The intellectual justification for

'war without end' was Samuel Huntington's thesis

that there is a "Clash of Civilizations"

going on and that conflict are inevitable

At the heart of his thesis resides

a strong "American Empire First" concern

Bush relentlessly tries to link Iraq to al-Qaeda

and maintaining that the US was mainly

fighting 'Islamofascism' in that country

In fact, No Mahdi Army Shiites are al-Qaeda

Almost all Sunni Arab guerrilla cells

are Baathist or Salafi rather than al-Qaeda

Probably of 100,000 guerrillas fighting in Iraq,

perhaps 2% could be categorized

in some vague way as "al-Qaeda"

if you take that term as referring to a franchise

The intellectual justification for 'war without end' was Professor Samuel Huntington's thesis that there is a "Clash of Civilizations" going on and that clash and conflict are inevitable.

At the heart of his thesis resides a strong "American Empire First" concern.

He wants to see the protection of the current global power arrangements no matter who gets hurt and regardless of the fact that over 2-billion people on this planet attempt to live on less than a dollar a day and despite the fact that his clash-thesis serves to justify a “war without end” in the name of fighting “terrorism.”

For Huntington, like the military planners in the Pentagon and the economic elite on Wall Street, in the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and the U.S. Treasury Department – these 2-billion people are nothing more than "collateral damage."

Yet, what is at stake is a moral issue – a human rights issue – an issue of democracy rising in the world or fading into the sunset under the auspices of a Neo-liberal economic model combined with a fascist polity of control called the American Empire.

n short, the "clash thesis" is nothing more than an ideological construction for proceeding with business as usual.

The clash-thesis is a cruel hoax that is employed to justify huge expenditures on a so-called "war on terror" while continuing to wage war on the weak and vulnerable.

What I am calling "the rise of Global Community" means that we are actually witnessing global integration, nonviolent resistance, and the rise of global civil society in an era where terror and terrorism (as a strategy of resistance) is really representative of less than one-percent of the world's population.

The real sources of terror are found in the projects of the American Empire along with its tragic consequences.

The consequences of empire include higher levels of poverty, disease, inequality, and war itself.

Hence, the pursuit of empire and "Empire's Law" produces a situation where the potential for "clash" and violence and terror is really the product and result of imperial rule---the actions of empire.

In short, in a world without the American Empire, the world would be less violent, less prone to suffer poverty, disease or income disparity.

The American Empire is dangerous not only for the world, but dangerous for American democracy itself. our only hope for the future is to see the setting sun on the American Empire and its projects.

Never mind how badly the war is going in Iraq

Bush has been swaggering around like a victorious general because he cowed a wobbly coalition of Democrats into dropping their attempt to impose a time limit on his disastrous misadventure.

By week’s end, Bush was acting as though that bit of parliamentary strong-arming had left him free to ignore not just the Democrats, but also the vast majority of Americans, who want him to stop chasing illusions of victory and concentrate on how to stop the sacrifice of young Americans’ lives.

And, ever faithful to his illusions, Mr. Bush was insisting that he was the only person who understood the true enemy.

Speaking to graduates of the Coast Guard Academy, Bush declared that Al Qaeda is “public enemy No. 1” in Iraq and that “the terrorists’ goal in Iraq is to reignite sectarian violence and break support for the war here at home.”

The next day, in the Rose Garden, Mr. Bush turned on a reporter who had the temerity to ask about Mr. Bush’s declining credibility with the public, declaring that Al Qaeda is “a threat to your children” and accusing him of naïvely ignoring the danger.

When in Doubt, Blame al-Qaeda

Bush relentlessly tries to link Iraq to al-Qaeda and maintaining that the US was mainly fighting 'Islamofascism' in that country.

In fact, No Mahdi Army Shiites are al-Qaeda. Almost all Sunni Arab guerrilla cells are Baathist or Salafi rather than al-Qaeda.

Probably of 100,000 guerrillas fighting in Iraq, perhaps 2% could be categorized in some vague way as "al-Qaeda" if you take that term as referring to a franchise.

They are mainly foreign fighters and if the US left Iraq, the local Sunni Arabs would slit their throats.

Some slitting is going on even now, and the Bushies celebrate that while not seeming to recognize the implication that "al-Qaeda" doesn't amount to anything as an Iraqi political force.

But this making up things out of thin air is typical of W.'s Propaganda Presidency, or what Chris Floyd calls the "powerful odor of mendacity."

And all along the Bushies have invoked al-Qaeda with regard to Iraq. It doesn't matter what the real situation in Iraq is.

It is easy in this age of 'newspeak' for Big Brotherto use tried and true familiar terminology that will not cause any dismay in those who might then want to ask any more 'in-depth' questions and not get any qualitative answers.

Simplistic sloganeering and easy catch words provide the means by which the vapours can fog the porous ponderings of the vacuous populace.

Nothing can be well-described as there is little that can be seen as distinguishable and definable, like hot lava rocks hit with water in a sauna.

Just as with the 'WMD' and tyranny of Saddam Hussein, there are too many uncertainties.

The weapons proved to be nonexistent and the conditions in Iraq are much worse now when than under the strongman's grip.

But 'mushroom clouds' and 'Arab Hitler' are emotionally charged, conjuring all sorts of imaginary situations, ignoring the facts of what the intervention has wrought.

'Al-Qaeda' comes into focus in the same nonsensical way, inspiring fear and uncertainty while simultaneously allowing conditions in which definition can never be achieved, if only to distract people from the Iraqi threats.

The really disturbing thing about Bush’s comments is his painting of the war in Iraq as an obvious-to-everyone-but-the-wrongheaded fight between the United States and a young Iraqi democracy on one side, and Al Qaeda on the other.

The Bush Regime has relied on an axis-of-clichés to stifle thought, inhibit debate, and generally mislead the American people.

“The world is safer without Saddam Hussein.” “We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here.”

And “if we retreat from Iraq the terrorists will follow us home,” are just a few of the stale non-sequitars the Bush spinmeisters has peddled to keep the public in a state of fear and prevent rational thought about the choices America faces.

So long as these empty slogans frame the terms of the debate the United States will to continue make catastrophically poor decisions regarding Iraq.