I am posting a bit from the article David pointed us to because I think it addresses an important aspect in the national dialogue with regards to our "War on Terror."

It seems that a lot of people would say we are at war with Muslims. If you went out and asked the average Joe on the street I think you would get that response the majority of the time. The question then arises - Why do we get this response? - I think the answer is simply that's how this war has been promoted by this administration, talk shows, and even tv shows like 24. Using terms like "Islamo-facism" and phrases like "not all Muslims may be terrorists but all the terrorists are Muslims" build the idea that we are at war with Islam and all Muslims.

You hear it again and again in the general dialogue. People chastising all Muslims for not standing up and saying they are against terrorism and terrorists. It's the equivalent of me going down to the local Catholic Church and demanding that people leaving Sunday services say they are against Fred Phelps or demanding a group of Mormons declare they are against child molestation because Catholic priests have been caught molesting children.

Sadly this nonsense has been trumpeted not just by talk show clowns but by the administration itself and other politicians that support them. It's an insidious way to create the us against them atmosphere needed to gain support for the sort of plainly outrageous actions our government have unleashed on the world. A propaganda campaign that justifies demonizing all Muslims in the interests of fighting a "War on Terror."

We are not at war with Muslims. We are at war with terrorist organizations, not "Islamo-facism." What should be considered in this fight as well is that some of the leaders and supporters of these terrorist organizations likely could give not a hoot for extreme Islamic Fundamentalist garbage. What they do see is the value of using people's faith against them to recruit "soldiers" who will sacrifice themselves in the name of God.

I don't know if I should say it's funny or sad that we see that same paradigm at work in this country when it comes to Christians. The fact is though, any way you shake it, it is plain wrong.

Now with regards to Dale, who I think has me on ignore, his constant refrain of "we just don't know" and "it's all just your opinion vs. mine" comes across as pretty hollow. We do know some things and can establish agreed upon relevant facts that apply. There are people that are more informed than others. Sure it may be my "opinion" we are better off getting out of Iraq but we can establish a clear reason our government gave us for going there in the first place that we agree upon. I mean can we call that an accepted fact?

Read the quote below from Brzezinski's article and tell me which items are "facts" (can be supported by known accepted data) and which are "opinions" (purely authors speculation extrapolated from data he has)...

_______________________________________________

Indeed, a mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potential expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the decisive ideological struggle of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and Al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack that precipitated U.S. involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative, however, overlooks that the Nazi threat was based on the military power of the most industrially advanced European state and that Stalinism was not only able to mobilize the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine.

In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism. Al Qaeda is an isolated, fundamentalist aberration. Most Iraqis are engaged in strife not on behalf of an Islamist ideology but because of the U.S. occupation, which destroyed the Iraqi state. Iran, meanwhile, though gaining in regional influence, is hardly a global threat; rather, it is politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that the United States must respond militarily to a wide Islamic threat with Iran at its epicenter is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

_______________________________________________

The reason I reprint that quote here is we have a real problem of perception of this war. We have a whole lot of people who think we are at war with Muslims and that's not an accident. It is, however, a magnificent falsehood.

So, if you are attempting to change someone's mind (as Dale states) about the war in Iraq or the "War on Terror" best to define first what exactly they think the "war" is and just who the hell they think we're fighting. Until you sort out those items, well, Dale is right.

Ask yourself this though, why do people see the "war" in different ways? Dale seems to think it's strictly ideological. It seems though that it's a lot more than that. There is a major breakdown in the communication of why we are doing what we are doing and even in who we are fighting.

Now to me a war is a rather major event and I think that if you're going to have one it should be clearly communicated why you're having it and who exactly you're fighting. There should not be one group of folks saying "We're fighting the folks in the red jackets over there" and another group saying "No, we're fighting the folks in the green jackets over there"...that's not an ideological problem it's a communication problem. If you're got that kind of situation going on something just don't smell right.

I also think you need to call a halt to the situation at that point and define exactly what it is you're supposed to be doing. Not sit and wait and for the people who created the problem to sort it out and hope for the best. You need a whole lot of people to stand up and say "Hold on here, something is not right."

Brzezinski is doing just that, he's saying something is not right. Clearly something is not right and for the record...that's not an opinion.