From The Washington Post
We're Not Winning This War
Despite Some Notable Achievements, New Thinking Is Needed on the Home Front and Abroad
By John Lehman
Thursday, August 31, 2006; Page A25

Are we winning the war? The first question to ask is, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083002730.html|what war?] The Bush administration continues to muddle a national understanding of the conflict we are in by calling it the "war on terror." This political correctness presumably seeks to avoid hurting the feelings of the Saudis and other Muslims, but it comes at high cost. This not a war against terror any more than World War II was a war against kamikazes.

From Truthout

Goats and Hussars: A British Harbinger of American Defeat
By Chris Floyd, TO UK Correspondant
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 31 August 2006

Don Rumsfeld is fond of historical analogies when [http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083106A.shtml|pontificating] about Iraq; he particularly favors comparisons to the Nazi era and the Allied occupation of Germany after World War II. Unfortunately, any historian will tell you that Rummy's parallels are invariably false, even ludicrous. So we thought we'd give the beleaguered Pentagon warlord a more accurate and telling analogy to chew on.
Try this one, Don. Imagine that British occupation troops in, say, Hanover, had been forced to abandon a major base, under fire, and retreat into guerrilla operations in the Black Forest - in 1948, three years after the fall of the Nazi regime. And that as soon as the Brits made their undignified bug-out, the base had been devoured by looters while the local, Allies-backed authorities simply melted away and an extremist, virulently anti-Western militia moved into the power vacuum.

read the rest at Thruthout...

‘On the Internet, there is a dictum known as “Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies,” coined in 1990 by a man named Mike Godwin. This law holds that “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” Anyone who has spent time on political discussion boards can see that it's true; in any charged debate (abortion, Iraq, Israel, foreign policy), it's only a matter of time before someone compares his opponent to Hitler.

It's commonly understood that once Godwin's Law is invoked, a conversation is dead—and that any person who invokes Nazis almost definitely has failed to make his point. It's what philosopher Leo Strauss, the great inspiration to neoconservatives like Rumsfeld, called Reductio ad Hitlerum—the absurd smearing of any opposing line of thought as “Hitleresque.” He may not have been contributing to an online bulletin board, but Rumsfeld's invocation of Nazis and the G.O.P.'s sudden interest in fascism seem to be a perfect illustration of how deep this war's supporters must dig in order to justify a deadly folly.

Perhaps, with Godwin's Law in mind, you'll allow me to indulge in a little bit of Nazi-analogizing. The following comes from a post–World War II interview between Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was allowed by the Allies to speak with Nazi POWs, and Hermann Goering, the Nazi Reichsmarshall. Their conversation took place on April 18, 1946, during a break in the Nuremberg trials, and was recounted in Gilbert's book, Nuremberg Diary.

The Bush Administration & Godwin's Law