Do you ever wonder how Bush and Co. pulled off the feat of using 9-11, an attack by Muslim zealots, as the reason to attack a secular country. A June 16 article by Dianna West, a columnist for the conservative Washington Times, gives some insight into this. It begins:
Discussing the war on "terror" has been endlessly awkward. Terror -- like blitzkrieg, sneak attack or even disinformation -- is a tactic not an enemy. But in our politically correct era, we dwell on the tactic, never defining the enemy. Drop 500-pound bombs on his head if we must -- and we must -- but don't describe him as an Islamic jihadist in the age-old tradition of Islamic jihadists going back to Muhammad. Such historical precision might be hurtful and insensitive, and we wouldn't want that.
Link to the article "A war that isn't"
You have to admire the audacity of a columnist for the Washington Times, sometimes referred to as the house organ of the Bush Administration, criticizing the obfuscation inherent in the name, "War on Terror." From her article we learn that the root cause is ambiguity is "reflexive PC manners," usually considered a liberal affectation.
She manages to avoid naming the author of this term, President George W. Bush. And then she ignores the clear reason why he would choose "war on terror" rather than her preferred term "war on Islamic jihad." What the President maintains to be the major front on his war on terror, the Iraq war, happens to be against a country that not only was never a part of Islamic jihad, but would have been a natural ally against such an enemy.
The Baath party's was founded 1945 as a radical, secular Arab nationalist movement. When the party came to power in Iraq in 1963 it was a bulwark against Muslim extremists. This continued through its long war with the radical Islamic Iran in the 1980s. That is why we supported Saddam in that war, even supplying the ingredients for the poison gas that he used against his enemies.
His brutal oppression of his people was certainly to retain personal power, but also the only way that he could control those jihadists who saw secularism as their mortal enemy. Completely rejecting the Muslim law of Sharia, women under Saddam were represented in the highest professions, with more freedom than in any other middle east Islamic country.
Far from being an oversight, or a concession to political correctness, this conflating of the war on terror with the war on Iraq was integral to this administration's political strategy. The outrage over 9/11 was skillfully directed against Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with it.
This obfuscation was perhaps too successful; as one recent survey showed that 85% of our troops in Iraq actually believe the war there is in retribution for 9-11. Perhaps this provides some understanding of the hatred felt by these Marines in Haditha who may have felt they were taking revenge on those who killed so many Americans that fateful day in September.
Policy decisions based on sober reality rather than Orwellian distortions is certainly something to be desired. But it is hard to achieve with an administration that depends on a deluded public for continuing support of its policies.