Frank Gardner, so-called ‘BBC security correspondent’ provides an ‘analysis‘
Is US winning its war on terror? [emphasis added]
Much has happened in the past 12 months. Some of al-Qaeda’s leading lights have been caught and interrogated. Saddam Hussein is no longer in power in Baghdad. Numerous plots and attacks have been thwarted. And yet, depressingly, the so-called war on terror is still with us. [emphasis added]
If we were to look at this purely in terms of military gains the answer would be obvious. The US has swiftly toppled two governments it considered to be rogue regimes – first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. The Pentagon’s supremacy on the battlefield is unrivalled and unstoppable. Its troops are holding down a sort of peace in both countries.
But waging a war on terror is a complex business. In fact many in Britain are convinced that the regime of Saddam Hussein, brutal as it was, had little to do with terrorism per se. ….
I would suggest that those who are of Gardner’s view read former Clinton advisor and anti-terror expert Laurie Mylroie’s article as well as new documentary evidence showing a definite link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Why is the Beeb so determinedly disinterested in that sarin which has been confirmed?
Gardner continues with his ‘analysis’–
Since it was President Bush who declared the war on terror two years ago, let us look at the gains and losses from the perspective of his administration.
He goes on to conclude that evident military gains have been clouded by PR losses.
Mr Gardner has an historical affinity for this ‘so-called’ term (from 21 February)
I came here to see for myself how the Pentagon was fighting its so-called “war on terror”. [emphasis added]
Apparently, the BBC does not agree with the proposition that the ‘so-called war on terror’ is a reality. Could they simply acknowledge that whether Bush declared war on the terrorists after 9/11, terrorists had long ago declared war on the West? Or could it be too much of a stretch.
Christopher Hitchens wonders why there is such indifference to stories which disturb the anti-war group-think which the BBC articulates so effortlessly.
So a Sarin-infected device is exploded in Iraq, and across the border in Jordan the authorities say that nerve and gas weapons have been discovered for use against them by the followers of Zarqawi, who was in Baghdad well before the invasion. Where, one idly inquires, did these toys come from? No, it couldn’t be.…
What will it take for the BBC to be convinced that this is a real war?
We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.
We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.
We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.
Yes, it seems like a BBC statement of faith– rarely articulated but never abandoned. (Hat Tip No Left Turns)