There were two “revolutions” during the period 1770-1800 that caught the attention of the world. One was ours, the other was the French. Ours was arguably a conservative war, in that what was fought for was the preservation of liberties to which our ancestors had become accustomed to exercising, and therefore there is a certain sense in which “Revolution” is the wrong word to describe it. The French one was a progressive one in that it sought to do away with the old and create something new, and this one it is proper to call a Revolution. Ours was successful, the French a failure.

Since that time, the model of the French revolution has been imbued with outcome of the American revolution by Progressives. Since what is happening in Iraq is more akin to the English assistance to the colonies before the War of Independence and not the French revolution, Progressives can’t see that what we are doing is the correct thing and that it is working. They also can’t comprehend that when the time is right, because we did fight against the English to secure those freedoms, we will be willing to walk away from Iraq without a “revolution.” It simply doesn’t fit their preconception of how the world works.

I think we need to keep that in mind and keep presenting that truth to the American people. I’m not sure we ought to use words like “stunning” and “misleading” in describing their viewpoint. It leaves one with the sense that what they say is surprising. It is not surprising: it is to be expected from people who are so wholly disconnected from reality. Our reaction to these sorts of things ought to be more along the lines of “well else were you expecting? Of course this is the sort of thing they believe. It has nothing to do with reality, whether that reality be the support of our troops or the political situation in Iraq, or what the strategy for defeating islamofascism ought to be.”