Arnold Kling reminds those who have forgotten of the asymmetric difference between us and the real enemy (i.e., not the Bush administration, which seems to be the real enemy to much of the left, and too much of the Democrat Party):

1. Many people have fled radical Muslim regimes to live in the U.S. Hardly anyone has fled the U.S. to live under radical Muslim regimes.
2. In the United States, women are allowed to choose whether or not to wear modest clothing. Radical Muslims deny them that right, as well as others.
3. Americans who abuse enemy prisoners cower in shame and are prosecuted. Radical Muslims celebrate war crimes, proudly display photos and videos of war crimes, and honor the criminals.
4. More Iraqis would like to see the terrorists give up tomorrow than see the Americans leave tomorrow. (If there is any doubt about that, we can put the issue up for a vote in Iraq.)
5. Americans see negotiations as a way to resolve differences. Radical Muslims see negotiations as a sign of weakness.
6. When Muslims come to live in America, we provide them with safety, tolerance, and equal rights. Jews and Christians do not enjoy equal rights -- or even safety -- inside countries run by radical Muslim regimes.
7. The American military is trained to try to minimize civilian casualties. For radical Muslims, civilian casualties are a measure of success.
8. Americans go to war reluctantly, when other means fail. Radical Muslims accept cease-fires reluctantly, when other means fail.
9. Americans desire the approval and support of the European people. Radical Muslims desire the intimidation and submission of the European people.
10. If radical Muslims would renounce violence, then we would not disturb them. If we renounce violence, then we will be conquered and brutalized.

"9. Americans desire the approval and support of the European people. Radical Muslims desire the intimidation and submission of the European people."

This American doesn't desire European approval, or expect their support.

My ancestors left Europe for a good reason. (And I'm grateful every day that they got on those boats.)

Interesting.

While most Americans are aware of the differences, it often appears as though those who "inform" us...do not.

This is a great reminder. I get so frustrated hearing people bash the Bush administration, and never even comment about the atrocities that are occurring in Islamic communities. The Bush Administration may make mistakes, but at least they are trying to battle the correct enemy.

#10 sounds a lot like the observation about the difference between Israelis and Palestinians:

If the Palestinians stopped fighting, a compromise would be reached.

If the Israelis stopped fighting, the Israelis would be slaughtered.

"Americans go to war reluctantly, when other means fail."

Actually, this isn't really true. The United States has engaged in military action on average about every two years over the past couple of decades, which is far more than most other countries. Just look at the past 25 years:

-1981 Libya, Gulf of Sidra (again in 1989)
-1983 Lebanon
-1986 Libya (Operation Attain Document)
-1989 Panama
-1991 Iraq
-1993 Somalia
-1993 Iraq (cruise missile attack)
-1996 Iraq (in response to Iraqi troop movements)
-1998 Afghanistan/Sudan (cruise missile attack)
-1998 Iraq (Operation Desert Fox)
-1999 Bosnia
-2001 Afghanistan
-2003 Iraq

(Probably missing a few.)

One could argue that these actions were not "war," and one could argue that they were all justfified. But the United States has never been reluctant to use force against other countries.

You confuse "taking military action" with going to war.

All this is nice and true, and hey, it's not like I wouldn't mind
slaughtering a billion of these scumbags just on general
principle, but what's this got to do with Iraq.

We want to fight bin laden, fight bin laden, We want
to fight the wehab's fight the wehab's. but,
what's Iraq got to do with all this?

> one could argue that they were all justfified. But the United States has never been reluctant to use force against other countries.

I pay my bills frequently. Does that imply that I'm not doing so reluctantly?

-1981 Libya, Gulf of Sidra - Libya fired the first shot
-1983 Lebanon - failed UN-styled defensive peacekeeping measure
-1986 Libya (Operation Attain Document) - Libya fired the first shot
-1989 Panama - background info here
-1991 Iraq - Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia; no time for foot-dragging
-1993 Somalia - failed humanitarian effort, which morphed into a failed manhunt
-1993 Iraq - Operation Southern Watch, to enforce ceasefire agreements; Saddam attacked civilians in southern Iraq during that period
-1996 Iraq - retaliation for Iraqi attacks on Kurdish areas in a United Nations "safe haven" in northern Iraq
-1998 Afghanistan/Sudan - Clinton bombed an aspirin factory alleged to have ties with al-Qaeda, and an empty al-Qaeda training camp
-1998 Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) - 4-day campaign, in response to Iraq violating ceasefire agreements
-1999 Bosnia - dubious UN-styled defensive peacekeeping measure
-2001 Afghanistan - Taliban an ally of al-Qaeda connection
-2003 Iraq - US took its sweet time after over a decade of Iraq violating ceasefire agreements

You forgot to mention the Kosovo - which I opposed, since it involved NATO getting into a war in violation of its own charter (NATO is supposed to defend attacks against NATO members, which does not include Kosovo). The war destabilized the Serbian province; instead of Serbian aggression, there's now rampant Islamic terrorism.

All completely true -- and all irrelevant to the question of whether we should pull out of Iraq, and whether the Bushites lied to get us into it (out of their idiotic overconfidence that it would be, in Ken Adelman's immortal phrase, "a cakewalk". Thinking that one battle in a worldwide war was fought in a disastrously badly chosen place is, to put it mildly, not the same thing as opposing the war.

I tend to think of this as the Cornelius Fudge Administration -- after the incompetent head of the Ministry of Magic in the Harry Potter books, who homes in obsessively on the wrong enemy and the uses one politial dirty trick after another to force all the other wizards to go along with him.

Acttually, let me qualify that: Kling's points #3 and 4 AREN'T completely true. Where the US abuse of POWs (under whatever name) is concerned, this administration is prosecuting a small sprinkling of very little fish while methodically covering up the unquestioned liability of high-ranking officials all the way up (at least) to Rummy. See Andrew Sullivan's blog for extremely extensive documentation.

Second, there have already been TWO opinion polls of whether the Iraqis want us to leave -- run by ABC in early 2004, and the BBC earlier this year. Both of them found that the Kurds overwhelmingly want us to stay (but then, they also overwhelmingly want to split off as a separate country), while the Sunnis overwhelmingly want us to get lost. The Shiites were split about evenly in the earlier poll, but now seem to be leaning against us as well.