Jay Tea at Wizbang discusses the Iraq/terrorism issue, and Murdoc largely agrees with what he’s got to say about it. The post fits well with my earlier post about the nature of the civil conflict within Iraq. His general point is that terrorism existed in Iraq before the invasion in 2003. It’s just that it was state-sponsored and tightly-controlled.
What happened when we toppled Saddam was that the means of control and exporting of terrorism were destroyed, and the forces he had reined in were set loose. They no longer had to depend on Saddam’s largesse, nor fear his wrath. Further, the enemy they had psyched themselves to fight — the West — was there, among them, and available for attack. To take on the warriors of the West fed into their own self-image as mighty, noble warriors, and the idea of traveling hundreds, thousands of miles to fight the great enemy when they were just across town lost its appeal.
It’s eminently debatable how things are going in Iraq. Personally, I think it’s going all right. The recent outburst threatened to degenerate into outright chaos and anarchy, with factions more intereated in slaughter than conquest, but it was averted and ultimately fizzled — and the leaders of the various factions in the nascent Iraqi government were largely responsible for that event. (This despite the cheerleading of several elements of the anti-war left and the media to hype the “civil war” that would prove their point — but at the cost of an ungodly butcher’s bill. Look how fast the 1300 body count myth fell apart.)
I’d like to remind readers that at least some high-profile news organizations played ball with the former ruling regime, which probably made it even easier to hide things from the outside world.
As they say, go read the whole thing.
Also noted is the fact that the “War in Iraq” is really a campaign in the larger war. I’ve long referred to the “Global War on Terror” as the “Fourth World War”, and this brings up something I should have pointed out the other day when posting on CNN’s (What? mentioning CNN twice in one post?!?) use of “the so-called war on terror” on their front page.
In mid-April of 2003 I called the “Global War on Terror”
just a marketing name for World War 4
and I still believe that. So, technically, you could argue that Murdoc Online writes about the “so-called war on terror” all the time.
But that would be arguing semantics. Murdoc is very clear that he thinks that there is war being fought. Murdoc is very clear that terrorists and their tactics are a large part of what we’re fighting against. Murdoc is very clear about which side he thinks is more “right” and which side he wants to win.
CNN has no benefit of the doubt on any of these points.
If Murdoc writes “so-called war on terror” you ask “well, what should the war really be called?” When CNN writes “so-called war on terror” Murdoc asks “do they realize that there really is a war?”