Return of Fantastiko

Okay. I can’t stand it anymore. I’ve been toying with the idea of admitting that I have made a mistake by shutting this blog down. The time has come. It was folly to think that I could endure Bush’s second term without an outlet for my curiosity and frustration.

Now that I plan on posting comments again, let me be clear about Act Two: I have no expectations for discussion this time around. As I hit the mute button on my remote control (Bush is speaking to a group in Philadelphia on the war in Iraq), I fully realize that it’s difficult to write coherently and passionately with the world going on around us and without a stipend to motivate full commitment. So feel free to write one sentence, a book, or an academic article in response—I don’t care!!! I’m just happy to get any thoughts at all.

A topic within a topic (a long one, so be ready):

Terrorists in Iraq?

As I understand it, Bush’s recent speeches on the war in Iraq aim to reinforce the administration’s justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Consistent with post-invasion rhetoric, Bush continues to use the term “terrorist” when referring to the insurgents in Iraq. The objective of his terminology is clear: Iraq is an important part of a global war on terrorism, which began on 9/11. Just today, Bush said that our enemies in Iraq share an ideology with the terrorists who struck on 9/11. The linking of Iraq insurgents with the war on terror, and with the 9/11 attacks is not new. Is it right? Is the link as clear as it seems?

First, let me say that many of us have been itching to discuss this issue since the start of the war. It blows my mind that only now we’re talking about this—only because Murtha decided to bring it up and the press has finally noticed.

Given: We know that there was no direct link before the invasion. That is, Hussein had no more ties to terrorist groups than we did. We also know that, presently, the majority of the insurgents are not tied to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. (Remember! I'm questioning the notion of terrorists in Iraq--not that Hussein's government was evil.)

So, let’s talk about why Bush calls Iraqi insurgents terrorists. Here is the premise he uses for using the term over and over in his foreign policy speeches: If you use terror, then you are a terrorist. And all of the insurgents in Iraq use terror, so they are terrorists. Insurgents in Iraq conspire with terrorists, further cementing their terrorist label (in other words, even if only 1% of the insurgents are members of Al Qaeda, 100% of the insurgents are terrorists).

Here’s why Bush’s claims about terrorists in Iraq doesn’t make sense to me. I challenge the clarity of his premises in three ways: 1) his use of his definition of terror, 2) his disregard for the timing and nature of events, and 3) the use of the “you’re either with us or with the terrorist” threat.

1. Defining terror: Definitions vary among dictionaries, cultures, political parties, etc. Google it and you’ll see what I mean. Bush knows this. As a nation, we have not carefully defined terrorism in the past, and Bush is depending on the ambiguity in order to define it for us today. I personally see using an atomic bomb on a city, or using depleted uranium in a bomb—which we’re doing now—as acts of terrorism.

Bush has defined it more narrowly for us: Terrorists are those who use terrorism against freedom. That’s not us! Or is it? Didn’t we put Hussein in power in the first place? I’m confused. And what the hell is “freedom” anyway…

2. The timing and nature of events: If insurgents weren’t terrorists before the invasion and occupation, they are now. They fit Bush’s definition, so, in his eyes, they’re terrorists. But who made them that way? Would they have become terrorists had we not invaded? Bush implies that they have become terrorists, conspiring with Al Qaeda, because they share a common ideology. What exactly is this ideology? And do they share it completely, or is there just overlap? How much overlap constitutes “sharing an ideology”? Again, I’m confused…

3. Bush said: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Why can’t people be somewhere else? Why can’t Iraqis? This isn’t a logically valid statement, but it is an effective one. Many Americans bought this crap because they didn’t grasp this ridiculous non-sense; they were distracted by the implied threat. This is the most shameful part of Bush’s argument, and this is why the war in Iraq is wrong (if nothing else): because they threatened all of us to pay for it with blood and treasure.

In sum, he has been vague enough to encircle anyone—American, Iraqi, or otherwise—in his definition of terrorism so that the label can be applied at any politically convenient time; he has successfully relied on our ignorance of middle-east politics, cultures, and religions to avoid a challenge of any claim of common ideology between insurgents and terrorist groups; and he has preoccupied and agitated everyone with a threat that is on its surface valid, but in reality ambiguous. So my problem with him is simple: he has ignored the complexities of the world and has taken advantage of our desire for simplicity to justify a war.