One of the worst aspects of this clusterfuck of a war is that we’ve allowed George W. Bush’s personal confusion concerning terrorism, insurgency, and warfare in general to permeate our entire country. We’ve allowed him to blur the lines between honest-to-god, hardened terrorists (a real national threat) and insurgents fighting to end an occupation of their own country (an imaginary national threat). He’s done this consistently since 2002, and continued doing so today. And I’m tired of it. We’re smarter than this, and we need start calling Republicans on it.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. It comes from the President’s press conference this morning:
Q: Mr. President, a new Senate report this morning contends that your administration was warned before the war that by invading Iraq you would actually give Iran and al Qaeda a golden opportunity to expand their influence, the kind of influence you were talking about with al Qaeda yesterday, and with Iran this morning. Why did you ignore those warnings, sir?
To anyone with a brain, this question implies that causing unrest in Iraq would create a vacuum in authority which al Qaeda could conceivably fill. This is because al Qaeda has historically been known to prefer operating in Muslim countries with weak central governments. But, as usual, President Bush immediately began confusing Saddam Hussein and Iraq with al Qaeda—as if the two were one and the same.
THE PRESIDENT: Ed, going into Iraq we were warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen. And, obviously, as I made a decision as consequential as that, I weighed the risks and rewards of any decision. I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I know the Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I think America is safer without Saddam Hussein in power.
Which has nothing to do with al Qaeda. Anyway, he went on to say:
As to al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is going to fight us wherever we are. That's their strategy. Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East. They have made it abundantly clear what they want. They want to establish a caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. They want safe haven from which to launch attacks. They're willing to kill the innocent to achieve their objectives, and they will fight us. And the fundamental question is, will we fight them? I have made the decision to do so. I believe that the best way to protect us in this war on terror is to fight them. . .And this notion about how this isn't a war on terror, in my view, is naive. It doesn't -- it doesn't reflect the true nature of the world in which we live. You know, the lessons of September the 11th are these: we've got to stay on the offense; we've got to bring these people to justice before they hurt again; and at the same time, defeat their ideology with the ideology based upon liberty. And that's what you're seeing, and they're resisting it.
September 11th? Total confusion. Does he think that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda sharpshooters are the ones sniping American soldiers on the streets of Baghdad? This is madness and it needs to be cleared up very quickly.
Al Qaeda is the real deal. They are not partisan insurgents. They are well-trained, well-funded, and well-connected international terrorists. They are thugs and mobsters. And they are not, for the most part, who we are fighting in Iraq. Once you know how to spot them, it’s pretty easy to differentiate between them, the insurgents, and the wannabe "al Qaeda-inspired" terrorists (like the Fort Dix "terror plot" morons).
Here’s a guide I’ve come up with that the President could use:
How to Tell if it’s al Qaeda
1. The locals don’t know who they are.
"They’re not from around here" is something often heard by journalists and soldiers on the ground in the area where the terrorists are operating. They’re frequently Saudi, Pakistani, Indonesian, Yemeni, Jordanian, Chechen, Kuwaiti, Egyptian, though they operate in places like the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. They’re not pleasant to be around and often push the locals around, sometimes even removing them. They did this in Afghanistan, and when I was there, we were told this. In short, the locals usually don’t like them. This leads to tip number two.
2. The central government or tribal governments confront them and fight them.
This is why the Northern Alliance worked with the CIA to capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. This is also why the Northern Alliance’s Tajik leader, Ahmad Shah Masoud was assassinated by al Qaeda operatives two days before 9/11. This is why the tribal leaders in Iraq’s Anbar province are banding together to kick out the riffraff. And most recently, this is why the Lebanese government is being so active in confronting Fatah al-Islam at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon. This leads to tip number three.
3. They are willing and able to go toe-to-toe with government forces (including Americans).
This is not something you see with run-of-the-mill insurgents or grabass wannabe terrorists. These guys wear uniforms. They are well funded, well trained, and heavily armed. This is why the Pakistani Army gets hosed every time they try to go after Zawahiri in the Waziristan area of western Pakistan. Those Waziri tribesmen aren’t fighting alone. This is why the American military had so much trouble in Afghanistan in March 2002 during Operation Anaconda. During that engagement (of which I was a part), al Qaeda fighters effectively disabled six American Apache helicopters—out of a total of six Apache helicopters sent into the fight. During the first two days of the battle, several American units were pinned down by al Qaeda fighters and required nighttime casualty evacuations. Al Qaeda fighters—the real al Qaeda fighters—are no slouches. And most recently, this is why you see terrorists not only killing dozens of Lebanese soldiers at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, but also withstanding armor and artillery barrages by the Lebanese Army.
4. They are capable of spectacular attacks.
See 9/11.
5. They are Sunni Muslims.
This eliminates Iran from consideration as part of the "War on Terror."
To give a textbook example of how to tell the real terrorists from the posers, take a look at this article from the AP written yesterday about the militants engaging the Lebanese Army:
The militants began trickling into the camp about 10 months ago, distinguished by their beards, combat uniforms and the assault rifles they carried openly. They rarely smiled and spoke only to rebuke camp residents for smoking or other perceived "sins" against Islam.
Sound familiar?
Dawoud, who left the camp with his wife and six children during a temporary truce Tuesday, said the militants came in small groups and eventually included Palestinians as well as fighters from Lebanon, Pakistan, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
. . . .
Dawoud said in the beginning there were 100 to 200 militants but he now believes there may be more than 1,000 in the camp. Omar el-Eter, a Lebanese teacher and the imam of a mosque, who frequently visited the Nahr el-Bared camp to see friends, said the men did not have jobs. " They only went to the mosque and carried guns. But they also had money to spend," he said. "They only used dollars. "
The article continues:
Mohammed el-Eter, Omar's uncle, said the arrival of Fatah Islam militants at the camp brought a shift in power. " When they arrived in the camp, a coup of sort occurred," he said. "They took over from Fatah Uprising (another Palestinian group), disarmed them and took over their positions. They started making life difficult for the camp residents by erecting checkpoints and searching people," he said. He said he was told by other camp residents that they could see the militants training on the camp's outskirts. "But I never saw them myself," he said.
Amina Alameddine, a 50-year-old Lebanese woman, fled her home on the edge of the camp Tuesday with her daughter, daughter-in-law and three children after three fighters took up positions on the roof of her house. "I tried to reason with them, but they didn't respond. One only of them said something in classical Arabic, but I didn't understand what he said," she told a reporter outside the camp.
Classical Arabic? This is classical al Qaeda. Different dialects of Arabic are far more different than dialects of English. This is why Moroccans can’t understand Saudis and vice versa. When Arabs don’t speak each other’s dialect, they communicate in classical Arabic, or what is known as Modern Standard Arabic. This is the language of Al Jazeera. All Arabs can understand it, but many are unfamiliar with how to speak it or write it. These fighters in Lebanon are clearly outsiders.
So what is the point of all this? It’s that we didn’t invade Iraq to stamp out terrorism. Iraq wasn’t a front in the "War on Terror" until we made it one. And now, seeing the stupidity of such a move, George W. Bush is trying to convolute that action with fighting terrorism. And that’s a non-starter. I’m sorry that reality is a bit more nuanced than George is capable of comprehending. We need to call him and the rest of the Republicans out whenever they try to equate the two. Terrorism is a real problem. Just look at Lebanon today, or Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia any day. Because that’s where the real fight is. Not in Iraq.