• calling it the "war on terror"

I find the constant framing of US policy toward the ME as a "war on terror" extremely irritating. 

I don't doubt the need to combat terrorist groups directly (and especially to thwart planned terror attacks) but the idea that terrorism can be directly fought and that this is US policy is totally misleading. 

The neo-cons use it to appeal to people's  fear of being attacked out-of-the-blue. But I've noticed that even those on the left who have supported the war in Iraq tend to focus far too much on the issue of terror and fears of Islamic fundamentalism.  This has led to increasing confusion about the course of democratic change in the ME with little distinction being drawn between out-and-out fascists such as ex Baathists and Al Quada types and the many Islamic groups which will eventually need to form the basis of emerging democratic governments in the ME.  Mamy of these Islamist groups are in fact quite reactionary and historically they have used terrorist tactics - no doubt about that.  But it seems clear that the US is quite prepared to accept them as part of elected governments - even a dominant part (Iraq is evidence of that).   In Lebanon, Hizbollah is part of the elected government and in the Palestinian Territories the people voted for Hamas.  The US knows that it has to accept this.  Although both Hamas and Hizbollah are officially listed by the US as terrorist groups it is not in fact "at war" with them.

The struggle against the reactionary tendencies of these groups will be the "self-determination" that people like Hentlyer and Steve Owens like to keep talking about. Such self-determination is now possible in Iraq because that country is no longer under the sway of the Baath dictatorship. Once elected, reactionary Islamist groups  will be forced to moderate their ideas in a progressive direction or lose favour with the people who voted for them.  Already it looks as though Hamas is close to accepting the demands oulined in the "Prisoner's Document" in recognition that this is what the majority of Palestinians want.

The pro-war left seems confused on this issue nevertheless - and of course both the conservative right and the pseudo left can't stop talking about the election of Islamist groups in Iraq and elsewhere as evidence of a failed and stupid US policy.  Similarly every time there is a terrorist attack (or a near miss) there are the triumphant claims of "I told you so - the war on terror just causes more terrorism".

But it's not a "war on terror" but  a policy of draining the swamps - getting rid of the conditions which breed terrorists. This means democracy and the resulting opportunity  for self-determination across the entire Middle East.   That's the only way to drain the swamp.   Terrorism will continue until that task is complete.

_____________

Yes, I've always rejected the concept of a "War on Terror". Its really about completing the (bourgeois) democratic revolution.

A suitable replacement is "War on tyranny" which also reminds me of a line from the US version of the Internationale:

On tyrants only we'll make war

The recent promotion of the term "islamo-fascism" is interesting for its ambiguity in allowing a shift away from "War on terror" to "War against tyranny" while still maintaining necessary confusion about the nature of the shift.

The Bushies won't be able to actually go in that direction until they have got rid of the albatross of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and are able to be in open conflict with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Even then they will always be ambivalent and hesitant about it since the last thing they want is to unleash popular enthusiasm for revolutionary war.

I agree that the  "war on terror" is a stupid expression. How can you have a war against a abstract noun?

The war on terror was not launched to find Osama bin Ladin, it was a excuse to launch a military presense in a region of geopolitical importance. Beneath the Caspian sea is some of the world's greatest oil reserves, something like 30 billion barrels.

The war has been a failure for the people of Afhhanistan. Despite the sept 2004 elections, president kharzai has no power outside Kabul, the Taliban have reformed, and the United State's former drug dealing allies are sending heroin across asia and into Europe. Woman have virtually no rights outside Kabul, and the west has failed to fullfil their promise to Afghanistan to help it progress to a modern state.

This failure has nothing to do with terrorists or Taliban. The west seem to be deliberately keeping Afghanistan as the status of a 'failed state' so that it can justify the military presense. Despite the election, full democracy is the last thing that the west wants for Afghanistan. Afterall a full democracy might ask them to leave and there would be no need for soldiers and bombers.

Likewise the violence in Iraq is used to justify the military occupation, although the resistance is in response to the occupation.