to make the American people aware that Bush and the Republicans are desperately trying to burn their candle at both ends: they claim they will not negotiate with terrorists, but what they really mean is that they will change their definition of "terrorist" to suit their purposes. Just another cynical "bait and switch" ploy.
It is not my purpose here to speculate on the likelihood of success of this new strategy in Iraq. Likewise, I assume that my mention of it isn't exactly a revelation to most folks here. Rather, my intent is to point out that the new strategy in Iraq makes it clear that Bush's previous "course" has not been "stayed". Rather, it has taken on a radically different complexion, and one that is as broad as it is steeped in irony. With specific regard to Iraq, how else is one to construe this new strategy without also understanding that many of the "rejectionists" and "Saddamists", who were once lumped into the "terrorist" category, are now tacitly (if not in actual name) recognized as freedom fighters? Needless to say, "freedom fighter" is never likely to enter into Bush's lexicon. But a rose is a rose nonetheless. And if you're looking for another name for the "rose" that is the Iraq war, logic seems to require that it is now more aptly called a "war on freedom fighters" than it is a "war on terror". I don't presume to speak for Jack Murtha, but I believe that distinction is central to his opinion. Maybe he needs to adopt that language as a talking point? I dunno.
So how far does BushCo's duplicity between rhetoric and action go? Well, let's turn our attention to recent developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan (which is the real reason why I'm posting this)...
Afghanistan is, in many respects, the forgotten war. And that, in itself is a tragedy because, after all, Afghanistan is the hub of the real war on terrror, the place where the al Qaeda threat flourished under the Taliban regime. So what's going on there? Surely we're stamping out any remnants of the Taliban/al Qaeda threat there, right? RIGHT??
Well, it turns out that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has asked Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar to come out of hiding and reconcile with the government
. More tepid offers have been made in the past by Karzai to "moderate" Talibani, but to my knowledge this is the first specific overture to Mullah Omar himself. Perhaps the softening in Karzai's attitude might have something to do with the fact that 2005 was the bloodiest year in Afghanistan since 2001. Hmm... Ya think?
Whatever the reason, where does that leave Bush, through his proxy in Kabul, on the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" question? I mean, heck, if they're willing to negotiate with Mullah Omar, who the hell IS a terrorist anymore? It is becoming increasingly clear that Bush's new strategy to "win" the war on terror is simply to adjust the definition of what he means by a "terrorist".
But wait, there's even more...
Days after Karzai offered a fig leaf to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar issued a reply which was, in effect: Fuck you. Specifically, Omar likened the resistance in Afghanistan to that in Iraq, saying, "In Afghanistan they will face the same fate very soon. With the beginning of the new year, Afghan groups and mujahedeen will intensify their attacks. Their techniques will improve." It sounds to me like they're learning from their Iraqi counterparts. Who'd have guessed that, huh?
Additionally, and perhaps even more meaningful, is the news that the Bush administration is rethinking its association with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf: "According to sources close to the power corridors in Washington who spoke to Asia Times Online, the administration of US President George W Bush is now convinced that a weaker Pakistani army is as necessary now as a powerful one was when Islamabad did a U-turn on its support for the Taliban soon after September 11, 2001."
So who is the Bush administration turning to instead? Okay, this is really rich... Apparently it is to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a coalition of Pakistani political organizations working for what is described as a "pure Islamic state". One of the most influential members of that coalition is the Jamiat Ulema-i-Ulema-i-Islam (JUI) headed by the firebrand Pakistani cleric Maulana Fazlur Rehman, an avowed supporter of the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan. By the way, Rehman wasn't always a supporter of the Taliban: he refused to support them during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan because he viewed them as an "American puppet".
How interesting. You have to read these articles. They are exceedingly interesting. If nothing else they reveal how complicated the whole situation is. But more than anything they reveal how truly hypocritical and dishonest the Bush administration's rhetoric has been with regard to the dual wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It is becoming clear that the Bush strategy for "winning" the war on terror is simply to redefine what he means by a "terrorist". We CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN! Certainly, corruption and cronyism are important issues. But ACCOUNTABILITY is an important issue as well!