In a different world

In a different world the front page of the Guardian might have a different headline today:

Bush evokes 9/11 to bolster Iraq war

Instead of being about bolstering war, the different headline might be about President Bush trying to persuade people of why it's so important for those fighting for democracy in Iraq to prevail over those trying to sink the effort in chaos and bloodshed.

In a different world, likewise, the body of the report under that front page headline might have a different focus: instead of still grinding on about an old argument, it might be taking heed of where things are now and what crucially matters about where they are now. So the piece, as written, says this:

Again and again in his primetime speech, the president attempted to bind the Iraq counter-insurgency to the broader "war on terror" started by the September 11 attacks, trying to rebuild a connection in the public mind that has given way to scepticism about the justification for the invasion.
.....
Most analysts believe the threat posed to the US by al-Zarqawi is more a consequence of the 2003 invasion than a justification for it

It might, more pertinently, have noted that, whatever may have been the case with respect to differences over the war's justification, there is definitely now the connection George Bush speaks about and it's a connection which needs to be defeated. Last night, he said:

The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch.

The following also seems to the point:

We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve. We're fighting against men with blind hatred... who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September the 11th, 2001. They will fail... we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.

Car bombers, assassins and political forces opposed to the formally expressed democratic will of the Iraqi people. This feature of the situation isn't given any prominence in the Guardian's front page report, as in a different world it might have been.

And in a different world the Guardian leader on the same subject might also have offered some reflections on it. But it doesn't. It reflects rather on the strength of the 'insurgency':

Minority status in Iraq means the insurgency is characterised by a grave weakness, yet the ability to draw on the worldwide Sunni majority gives it strength. This paradox is at the heart of the problem for the Iraqis themselves, for the Arabs, for the Americans, and for the British, pulled haplessly along as we are by our ally.

Yes, very paradoxical - and zip about legitimacy, to say nothing of (how shall I put this?) the moral and political character of the said 'insurgency'. The Guardian leader finishes by pondering the question of whether 'foreign forces' (here they don't seem to mean Jihadis) should be withdrawn soon or be withdrawn later. The first course, we are told, would lead to violence and other bad things; but so may the second course. So what does the Guardian think? It thinks that the American people may decide. I love the 'may'. But yes, they surely may; they have the right to decide ultimately. And the Iraqi people? Do they not have similar sorts of rights?

In a different world the Guardian and the rest of Western liberal opinion would know which side it was on in Iraq today and in the wider global battle. But, as things are, much of that opinion is not entirely clear.