[tw]

Previously the enemy was bin Laden and his ally Saddam. They must be allies because WE must see everything in terms of a common enemy. Meanwhile, the Chechnyan insurgents who even murder Beslam children are described by Russia as Al Qaeda. Still Putin, et al think (and may just know) that Americans, et al are so ignorant as to insist a common enemy must exist. Chechnyan rebels are (often) Islamic. Does that mean it is Al Qaeda? Does that mean it is even Muslim Brotherhood? Of course not. For that matter, clearly the Bosnian were Al Qaeda - who were also victims of ethnic cleansing. We could take it even farther using administration logic. After all, a center for manufacturing counterfeit documents (ie passports) was discovered near Albania. Clearly that too must be Al Qaeda.

The example was posted weeks ago in this topic:

The Islamic Jihad Brigades of Muhammad's Army - is it another Al Qaeda organization? Is it another example of the Muslim Brotherhood? Probably not. It appears to be a derivative of the Baath Party which has nothing to do with religion. Another organization with a common enemy - Americans. These insurgents are also described by some as Al Qaeda simply because they too are attacking Americans. Examples of simplistic Washington logic - when do we learn the lessons of Vietnam?

Another organization is Armed Vanguards of Muhammad's Second Army. What is this? Another nationwide organization or just some cousins with a video camera. These are questions The Economist is asking because there are no simple answers - as being promoted in Washington where fixing the region is their objective.

There is no monolithic Al Qaeda; no monolithic enemy. Iraq has become the perfect training ground for numerous insurgents, terrorists, and religious extremist recruitment. Why? Our own leaders never bothered to first learn how complex the region really is. Some foolishly believed Saddam and bin Laden were allies when in reality they were the worst of enemies. These Washington leaders had the Gen Westmoreland attitude. Wolfovich was as decieved as McNamara. They just assumed this was a region where people were trained to hate Americans. That the little people would welcome American liberators and everyone would then live happy lives. ... And still some insist all these attacks are somehow bin Laden's plans. Still so many in Washington have no clue, in part, because reality is political suicide in this administration.

So now we don't blame bin Laden? We blame fundamentalist Islam. Again, we are looking for a common enemy in symptoms that have little in common. Often the terrorist at one point finds his mission in life in fundamental Islamic beliefs. Or did he really find his mission in westernized bachelor whoring?

Too many blame Islamic leaders. As I noted weeks ago, the Islamic leaders in western countries have had a sort of epiphany. Therefore they recently decided that these distorted religious believers who pass through their mosques (leave as quickly as they arrive) should be warned about perverted interpretations of the Koran. Yes, they have finally decided (just as Catholic Church finally decided that pedophilia is a problem) to address the fundamentalist extremist recruiting that occurs in mosques.

But it not Islam alone that creates the problem - as so much simplistic Rush Limbaugh type propaganda would have us believe. As far as western nations are concerned, the problem did not exist until western nations decided to 'fix' the region; were not honest about leaving. It is these little details that America was warned about after 1 Aug 1990. And since we did not understand the region, we stayed.

It is those little details even lost in the translation of the Koran that can cause problems. The region should have been left to first fix itself. If we had done as we did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan - left when it was over - then we would not have problems that we now blame exclusively and simplistically on Al Qaeda. Problems that we are now trying to blame on fundamentalist Islam.

To appreciate the problem, use a wider perspective.

The Islamic Jihad Brigades of Muhammad's Army - is it another Al Qaeda organization? Is it another example of the Muslim Brotherhood? Probably not. It appears to be a derivative of the Baath Party which has nothing to do with religion.

Don't fall for administration propaganda that now blames fundamentalist Islam. Quicksand is not just sand. We stay out of quicksand because there is no common enemy and no simple solution. However we have now decided to fix the quicksand. Now we are trying to blame its deceiving looks, trying to blame the water, then blame the muck, then the sand, then the geology, ..... instead of staying out until we really understood what it was.

Don't fall for the myth that Saddam was a threat to America - let alone even a threat to his neighbors. Don't fall for the myth that they are all Al Qaeda. Don't fall for the myth that is it fundamentalist Islam. Don't be so myopic. It is the Arab world. It is as complicated as the presidential politics of Lebanon. The minute that George Jr, Rumsfeld, or Rush Limbaugh try to define one common enemy, then they are lying.

Welcome to the quagmire that is the Middle East and Central Asia. We now suffer terrorism because for some silly reason, we decided at the presidential level to institute "prevention" of an enemy that did not exist rather than the well proven (by generations) policy of "containment". We got the problem we wanted. We have met the enemy and he is us. We couldn’t just let the region fix its own minor problems. We had to fix it rather than learn from the lessons of history. Deja Vue.

So now there is no common enemy. There is no pope to lead the Arabs against the infidels. And somehow, this thread continues to search for only one common factor - because of White House propaganda faxed daily to the Rush Limbaugh types?