You can never go home again...because they'll kill you

The news wants you to know that "British Forces Kill(ed) Leading Terrorist" today. The story is pretty straight-forward: troops are looking for a guy who escaped from a US prison in Bagram last year, they go to his house, why yes, he is at home...come on in. Then, somebody pulls a gun, somebody else throws up a gang symbol or something, and next thing you know there's a body on the floor and the Coalition of the Willing is saying it bagged a "Top al-Qaeda Terrorist." It's all very clear.

But then you might actually read the article, and some questions are bound to start popping into your nut. Like, for instance, why did it take a year to catch this man (or, failing that, to kill him) if you know where he lives? All wisecracks aside, shouldn't the person writing this article clarify that point, or at least not write so glibly?

Other, more serious problems with this account include the fact that the man in question was kidnapped by the US--apparently on no evidence it is willing to share--and detained without trial for 3 years, until his escape. His wife says she doesn't know about his terroristic leanings (of course she's lying), so you have to wonder just how awesomely powerful Mr. Leading Terrorist was if he had to sneak around behind his lowly wife's back.

Moreover, the only actual evidence of his involvement with any terror network--save one statement from an anonymous Basra policeman (and you know how Iraqi policemen are totally above deceit and never, ever say things the occupiers want them to) comes courtesy of one Mr. Kenneth J. Conboy, who works for a security firm in Jakarta, Indonesia, where the arrest went down originally (though the "terrorist" is Kuwaiti-born, of Iraqi parents, and so, as Mr. Conboy so brilliantly points out, it was natural he should go to Iraq after escaping in Afghanistan).

The real problem with this whole, sorry article is Mr. Conboy. I thought it was a little odd that a "top security consultant" would be the definitive source for an AP article, especially as the consultant in question is also the author of a book that argues that Islamist extremists in Indonesia are part of the larger global terror network.

Now, Mr. Conboy did write that book after September 11, when the Bush administration began its media blitz to convince us all that Afghanistan and Iraq are the cradles of terrorism. Conboy merely asserts that Indonesia is under the spell of the same Islamic fanaticism. But then he acts as backup for an article on Iraq, and he makes clear the connection in the person of this dead guy--no matter that nobody actually knows what he did or why the US kidnapped him in the first place--that Iraq and Indonesia are part of the same problem. It's so weird to me that a journalist gave Kenneth Conboy the chance to confirm the assertions of his own book!

Oh, and did I mention that he used to work at the Heritage Foundation? Oops. My bad for leaving that out.

NO, WAIT! It's actually the REPORTER'S fault for leaving that out!! See, Conboy was deputy director of some shit Heritage think-tank on Asia in the 1980s and early 90s (this took me all of 5 seconds to find out...maybe reporters should get computers?). He also, or so a blog on counterterrorism says, has had articles in The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times. (I know!)

So, I guess what I want to know is: why is this right wing fuckwit in Indonesia being quoted as a "security expert" in reference to a case of "shoot first, don't ask anything" in Iraq? Is it just because of his HF ties? Is it because he will say that all Islamic militants are connected? Is it because without him this is just a story about a random, maybe-he's-a terrorist, maybe-he-was-innocent situation?

All America knows now is "Leading Terrorist" is dead/Indonesia and Iraq are just like Afghanistan/Waronterra going very well.

Great.