I’ve been thinking a lot about the war in Iraq. The media speaks in willowy terms about the insurgency there, and they speak even more glowingly about the war resistance here. [Link] They speak of the quagmire–the terrible situation over there repeatedly (Army planning for four more years in Iraq: Top general says U.S. military prepared for ‘worst case’), and in this article, mentioning “worst case” as the subtitle. A search of the MSNBC site for “Iraq Vietnam” brings over 8,000 results [Link]. Foxnews, meanwhile, has only 20 results for the same search [Link]–keep in mind, however, that Foxnews has a much smaller site.
Other MSNBC articles are like this, “the relentless insurgency that has grown dramatically since U.S. troops toppled the statue of dictator Saddam Hussein on April 9, 2003″ [Link] of course, the way the sentence is written, it gives a colorful (dramatically) description of the course of events. Of course, that’s just an adjective.
Chris Matthew, the host of Hardball on MSNBC (and every other NBC station it seems) asked Jimmy Carter this [Link]:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about – this is going to cause some trouble with people but as an historian now (Editors Note: what exactly makes a person a “historian”?) and studying the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force. Do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?

“Do you see any parallels between our revolutionary war and the Iraq War?” Are you kidding me? How can you ask that question and keep a straight face?
I have thought about this for quite a while, and the only reason is that no one has a brain. Okay, I’m only kidding (sorta). The people who propose that there are similarities between the Revolutionary War and the War in Iraq make limited philosophical differentiations.
The Revolutionary War was fought because the British were oppressing the colonies. The people wanted more freedom; Britain wasn’t in favor. The people wanted less taxation, the British wanted more money. It was only grudgingly that the colonies went to war-and it took the help of the French in order for the colonies to defeat the British.
Let’s think about Iraq: Saddam Hussein brutally oppressed his people (any dissenting views?). He gassed the Kurds. He fought the Iranians; he invaded Kuwait. He drained marshes and burned oil wells. He sought nuclear weapons (think back to the 1980′s). He didn’t allow a free press. If you disagreed you could very well find your self six-feet under. Enter George Bush. He says Saddam is bad. He says Saddam is dangerous. He says that the final straw is nuclear weapons. It would be better to take care of Saddam now rather than later, right?
We invade. We topple Saddam. The “insurgency” begins. Why? Because they don’t like America. Why? Because we shouldn’t be there. Why? Because we support Israel (ding ding ding-the real answer).
I see no comparisons between the two. We don’t oppress the Iraqis. We never have. We have provided freedom that is being abused. And worse case comparison scenario-we are the French, the helpers that provide the firepower to free the country.
So why compare the two? It sounds “educated,” perhaps. It sounds “nice” and “newsworthy” and “thought provoking,” prompting us to reconsider our philosophies. I happen to believe that we are right-just like we were right in fighting Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito in WWII.
I reject the view that the insurgents are “Freedom Fighters.” The American soldiers are the “Freedom Fighters.” The insurgents are insolent children who have been spoon-fed crap from Al Qaida and Al Jazeera. (Anybody ever laugh at how funny “Jazeera” sounds? I do…)
Yes, we have a free press, but sometimes I wonder where treason begins. How can someone be so ignorant as to sugar coat our enemies. How can you gloat that your fellow countrymen are dying in a land far away? Your friend’s children have died over there. Your schoolmates have been injured. How can you propose that the resistance in Iraq is like the Revolutionary War?
Do you have no discretion? Can you see no difference?
I propose that the MSM can tell no difference. And their only goal is to despise George Bush…and failure in Iraq is the best way to despise him, not only now, but throughout all of history.
So when we read about the “insurgency” and “suicide bombers,” replace the terms with “terrorists,” “murders,” “despicable men,” and “usurpers.” Then I think we can comprehend the actual battle.