words matter

The name “War on Terror” has always been a dodge, for a nation fights against an enemy, not a tactic. I have in the past called our present struggle the War against militant Islamic fundamentalism: a name that, no matter how accurate, is both too long and vulnerable to being twisted out of context by ideological opponents.

This week, officials from sundry parts of the Executive Branch testified before Congress regarding the state of the war. As the Belmont Club notes, there finally appears now to be a consensus name for the enemy: Sunni Jihadism. It has been over three years in coming.

The intelligence testimony unanimously identifies the key threat to America as Al Qaeda and the 'Sunni Jihadist movement', referring to both in the same phrase as essentially comprising the same set; their choice of weapons a Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear (CBRN) attack on America. Operationally, they are adapting to the heightened Homeland Security defenses using covert methods or under the guise of charities, religious organizations, academe and the like. The intelligence community unanimously believed that 'Al Qaeda' — shorthand for the Sunni jihadist movement — was successfully using US operations in Iraq to create a favorable political environment for their cause not only in the Middle East, but in Muslim communities and in the Left of center political spectrum. Great power rivals, although not directly in league with terrorists, could potentially use the threat of tactical collaboration with terrorist organizations to checkmate the United States as part of their national policy by providing the enemy with enabling technologies and weapons.

All in all, the intelligence briefings painted a picture of an enemy that had not yet realized its power potential. It had been stayed, but not fatally wounded.

It ain't over yet.

UPDATE: More in the comments.

I've always interpreted "War on Terror" as "War on Terrorists of the Wrong Sort": interesting to see the specification of that wrong sort. I'm still puzzled as to what it has to do with invading Iraq. If a pro-American like me is puzzled, it's no surprise that anti-Americans are ranting.

Enlightened self-interest dictates that not every terrorist movement will be treated alike: the Administration isn't going to spend overmuch energy worrying about Maoist rebels in Nepal, for instance. I would nonetheless argue that current policy is more consistent than in the past. For one example, this White House is far less welcoming to Sinn Fein types than was Clinton's.

Yet naming the enemy as Sunni Jihadists does leave an interesting gap. What about Shi'ite terrorist groups--especially Hezbollah, which before 9/11 had killed more Americans than any other organization? One could argue that Hezbollah's interest is purely regional, but the lacuna is still rather interesting, and lends some weight to your suspicion that this is a "War on Terrorists of the Wrong Sort".

As for the Iraq War: at this late date I have despaired of ever convincing anyone who is still opposed to (or even, as in your case, puzzled by) the war. Consider, however, that without doubt Bush and Blair knew that the invasion would upend the apple cart that is the Greater Middle East--and that they considered that a feature, not a bug. It has been a grim two years. But last month's election might well prove to be of profoundly historical significance.

Things could still go south, of course. But the idea of representative government (as opposed to the usual tyranny) might just as well prove contagious. It's still absurdly optimistic to hope that a few years hence there might be string of democracies stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. But were such a thing to happen--and we are two regime changes away--Gulf War II would be one of the primary catalysts.

And God willing, Velvet Revolutions can happen outside Europe.

"Less welcoming" to Sinn Fein: but why not "determined to help the Brits and the Irish Republic deal with those murderous bastards"? And praise for W in terms of less- bad-than-Clinton is faint praise indeed.

Touché. Still, one could hardly expect the American President to take a harder line on the IRA than Britain's own PM. It's discouraging to see just how willing Labour is to paper over Sinn Fein's failure to live up to any point of agreement.