I guess there are others who would say, "No, some are terrorists but some need to be called by other names -- like resistance or insurgents or militants or freedom fighters." That's the Reuters argument. I don't think I'm going to agree with that.
I understand that some may not like thinking about this issue, but I think it is a propaganda/political ploy to label anyone opposed to US foreign policy a "terrorist."
--Hannity lumping US libs in with terrorists, or those that try to make tree-hugging hippies "terrorists," or people like Richard Perle that refer to journalists as "terrorists" are "defining deviancy down" as Rush would say...
I just think there is some self-delusion going on here about Iraq that will be harmful in the long run.
I think this leads to some dangerous modes of thinking whereby in the long run it will be more harmful to our military strategy and the overall WOT.
The Pentagon and the White House need to concern themselves far more with military strategy and setting the conditions that will allow victory in the WOT and far less with various PR issues like trying to control language via the media.
I think that for political reasons they are refusing to face the reality that there is now a widespread insurgency in Iraq. They want to claim this is just the work of a few hundred terrorists, but this is not reality. There are tens of thousands of people now involved in the resistance and I am sure that many of them could give a shit about Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein...
I think this delusional thinking is in large part responsible for the mess we now have in Iraq. The neo-cons should have listened to the military people like Shinseki rather than convincing themselves that a bunch of arabs were going to greet US troops with flowers and candy.
And, I find this whole situation starting to smell very much like LBJ and Vietnam circa 1968. Obviously it is not all the same, but I am seeing a level of political meddling with military operations that I thought I would never see again.
General Conway's discussion of White House meddling during the April assault on Fallujah was VERY disturbing to me...
In my mind, the refusal to follow the Powell/Weinberger doctrine in an effort to prove Rumsfeld's pet theories about military transformation is now causing some real problems.
I think the US should have sent every "swinging dick" to Tora Bora. Why have the best military on the planet if you are going to leave it at home when you've got Osama trapped in a cave?
I also think that if they really had to invade Iraq, they should have sent 500,000 troops just like the Gulf War rather than trying to do it on the cheap due to some Washington bureaucrat's pet theories...
I think that the politicians in Washington are in serious need of a reality check, and I think that rather than dealing with the fact that the situation is deteriorating, they are more focused on the November elections.
I don't pay much attention to the "everything is great" rhetoric of politicians and flag officers, if I want the straight dope, I look for what the O-3s and E-5s and below are saying--especially the Marines, they don't seem to bullshit as much as the Army. And what I see there is completely opposed to the sorts of stories being told by the Pentagon, the White House, and the higher-level officer corps.
As far as the zarqawi reward money goes, I have long argued that they need to boost it 10 million every week. Or, perhaps they could up the reward to say, one billion dollars. If the reward was big money, it would attract some consortiums of mercs and bounty hunters as well as some home grown "treasure hunters" looking for Zarqawi.
Do the same thing for the Osama cash...