Hall of Mirrors

The contents of this article are terrifying and illustrative.

Often seen as a conflict of bloody misunderstanding and intolerance, the War on Terror/Jihad is intent on showing us the ugliest facets humanity has to offer. It is also far more complex than any 'blog could possibly illustrate due to its roots in political movements that absorbed religious fanaticism as a tool for change within its own society all through the modern showdown with men whose forces and causes we (the West - don't think for an instant that just because you aren't American your country isn't complicit) once supported.

The current state of the Jihad and the War on Terror shows us the reach of hate, and the bitter aftertaste of fear.

I will begin with my own beam before I pluck at the Middle Eastern mote, as it were. Rumsfeld has long been both lauded and reviled over the last 50 years. In spite of the initial appeal of taking both Afghanistan and Iraq with as few soldiers as possible (alternately seen as both forward-thinking and short-sighted), there are many things he has done to both offend and abuse the American soldier.

In the Defense Review, Rumsfeld cites several worrisome activities. While in and of themselves, they make perfect tactical and strategic sense, some seem to flout our responsibilities to the international community, law, and democracy.

For instance, it makes sense that the military would be restructured further to adapt to the current world environs and that the military should never be allowed to become complacent.

But it is passive-aggressive imperialist doctrine to state categorically that we plan to conduct war in countries with whom we are not engaged in hostilities. Rather than admit that we must first pursue diplomatic and political solutions to cases where a country offers a safe haven to those we oppose, the document expresses the arrogance of power. Few countries would dare march an army into a neutral or allied country with the intent of waging war on a specific segment of those within those borders. Even in cases where the country being violated may be politically belligerent, such an action is patently an act of war not only on the target but on its host.

Yes, yes, a solid case can be made in the interest of security, but the broad strokes used to outline this doctrine send the message to the world that we will do as we please without regard to treaty, law, or the long-term ramifications of such bellicose activity. Would the United States stand for another country doing the same to it? The answer to that hardly warrants asking.

The bits reproduced read like an imperialist manifesto. Certainly it can be taken at face value as reorganization and recognition of the changing theatre the military occupies, but it could also be seen as similar to the British Navigation Act of 1651 - as a vehicle for empire - or the United States' own Manifest Destiny.

It also lays out the presumption that this is a conflict that can be won through violence, an assertion the article's author correctly disputes.

So let's move on to everyone's favorite Mastermind: Osama bin-Laden.

What we see here is far less sophisticated in terms of details but no less sophisticated in its ability to influence those he intends to reach. His points are full of spurious and fallacious logic, arrays virtually the entire world as enemies of Islam, and even promotes internal religious strife and violence.

Most disturbing, though, is his refusal to acknowledge the reality of dissent. Instead, Osama bin-Laden takes the ethical stance that because our leaders are democratically elected, we are responsible for everything they do. From a very simplistic standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Our leaders are intended to represent our will. The problem is that no government actually works this way. Ideally, certainly, but we do not live in that sort of world.

His statements as reproduced in the article linked above imply genocide. If you are not with us, you are against us...sound familiar? The absolutism of his hate is staggering.

Sadly, this is a common - if lamentable - sentiment among religious fanatics and in this way, Osama bin-Laden and George W. Bush (and no less importantly, their supporters) don't seem much different, and that is frightening.