It means the focus can be moved once again. The war is a success, didn't you hear?
I agree with Corplinx, that this means different things to different groups. But ultimately, it makes the west feel a sense of justice in the world, as misplaced as it is. It's like one bully punches you, so you punch somebody else you don't like, and feel better about it.
The real 'War on Terror' (trademark) will not be fought by invading countries. It will be won with intelligence, with political diplomacy and with education. Call the invasion of Iraq whatever you like - one thing it hasn't had much of an effect on is the fundamental Islamic 'anti-progress' movement that Al-Quaida and the JI place their faith in. It might affect the Palestinian's, but then in the eyes of most 'coalition states' one terrorist is the same as the next. The biggest blow to date against these movements has been made by the Indonesian government's reforms on education systems, not by deposing a dictator because of an old grudge.
I guess it doesn't really matter that Saddam detested Bin Laden's fundamentalism, who in turn hated Saddam's progressive ways. It's easier to see the world in black and white, and lump all of the 'Middle East' in one basket and then burn it.
I'm angry not necessarily because of the war. I don't like Saddam. Then again, I don't like Mugabe - is he next? If the coalition had have simply stated 'we don't like having a potential enemy who might one day work against us', or 'we don't like leaders who kill and murder the people they should be protecting', and then attacked, I might feel better. But by tying it in with the 'War on Terror', and having people swallow that, makes me fear that resources are not being allocated where they should be.
But then, if you feel emotionally more secure with the taste of revenge in your mouth, then who am I to try to argue this using intellect?
Athon
