Thursday, July 28, 2005


More on the replacement of "global war on terror" by other various names that might actually possess an element of achievability. (How about Global War on Suicide Bombers?). Since they got us into this mess through the inflamed rhetoric of GWOT, which also served as an otherwise unconnected propaganda slogan for invading and occupying Iraq, shouldn't we hold them to the global eradication of terror in the name of s'curity?

Juan Cole writes,

The Bush administration is giving up the phrase "global war on terror."
I take it this is because they have finally realized that if they are fighting a war on terror, the enemy is four guys in a gymn in Leeds. It isn't going to take very long for people to realize that a) you don't actually need to pay the Pentagon $400 billion a year if that is the problem and b) whoever is in charge of such a war isn't actually doing a very good job at stopping the bombs from going off....

...As for the jihadis, who do wish us harm, former CIA analyst Marc Sageman estimates the number of radical Muslims who can and would do significant harm to the US in the hundreds.

That's right. The old "war on terror" was a war of the world's sole superpower on a few hundred people....

No comments: