Yemen, Underwear bomber, 5 jihadists and Cuba?

Perhaps this isn’t the best time to bring up the issue of defining terrorism but I can’t help it given the conflicting views that persist.
First there is the five US citizen’s captured in Pakistan and accused of being terrorists. These 5 men (ages 19-25) deny any link to al Qaeda or any plan to carry out a terrorist attack. One of them said “we are not terrorists…we are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism. They see jihad as their religious right, to study Islam, to care for the sick, or to fight against the foreign forces occupying a Muslim country - Afghanistan. It is their God given duty “to help the helpless Muslims” who are in trouble, who are bleeding and who are being victimized by Western forces. What’s odd is that these men were all from Alexandria, VA. It would seem the would be of more service to Al Qaeda, if they were terrorists, finding targets around the Potomac, than in facing US soldiers and high tech weapons on hair trigger in the mountains of Afganistan.
Second, after the terror attempt by the underwear bomber, new flight restrictions were added to 14 countries. Cuba was one of them. Cuba? There are more Jewish terrorists than there are Cuban terrorists. Cuban leaders are communists not religious. And, their most radical youth are skateboarders. Cuba? Our nation risks all credibility in putting Cuba on a terrorist watch list. If nothing else it’s a distraction from what our intelligence agencies should be doing. Maybe that’s why we didn’t catch an obvious terrorist like the underwear bomber.
Third, on a “Current/Vanguard” investigative journalist program “America’s Secret War with Iran” a group of Iranian dissidence called the PJAC were interviewed. They were based about 50 Kilometers inside Iraq away from the Iranian border. From Iraq they conduct occasional attacks against the Iranian Regime which they obviously have issues with. Iranian forces see these trouble makers who kill both Iranian soldiers and civilians as “terrorists”. In fact, the PJAC is an Iranian Kurdish offshoot of Pakistan’s Kurdish PKK. The PKK is an organization that attacks our ally Turkey putting them on our nations list of officially targeted terrorist groups. Did you keep all this straight? I think I’m finally getting it. If we don’t like someone we call them terrorists. If they are terrorizing someone we don’t like… they’re not terrorists.
Meanwhile, “Yemen’s fragile government is in a delicate balancing act between it allegiance to the US – and tribal, political and religious forces that resent US interference in Yemen and sympathize with al – Qaeda’s ideology” reported the Washington Post (“Yemen walks fine line in aiding US” 1-5-10). The government’s “survival depends on powerful tribal and social groups” that “have strong connections to al-Qaeda.” Opposition politicians in Yemen’s parliament warn “many Yemenis will support al-Qaeda if the conflict escalates.” It appears some “Tribal leaders and lawmakers in the south are furious about what they say was a US sponsored airstrike on civilians” December 17. The government says it targeted “militants and their relatives”. It is feared that “Yemen’s security forces” have been “infiltrated by al-Qaeda sympathizers”. Given the results of 7 CIA officials killed by a double agent in Afghanistan – Yemen could get real messy. Assuming those killed by US assisted air strikes were not civilians…do “militants and their relatives” deserve to be bombed into little pieces with only suspicion of being al Qaeda sympathizers? How terrorizing can that be for other al Qaeda sympathizers in south Yemen who fear they and their relatives could be vaporized without a warning or a trial? Remind me who again are the terrorists? And what again are we fighting for? Oh yes! I almost forgot. They’re sitting on our oil.

US decline following Rome's. Bush to blame.

Dear Editor,
Jeffery Kuhner’s claim that our great nation may be declining like the Roman Empire (A Decade of Decline, Oped 1-3-10) may be correct but some of his diagnostics are off. Former President Bush can be blamed for some of the decline but his “championed nation building abroad” wouldn’t be part of it. In fact, he campaign pledge was not to do nation building. Fact is our nations failure to help facilitate civilized governments the world over for the last 3 decades is now the greatest source of “Barbarians” at our gates. Our primary foreign policy priorities during those decades were containing communism, maintaining access to oil, and backing the state of Israel. Often these priorities inhibited civilized nation building.
Bush’s costly wars that Mr. Kuhner documents were costly because of military expenditures…not because of nation building expenses. Any honest budget analysis would show a near ten to one bias in favor of military power vs. the moral power of development or diplomacy also essential to nation building. Development and diplomacy were only rhetorical priorities in Bush’s Global War on Terrorism. Making matters more lopsided is the fact that “nation building” was only an afterthought, once his shock and awe invasion and unfriendly occupation failed in finding Saddam’s WMDs. As with the fall of Rome it will be Bushs’ costly foreign military interventions that are most to blame.
Kuhner’s suggestion that “our goal should have been to smash the forces of global jihad through a strategy of total victory through total war” is laughable. One of the greatest factors feeding global jihad after 9-11 has been the loss of innocent Muslim lives as a direct and indirect result of US military action. Such ‘collateral damage’ is the cost of any war and our limited war has kept those losses relatively low. But, unfortunately still too high for many Muslims to stomach. Accidentally murdering tens or hundreds of thousands more, which would undoubtedly happen under Kuhner’s plan would lead to Armageddon…not victory.
Mr. Kuhner’s claim that “Rome collapsed due to moral decline” may also be accurate but he offers only a fraction of Rome’s moral decay as evidence. He doesn’t’ mention Rome’s glorification of violence, or it’s indifference to the poor, homeless, illiterate, hungry and sick. Rome’s leadership was “scorned” and “reviled” for these shortcomings far more than it’s sexual decadence or “infanticide”.
The U.S. has the means of avoiding Rome’s path of self destruction but that would mean taking the higher ground of ‘life, liberty and justice for all’ in the world. Not some fantasy that we can remain the world’s superpower by crushing any who threaten us. A little known bearded man during Rome’s era of power once said, ‘those who live by the sword, will certainly die by it”. Ever wonder what the world be like today if they had listened to that meek and loving profit -- instead of torturing him on a cross?