Today's Fox column (which actually went up last evening), was a reprise of my latest spoof of WW II reporting.

Response to it (via email--I have no comments section at the Fox site) has been mostly positive, like this one from Chris Cole:

What an outstanding "report" of the "failed and unjust, unilateral, yankee cowboy invasion" we perpetrated upon this peace-and-fun-loving people who desparately wanted no more in life than to be left alone to enjoy the simple pleasures of their bratwurst and Octoberfests.

How would we have ever been so heartlessly cruel?

Besides, what ever happened to all those Warriors of Mass Dysfunction (the Nazis) that we kept hearing about -- the ones that supposedly were menacing the entire free world? Like a popular song of the time ("I Was Not a Nazi Polka") wryly noted, they seem not to have ever really existed at all. Apparently they were simply phantoms of presidential persuasion perpetrated upon a Pied-Piper-led populace. Pity!

How could we have been so naïve? Where, oh where, is good ol' Neville now when we need him? Can't we all just get along? Maybe all the opposing parties could form a huge circle and all just joins hands in a warm and tender chorus or two of the Wiffenpoof Song. (Not to be confused with those famous German showers where, after taking one wiff of the vapors, "Poof!" you're a goner!)

Well done, Mr. Simberg! From a former collegiate saber fencer, "Touche!"

However, I did get some emails from people who think that I'm rewriting history. From Karl Albert (presumably no relation to the late Speaker of the House):

Provide documentation of Nazi attacks on Allied soldiers after the German surrender. This is especially needed since the vast majority of Germans desperately wanted the Americans, British and French to protect them from the Russians.

Provide documentation that Hitler's suicide wasn't known 3 months after the war.

Read all UN resolutions re: Iraq and find even one that calls for regime change.

Read Washington Post front page story dated today, July 31, entitled "Scientists Still Deny Iraqi Arms Program".

Provide even ONE credible bit of evidence Saddam supported al-Quida.

Pretend you're in the 3rd ID. Tell me honestly you wouldn't be damned angry about daily attacks on the division after you'd been told you'd be sent home in April, then May, then June, then July, then August...

Do all this or kindly shut up.

Isn't he sweet? Sorry, Karl, I've no intention of shutting up.

Amy Hammes is more polite and reasoned (though wrong):

That article wouldn't be written that way at all today--especially if it was on Fox News! They have romanced the War On Iraq so much you'd think it was Harlequin novel!

Not sure the "apples to apples" comparison you were trying to make works too well. Comparing the situation during WWII to the war with Iraq isn't even close to being the same, other than both were wars. For one thing, the US was attacked thus provoking our entry into WWII as well as also helping Great Britian, our ally. At least that's what I read at Pearl Harbor. September 11th wasn't an attack led by Iraq, unless it's in those 28 pages of the report that Bush won't release. Have to admire the guy, he does like to keep things classified! Like Kenny (Boy) Lay helping decide our energy policy!

Although Iraq's leader was a brutal dictator, I don't think he had the masive organization nor the target of wiping out an entire people on the scale Hitler did. Iraq did not lead the charge for September 11th--most of the hijackers were of Saudi descent and were led by Osama. So I guess the logical choice to fight terrorism was to attack Iraq!

I also don't think that the officials calling for Truman's impeachment would be an accruate illustration for the fire Bush is under because he mislead the people of the United States and preyed upon their ignorance and fears in attempting to make a justified case for attacking Iraq and the cost (both financially and lost lives) of impending occupation. Haven't we learned that Presidents are supposed to be truthful? Whether it's lying about sex, or intentionally misrepresenting facts that impacted American military lives--it's the bed that the GOP made for itself!

Next on your list was the changing agenda of why we went to war--was it because of the dreaded nuclear program....hmmm, I guess that wasn't as serious as we were told. Oh, what about the weapons of mass destruction....oh, well, that might not have been the reason afterall either. Oh, I remember now, it was to decimate Al Queda....but weren't we already doing that in Afghanistan? (By the way, what the heck is going on over there--since you'd never know we still had any body over there with the lack of attention it gets) Okay, I've got it! What about a humanitarian mission to free the suffering people of Iraq from a brutal Hitler-like dictator! The public loves to save suffering women and children! Eureka! That's it! (pause, afterthought) But then if we do it there then we'll have to go into every country with a brutal regime...(calculator sfx: Ka-ching!) Wow, that's a pretty big task. Well, maybe we'll just limit it to suffering countries filled with oil or other American interests....and for good humanitarian measure we'll throw in another country like Liberia to help secure more black GOP votes for the coming election. Yikes--do we really have to go that drastic...black people? Okay then we'll put in a clause that only if the current leader steps down--that'll stall them for awhile and get Al Sharpton off of our asses! Oh and the bill for all of this? We'll just put it on our growing deficit tab and have future generations pay for it! To help sell it to the public (warning: it will be a tough sell), we'll just simply drape ourselves in the American flag and position those who question our motives as un-patriotic (even though that's the most patriotic thing you can do is to question government to keep it honest--isn't that what our Founding Fathers wanted?)!

As Tony Blair and "Duh"-bya have said history will show who was evidently right in the War on Iraq--and noone yet has the crystal ball on what the historical account will be. However, I'm confident it won't be the same parallels as WWII.

All I know is Bush better be thanking his friends in Saudi Arabia for September 11th. How else would he sell his planned war on Iraq? (Yes, beleive it or not, Cheney had this on the agenda, the minute Kathryn Harris secured Florida for the GOP!). Plus, if we didn't have the Wag the Dog War on Iraq he might actually have to be accountable for the economy! "Tom, my poll numbers are dropping, we'd better have another Orange Alert".

One unfortunate example you won't find between the two wars is unlike WWII, the present American public isn't willing to conserve or (heaven forbid) go without needed things like steel, rubber, oil. Sacrifices? Give up our SUV's that get 9 miles a gallon? So, you see, I still don't get your point in comparing the two wars. Now Viet Nam...that might be more like it!

If you don't like journalists or the American Public to question what (somewhat) elected leaders do, then may I suggest a position with Al Jazera? They beleive and enthusiastically report everything the government tells them! Second thought, just wait a few years and if the FCC and Colin Powell's son Michael has his way, our media will be just like that, too! So you may not have to move afterall!

Although I don't agree with you, I do respect the fact that you have a right to express your opinion, as do I and everyone else in this country. True freedom protects your right as well as the rights of those whom Sean Hannity disagrees with. By the way, if everyone agreed with each other, we would never learn or broaden our perspectives.

Brian Holler lives up to his name, sort of:

That had to be one of the more embarrising [sic] attempts to draw parrells [sic] between WWII and Iraq. The situations are vastly different. Also have you ever served in the military? If not now is your chance. Go to any mall in this country and go to the recruting office. I want to meet just one person who runs their mouth about Iraq to actually sign up and go. Yes, I was in the service. 8 years in the Army.

Sorry, Brian, I'm probably too old to serve under current circumstances, not that I know what your point is, since the last time I checked, there was no requirement to serve in the military to have opinions or write about them.

And this from Steve Horton:

This is total crap. It is dangerous because you're re-writing history, and people that don't know any better will believe that this sort of thing went on. This goes too far! You are NOT using actual historical events to show a similarity to current events but instead are re-making history in the image of the present in an effort to remove political pressure on an immoral regime (ours). The war with Iraq bears NO resemblence to WWII AT ALL and I find any suggestion that it does reprehensible in the extreme. And don't you dare even think of labeling me as 'un-patriotic', my Grandfather fought in WWII and my father fought in Vietnam so that I could express my opinions. They definitely don't deserve their sacrifices being belittled by your revision of history just so that our dictator can feel better about the Iraqi quagmire he has embroiled us in just so he could further enrich the corporate robber barons that pull his (and our) strings. I love this country dearly, that is why what you are doing to our history, and what our President is doing to our soldiers upsets me so. Good day.

I don't think you're unpatriotic, Steve, just historically ignorant.

I'm not going to bother to fisk these in detail, because I don't have time. If anyone else wants to, there's a comments section.

But as I emailed Steve, in fact that column was based on historical fact (other than, of course, the quotes from my "unnamed officials," and I'm actually not aware of any calls for Truman's impeachment, at least not over the war). And of course, to the degree that some events may have been exaggerated to make things seem worse than they actually were, remember, I was attempting to emulate today's journalists...

The Werwolf organization existed, and it did harass (and kill) American (and Russian) troops for months after the fall of Germany. While there were many rumors that Hitler had committed suicide in Berlin, we didn't know that for sure for many months, and it wasn't officially accepted until November. Same for Goebbels. Bradley did in fact emphasize southern Germany and expected Hitler to be in his "National Redoubt," based on bad G2, and didn't realize the error until April or so, by which time the Soviets were already overrunning eastern Germany. There's a lot of information about this in this Washington Post piece, some of it based on Soviet documents that didn't become available until the end of the Cold War. That piece is where I got the Goebbels quote.

For more info on the Werwolf organization, you might want to look up this article from History Today.

Oh, and here's one more, to end on a positive note, from a soldier in Iraq:

Bravo!! You make an excellent comparison. I wonder whether there will be a writer 50 years from now that uses that same type of analogy about "this" war for peace.

It is unfortunate that we now live in a society that gives immediate recalcitrance and requires immediate gratification. There are those in this society that think War should be just like on their home video games; if the outcome is unsatisfactory, requires too much time, or they reach a difficult stage, just use the "cheat's" or hit the reset button. I, for one, will see this war through to insure that my kids can won't have to live looking over their shoulder.

"... If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. --Thomas Paine (1737-1809).

This war could be our last chance to put a stop to and change Middle East mentality forever.

John Matthews
Major, US Army
Operation Iraqi Freedom

I have three very basic points to note.

To Karl: As a soldier once stationed in Somalia, I know what it is like to be left overseas far longer than a person wishes. That is part of being a soldier. I am sure they are not happy, but that is part of the duty we soldiers swear to. In doing so, we protect the rights of people like yourself to make gross demands of illuminating authors.

To Amy: Two simple points - we were also helping an allies with our current Iraq missions, namely Kuwait and Israel. Secondly, we import somewhere in the vicinity of 11% of the oil used in this country from Middle Eastern nations. That is it. Our country learned something from the 70s oil shortages. As I work currently for Ford Motor Company, and consistantly read and reread fuel reports, I can provide clear documentation for said claim. Lastly, moving toward removal of terrorist groups -IS- going on in other places in the world, not only those with oil. Northern Ireland (see my name) is only one example, but one that can be seen in the media without spending too much time.

For everyone else: Stop using words like 'bogged down', 'quagmire', 'another Vietnam'. This is wholly inaccurate. The U.S.A. has never historically garnered so many mission objectives in so short a time! Enemy held cities were falling weekly to coalition forces. As for the 'high cost', the death of every soldier is saddening and heart breaking, and I feel for their families and loved ones. That having been said, I have also been U.S. Government property, numbered, tagged, and codified... and one thing every solider understands is that during war time, soliders die. It's a sad fact. We would all much prefer peace. It is still a fact, sad or not, and one that is brutally apparent by the time a soldier has finished basic training.

I believe wholly in the rights of those that want to question the government. I think it is very important that the rights of free speech never be infringed upon by those that do not support a military campaign. When in either of the above two categories, please look at the issue objectively. Do not belittle or berate those who differ, or have faith where another does not (Amy obviously sees vast conspiracies, for example.)

In conclusion, I do support our President, and his duties as Commander and Chief to command soliders to fight and kill for the safety of the nation as he sees fit. I do not support the war, or any war due to religious convictions. Even going so far as to be anti-war and anti-distruction, debates between Americans should be kept to the logical and rational, with quick censure of the disturbing trend in our country which is: Your Freedom of Speech and all aspects of the Bill of Rights only applies if you agree with (insert name here or simply 'me'). And babyboomer hippy kids and gen-X college liberals fall into that trend just as quickly as the Don Rumsfeld supporters. Be realistic. Be grounded. Most of all, love your neighbors.. even those that disagree.. we're all Americans, after all is said and done.

It should be interesting to see how all this turns out.

A "war" on terrorism, of course, can never be any more successful than a "war" on poverty, hunger, illiteracy, crime, or drugs. They'll last as long as there are humans.

For that matter, the fact that anywhere from 300,000 to 700,000 Mexicans successfully cross the border into the U.S., depending on who is doing the counting (against about 1.5 million who are caught) wouldn't necessarily lend a lot of optimism in believing one could successfully interdict terrorists trying to do the same.

This doesn't mean that no actions should be taken; just that the task is daunting. And it's also quite interesting to note the unforeseen and unintended effects that can sometimes accompany such a "war."

Generally, an escalation in anti-terrorism efforts coincides with an escalation in terrorist activities (such as the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian problems). Are the two causal to one another resulting in essentially a spiral? Or perhaps they merely co-exist simultaneously.

In any event, during the latter part of the 1970s and well into the 1980s, two of the more aggressive and long-lived groups - the IRA and the Basque ETA, attracted the ire of the British and Spanish governments which stepped up operations against them - the former utilizing the elite SAS in a series of successful ambushes and the latter through a "dirty war" including assassinations of suspected ETA members.

The outcome of all this was the Spanish Interior Minister, Jose Barrionuevo, going to jail and the European Court ordering the British government to pay reparations to the families of IRA members killed in the famous Loughgall ambush. For further reading on this, see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1788754.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,7369,486205,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/141540.stm

I think it's likely this whole episode with Iraq, though it's garnering much attention now, will likely go down in history as a footnote about like the Spanish-American War or the Falklands War - cited for a few paragraphs in schools' "events of the 2000-2010 decade." It lacks the impact, intense duration, and more importantly the casualties of a notable war.

And for that matter, the comparisons of Saddam with Hitler or even Stalin don't quite fit the mark, even throwing in Saddam's war with Iran. As Stalin said, "one death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." Given that Stalin and Hitler between them accounted for anywhere from 70-100 million dead (depending on who's doing the counting) it's kind of hard to put anyone up there with such rarified company.

So looking at second-order monsters, I don't think he rates up to Pol Pot either, and he's not as nutty as Idi Amin or Kim Jong Il (under whom, by the way, an estimated 2.5 people have died of hunger out of a population of 23 million over the past decade).

Saddam is responsible for about a million or so dead between his own people, Iranians, and Kuwaitis, so he's not small-potatoes like Castro, even if they do share a certain kind of in-your-face flamboyance. Of course, a million isn't a lot. Heck, the U.S. inflicted a million or so casualties on the North Vietnamese versus the 58,000 we lost.

But we've always had the knack for inflicting outsized casualties on our foe - even when we're fighting ourselves, like in the Civil War. It could be that we're simply better - or smarter - fighters. Or it could be our exquisite timing, like showing up a few years after both World Wars were well underway, and being fortunate enough that three quarters of the German armed forces were committed to the Eastern Front in World War 2, where 20 million Russians died. Granted, the Russians didn't exactly have the greatest tactics, leaders, or equipment for much of the war, but they did indisputably go up against the majority of German ground and air forces. This doesn't discount the U.S. efforts in the war - the Battle of the Bulge casualties rivaled or exceeded those of any Civil War battle. However, it does remind that the defeat of Germany was certainly a concerted effort, and the Russian sacrifice saved the U.S. from incurring the kind of casualties we likely would have endured.

Frankly, something which would likely make the history books would be a renewed war with North Korea, which actually is doing a lot of the things we though Iraq was doing - threatening its neighbors and causing instability in its region, developing nuclear weapon, WMD, and medium-range missile programs, threatening to sell or share such weapons with other nations or groups hostile to the U.S. Although I'm not sure whether the government or the American people quite have the stomach to intentionally engage an enemy in an action where the casualties would run into the hundreds of thousands. Still...I do believe that a North Korea deposed of its wacky head o' state could be democratized a lot more quickly and successfully than Iraq, and with less intervention afterwards from the U.S.

And if we're into liberating people from brutal dictators, we can always refer to the remaining 9 (8 if Charles Taylor gets overthrown in Liberia) "worst living dictators" on David Wallechinsky's list, which is as good a starting place as any:

http://www.inq7.net/opi/2003/feb/23/opi_commentary1-1.htm

With Cuba just a short distance from our shores, it ought to be relatively easy to liberate its citizens, and would have made a fine dress rehearsal, sort of an aperitif, for war with Iraq. Then we have a bunch of Latin American, African, and a smattering of Asian countries as well. I'm assuming the warm, fuzzy feeling we Americans get from saving the oppressed would not become jaded with all the work we have ahead of us as the leader of the free world.

Matthew, it's nice to be able to liberate people from evil dictators, but that's not, unfortunately, front and center, because we don't have the resources do it everywhere. But when we can do so in the course of other events, all the better.

Just as in the WW II and the Cold War, we are at war with an ideology (or a blend of two ideologies). Iraq was at the center of one of them--virulent Arab nationalism (and actually the remnants of Nazism and Stalinism, on which the Ba'athist ideology was based).

The other one will be dealt with in perhaps a more subtle manner, because largely the war we're in is a civil war over fundamentalist Islam in the Arabian peninsula, that the House of Saud has drawn us into because they have lots of oil money.

Rand, one of the beautiful things about the Iraq situation is that it's truly an illustrative example of "pick the reason that makes you happy." I'll lift some elegant prose from Anne Rice's "Interview With The Vampire": "Think of any answer you like. I can think of many. Think of the one you need and believe it. It's as likely as any other. I shall give you the real reason for what I did, which is the least true."

George Kennan proposed the containment theory against communism, which more or less worked pretty well, though not entirely as he intended. And our intelligence screw-ups regarding the "missile gap" had the unintended positive effect of accelerating the implosion of the Soviet Union as their economy wilted under the spending strains. So that was a good thing that came from a misunderstanding.

Whether an indirect approach, not necessarily a containment policy, would work effectively against fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East is impossible to know, as while both religion and ideology have the ability to inspire populations, religion tends to outlast ideology - particularly an ideology like communism/socialism which in order to reach its final, utopian state requires some fundamental changes in the behavior of all people which are highly unlikely to ever occur. For that reason, Karl Marx' "Communist Manifesto" made some interesting reading, but I'd probably have graded it a "D" and sent it back to him if he'd told me he was really serious about it.

Given the difficulties with even reconciling the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland (witness the crap that occurred surrounding the Holy Cross Girls Primary School prior to 9/11), it will probably be difficult if not impossible to overcome the religious divide of fundamentalist Islam versus a more secular or Protestant Christian U.S. and Western world. We're sort of committed right now, but I expect that will change.

I'll grant the administration is ballsy for setting the bar so high versus starting with an easier country to democratize and stabilize. But if we can't get the French and Germans, with whom we at least share much of our common ancestry, to elect leaders we like and can get along with, it'll probably be a crapshoot expecting one elected by Iraqis - assuming the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds can compromise enough.

http://www.uclick.com/client/pil/db/

It is not necessary for France and Germany to elect leadrs they like. They should elect leaders they like. And replace them when they like. Without civil war. Oh, yeah. They are not planning any attacks on the US of A or it's troops. Nor are their civilians (generally).

I think America could live with an Iraq like that.

The first sentence of course should read "we like"

Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Salvador Allende (Chile), Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnam), Mohammed Khatami (Iran), Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan), Fidel Castro (Cuba) and various Soviet leaders (the Communists did hold token elections running a single candidate usually).

These are all leaders who were elected, in some cases democratically (Chavez, Allende, Sharif, Khatami) and in others not-so-democratically (Diem, Castro, Soviet leaders). For that matter, the Nazi Party rose in Germany on the basis of democratic elections.

Some were overthrown in coups (Allende, Diem, and Sharif) or survived attempted coups (Chavez). Ignoring any speculation of any links between U.S. interests and the coup attempts, the simple truth is that the U.S. did/does not particularly like these leaders and in some cases showed greater liking for those leading the coups.

Nor does the U.S. have to automatically like a particular leader, even if that leader was elected, democratically or otherwise. The U.S. like all countries has certain interests that may conflict (as was shown recently with France and Germany) with the interests of other countries.

It is pretty unlikely that - while occupying Iraq - the U.S. would be keen on the election of a leader who does not want to get along with the U.S. Imagine, for instance, a democratically elected President of Iraq whose first act is to tell the U.S. "Get out of Iraq" and begins to model the country after Iran? His/her reasons might be to appeal to popularism/nationalism as well as to forge ties with a neighbor. But this would be exceedingly awkward for the U.S., to put it lightly.

What this means is that any successful potential leader would preferably be acceptable to the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds (at least, if that leader is democratically elected) as well as acceptable to the U.S. That's a pretty tall order, given the divergent interests at hand.

Karl, I'm amused that you think that citing nonsense from a washed-up political cartoonist constitutes a compelling argument for your case.