Very true my friend. The only reason I raised the point was because this umbrella-naming doesn't do us any good. By throwing an opponent into a catch-all, TEAM AMERICA - F**K YEAH category of "terrorist", we:
A) Cloud the definition of what we are dealing with - we need to properly distinguish and classify opposing groups, their origins, their motivations, their make-up, their MO (which may include terrorist tactics). Substituting this reality with a preconceived notion of what the enemy is is only a way to fuck things up. Trainor and Gordon's recent analysis on how to Shit the Bed in Iraq is a good example.
B) Distort the true nature of the enemy - I highly doubt that a Taliban insurgent has much to do with a yuppie Arab in the West who goes hardcore and turns an airliner into a cruise missile. There are some connections and linkages, which are important (indeed, they underscore the foundations of an "Islamic Insurgency"), but if we take the above line and label them all "terrorist garbage", then we miss the important differences, which could probably be the difference between winning and losing a war. How many wrong decisions were made during the Cold War that all Communists were the same, mere puppets of the Kremlin? Sun Tzu says "Know your enemy and blahblahblah....", no?
Oh well, scum-bag seems to be a suitable term (props to the CDS for that one). I personally find the article to be a good one; having a Taliban higher-up defect should mean something in terms of the vitality of the insurgency in Afghanistan. Alas, in Mr Baker's eyes (judging from yet another shot at us) Canada can do no good for his "War on Terror"....
