Semantics shemantics! -- Or maybe something more.

What is the difference between a terrorist/freedom fighter/insurgent/opposition force/guerilla and Superman?

The difference is in how another person/group sees them. That's essentially all there is. Ideologically all of the above believe that their mission is the one that is just. The same can be said for state actors as well. Much of the rest of the world views the U.S. government as the biggest sponsor of terror that has ever existed. Americans typically do not see themselves as terrorist sponsors, but to dismiss this out of hand is truly arrogant.

These pages have chronicled the disconnect between the two opposing viewpoints. Today's 'sole supporter in the region,' becomes tomorrows most hated opponent without any real change in either camps policies or ideologies.

I have been a critic of U.S. foreign policy all of my adult life. We make monsters, and then have to expend many lives -- the vast majority of which are innocents -- to eradicate them when they no longer suit the purpose de jour.

When nearly all of the balance of the planet believes -- rightly or wrongly -- that the U.S. is the biggest danger to world peace, shouldn't we be obligated as citizens of planet earth to ask ourselves why this is so? I think the glaring answer is yes.

The world came crashing in on 11 September 2001. Do we as a society have any more of a clear sense as to what motivated these admittedly crazed people to do what they did? No. We do not. Our leaders react with infantile phrases such as, "they hate our freedoms." We deserve better than this.

We went to war against two countries, and have killed tens of thousands of people -- both combatants and innocents -- and still our most basic questions remain unanswered. Blind nationalism is not very far removed from religious extremism.

The jingoistic fervor in the US and our taste for blood have left us no safer after the overthrow of two governments. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and the blood of our countrymen for what? Your government either can't or won't tell you the real reasons we went into Iraq. It was not to remove a threat to the west, or even a threat to the region. We are an angry nation, and someone has to pay. Iraq has been at the top of a short list of strategic opponents to remove since 1991. I do not think it mattered that Saddam Hussein had fallen into disfavor with Washington.

Saddam had a few more interesting vulnerabilities to exploit. He, and his Ba'athist regime had once not only possessed chemical weapons, but actually used them at least twice. Once against a common foe, Iran, and then against his own populace. It is on record that then President Ronald Reagan sent a younger special envoy, a Donald Rumsfeld, to Iraq post gassing in part to allay Saddam's concerns that Saddam had over the use of war gases. It was the Congress that had the most serious objections, but Reagan held those lily livered congresspersons at bay, and the issue soon fell off the radar. Saddam's once vaunted military machine had also been effectively neutered by the 1991 Gulf War and a decade of US imposed sanctions, and thus was supposed to be an easy test of the, 'Bush Doctrine.' Third, Iraq sits atop the second largest known reserves of oil in the world. A few military bases in this important area could prove invaluable. All of these factors were known and the wrath of a gullible, angry US populace and Congress took the bait and we went to war under spurious conditions. By playing off of our collective fear, we sent our young to die, and to kill others.

Rarely are things as simple as those outside of the loop of knowledge appear to be. Iraq is now in a fight to stay together as a country, and with Bush seeking election -- he really didn't win the election last time round, but was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5 - 4 ruling -- we have moved up the timetable in Iraq from some number of years to this June to hand over power to some form of Iraqi governing body. This is unabashed election year posturing. Iraq is by all accounts in jeopardy of fracturing into three states, Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Once the US withdraws the reasons for these groups to stay together in a unified Iraq are likely to be trumped by tribal differences and civil war may ensue.

This is a sobering bit of history. Now, an objective observer can only be ingenuos in labeling the Gulf War redux, a dismal, expensive, and bloody experiment. An experiment in a bold, new U.S.-centric policy that failed. All evidence points to a less stable, more dangerous world since our invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is early, and this situation may change, but without any evidence that this has occurred, we must accept the fact that the Iraq war was damaging to our vital allies in the true battle against terrorism, and that the expenditure of resources in Iraq has left us more vulnerable as a result. It is multilateralism, in the form of increased intelligence, and intelligence sharing that is the best bet to stem the tide of international terrorism. The U.S. needs to mend fences with our true allies, those that didn't go into Iraq because their intel was correct. If these other intelligence services had better information then, it makes sense from any standpoint to utilize and share intelligence with them now...More importantly than at any time since World War II.

But even now, while Baghdad still burns, we are on notice that Richard Perle, who is on record as saying that the Iraq war was illegal under international law to which the U.S. is a signatory, has come out with a neo-con wish list of countries with which to get tough. I'll post links to the two articles at the end of this screed.

If I may condense all of this into an easy 'made for TV' soundbite, it would be this: Your government may not be lying to you, but it's a certainty that you are not being told the entire truth.

Links:

Richard Perle's admission that the Iraq war was illegal

Perle again -- his "manual for victory" in the war on terror(Neo-con wish list).

Please don't forget to look with skepticism at those that beat the drums for war most loudly in a time when wars 'of choice' are being debated. These are likely to be of two camps. Those that can profit in some way, and those who themselves have never seen real combat. By profit, I do not necessarily mean financially, either directly or indirectly, but also those wishing to have their theories validated. If you look VERY closely, you'll often find the key players have all of these characteristics.

Before I close, I'd like to add this:

Eight killed in New Year's Eve bombing of popular Baghdad restaurant

The New Year's Eve car bombing of an upscale Baghdad restaurant, which killed eight people, was a sign that opponents of the U.S.-led occupation forces may be shifting to civilian targets, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.

The so-called "hard targets" in Baghdad -- like coalition complexes and Iraqi police stations -- are increasingly well guarded, pushing insurgents toward soft targets, like Nabil Restaurant, said a U.S. military officer with the 1st Armored Division. He spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"When terrorists can target coalition forces or Iraqi police," they will, said Lt. Gen. Ahmed Kadhem, deputy Iraqi interior minister and Baghdad chief of police. "If they can't, they go to an easier target, aiming at civilians."

He said security was being increased around hospitals and government buildings and called on schools to put up checkpoints and keep cars off their campuses.

Assailants have previously bombed civilian targets, including the Baghdad headquarters of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Both organizations pulled most of their foreign staff out of Iraq after those deadly attacks. Much more.

The situation on the ground in Iraq is not remotely safe for man nor beast.

I did not mention Afghanistan in the above. That is due to two reasons. One, I was supporter of military action against al-Qaeda. Two, I wrote this as a stream of conscience and 'that other hell' that is Afghanistan, never entered my mind.

I'll try and be more cogent in the future(it was New Year's eve just last night) I'm a bit off today.

What future opponents are we supporting today?