by tristero

Liberals! They're always such literalists. Consider the liberal blogosphere's cynical objection to the modern usage of the term "Al Qaeda," as if it should still be restricted merely to "followers of bin Laden" when clearly times, and al Qaeda, have changed. Only liberals are stuck in the past.

Look people, war is a complicated business. And this war, which we all know is unlike any other in history, is the most complex war ever. And sure enough, if you examine this war through a typically liberal microscope, it's hopeless! No wonder that nobody can figure out what the hell we're doing there, because nobody can figure out who the enemy is. There are Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, insurgents, rebels, warlords, street gangs, terrorists who are existential threats, terrorists who were once existential threats but who are now American allies, and heaven knows what else. And what purpose is served by such obsessive discrimination? They're all Arabs after all, no different than the Iranis - or is it Iranians? Hell, who can remember such stuff?

And that is what's behind the latest media policy, which finesses all unnecessary liberal distinctions without a real difference. As Glenn Greenwald correctly notes, this, clarifies the situation for maximum comprehension by an American audience:
...anyone we fight is automatically designated "Al Qaeda"
However, Greenwald's definition still isn't broad enough, in my opinion. Back in '02 or '03, Glenn Reynolds averred that those who opposed the Iraq war from the start were "ojectively pro-Saddam." Today, all we need to do is to generalize Reynolds' important principle. Then, we apply it to the media's commendable effort to tell the story of the GWOT straight, no chaser, ie, in the simplest clearest terms possible. Therefore:
To oppose Bush's "surge" means you objectively support al Qaeda's efforts in Iraq.
Even clearer:
To oppose the Bush surge essentially means you're a member of al Qaeda.
And for purists who want the clearest possible message, just eliminate "essentially."