Creating Enemies for Power and Profit

My partner, Pierre, sent me an article by David Sanger from the New York Times, linked HERE and above, that raises some interesting questions about the Bush regime's use of language in its so-called "War on Terror" or more recently "the War against Islamic Extremism".

A critical debate in America today — among political candidates and among national security experts — is whether five years of war declarations and war-making have helped to make the United States more secure. Or, even in the absence of a major attack on American soil since 9/11, has this strategy created greater danger by providing terror groups with exactly what they crave: the sense that they are a unified army of jihadists? And has the strategy radicalized large swaths of the Muslim world in ways that were not imaginable as recently as 2003?

Specualtion is that the answer to both questions is an emphatic YES. It is true that Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the proxy war in Lebanon have radicalized many Muslims who before weren't angry enough to volunteer to go fight in another country's war. The other effect is that Bush's actions have also served to radicalize Westerners - and more importantly, Christians and Zionists - against Islam.

Sanger points out that London's approach to the recently foiled "terror plot" was to tackle the case as terrorism has traditionally been treated - as a law enforcement issue. Since 911, The Bush regime has chosen to couch all of these otherwise unrelated terror acts in different countries as part of a broader war against a military tactic, and then against a religious ideology. Bush used the ironic phrase "Islamic fascism" to describe the beliefs of the most recent plotters. (Ironic considering the fact that Bush's neoconservative ideology is more closely related to traditional fascism than is religious Islamic fundamentalism.)

In Oklahoma City we observed the problems that can be caused by prematurely painting an Islamic face on a terror attack. We also saw this rush to conclusions with the orgy of evidence that was found after the 911 attacks. Presumably since this latest London plot was squashed in its infant stages, there may be some indication of the group's political leanings. Though the timing was "interesting" as I've noted earlier.

Bush is using this provocative language to unite Western opinion against Islam, but it is creating several unfortunate consequences.

1. It has increased racist and religiously motivated sentiment and attacks against all Muslims.
2. It has served to alienate moderate Muslims who are forced to band together to protect the religion and its adherants.
3. As Sanger pointed out, it is creating the impression of a unified army of Jihadists among Muslims, Islamics and non-Islamics alike where none exists in reality.
4. It is empowering radical Christianity and Zionism, stoking the fires of extremism for a new crusade and a coming Apocolypse.
   

The Bush Regime's interests in the oil, security and weapons industries are finding terrorism, war in the Middle East and the resulting crackdown on civil liberties to be a very profitable business. Meanwhile, Zionist and Christian extremist factions are gaining momentum for a definitive battle against Islamic forces that are not unified, but are being forced to rally the troops.

I don't mean to be alarmist, but the framing of these conflicts in terms of religious ideology, is escalating the tension between these rival religions. Unfortunately, the rest of us may be the ones financing, fighting and dying in these wars if events continue along this course.