Another shitwit conservative tries to tell us Iraq=WWII because apparently they haven’t gotten the memo that we’re dealing with an internecine guerilla war, not a conventional one. But their comparison unintentionally makes the case against the President:

But during those months Churchill had been busy firing or re-assigning the generals who were not bringing victories: including Gens. Wavell, Dill, Auchinleck, Ritchie, Norrie, Brooke-Popham, Messervy and Corbett — among others.

Finally he found a general who could win — Bernard Law Montgomery.

Funny how Churchill (and Lincoln) didn’t need to wait until they lost an election to realize they had the wrong guys in charge.

I wonder whether, perhaps, in Gen. Petraeus President Bush has finally found his Gen. Montgomery. And whether Petraeus’s new strategy and success at beating al Qaeda in Iraq and growing success against the Mahdi Army — may be his El Alamein.

Look, Petraeus is fantastic. If we’d had him in charge earlier, things might have gone differently. But I’m becoming concerned about the messianic attitude the Right has adopted toward him. He is not a miracle worker; he’s a good general. He and Gates are a vast improvement over the last pair of buffoons. But the surgery may be coming too late to save the patient.

To build on Blankley’s anology, this would be like Churchill switching to Montgomery after the Nazis were in London – after insisting for years that all was well. But now I’m buying into this Iraq=WW2 bullshit.

Of course, there are vast differences between WWII and the current Iraq Theatre of the War on Terror (ITWOT).

Gee, ya think?

For one thing, in 1942, the British Parliamentarians were not proposing bringing the British troops home and surrendering to Hitler and the Japanese. They merely thought another leader (perhaps Sir Stafford Cripps) might better lead Britain to victory.

Yes. This is the only difference. Iraq is a globe-spanning superpower with massive industrial might fighting a conventional war. If we leave now, Iraqi troops will be in Cleveland by 2009.

Were they more patriotic than the current defeatists in Washington? Perhaps. Or perhaps it was just that they understood (at least by that terrible summer of 1942) that for England, it was victory or death — while for many of the Washington defeatists in this dismal summer of ’07 they are under the delusion that America in all its might and glory can simply surrender to al Qaeda without potentially mortal consequences.

To quote Robert, jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, is this guy serious?! Is he mental? Does he not realize that Al Quaeda is only one of the factions in Iraq — one that didn’t exist until we went there? Does he really think Iraq sliding into chaos is going to be the same as Nazi marching in Trafalgar Square? Or that our getting out of a civil war is the equivalent of “surrender”?

Look, you can make the argument we need to win Iraq. You can make the argument that we can win in Iraq. But you need to lay the World War II comparisons aside. History did not begin in 1939 and end in 1945. There are thousands of historical comparisons that are better here. Just off the top of my head, I could say better comparisons might be Vietnam or Korea; the Occupation of Haiti; numerous British occupations including Afghanistan; our recent experience in the Balkans; various Roman occupations; maybe even the Greek invasion of Sicily.

None of these comparisons are very good, but they are far more accurate than World War II. The problem is that the “conservatives” see everything in terms of World War II. Good vs. evil instead of good vs. evil vs. evil vs. evil. A straight-forward conflict instead of a non-linear ethnic strife. A villain with distinct facial hair instead of many villains with different agendas. And, to be honest, they’re mostly thinking in terms of movies and TV shows instead of history. (Remember the “lessons” of 24?)

And if we are going to go with the World War II analogy, Bush is closer to Chamberlain than to Churchill. Churchill said he had nothing to offer but blood toil tears and sweat; Bush tells us all is well and offers us tax breaks. Churchill changed commanders when they lost; Bush stuck with Rummy until he lost an election. Churchill knew he needed to get the hell out of Dunkirk; Bush would say this was surrendering to the enemy. Churchill acknowledged bad news and was honest with the British public, whose resolved he trust; Bush thinks Americans are a bunch of weak-kneed morons and constantly insists that the only thing going wrong in Iraq is that we have Democrats and a media at home.

Bush isn’t even in the same league as Churchill. He’s not even in the same God-damn sport. I’m not even certain he’s the same species.

Again, there are some Dems who would love for us to lose in Iraq for political reasons, sure. But most of the people opposing our continuing presence are genuinely concerned that we are throwing lives and treasure into an unwinnable situation. Fuck the historical analogies – let’s deal with the situation we have in the present.