More on Today’s media, yesterday’s battles

I meant to point this out over the weekend. It’s a satire by Rand Simberg on how today’s media might have noted the passing of the 250,000 dead American soldiers milestone during WW2. I thought it went quite well with the Midway comparison that I noted earlier in the week.

I’m a bit partial to WW2 comparisons myself, as longtime readers will no doubt know. And I knew that if I pointed Simberg’s piece out someone would immediately jump up and whine “but Iraq isn’t World War Two!”. In fact, I’m almost surprised that no one complained that the Midway comparison wasn’t honest because the Iraqis don’t have any aircraft carriers or something. I planned to address this fairly obvious “gotcha!”, mostly by pointing out that it’s not the war that’s being compared but the coverage. In the end, I just didn’t have the patience to explain the exact same things to the exact same people yet again, so I decided to skip it for the time being.

Anyway, Glenn Reynolds noted the post on CNN over the weekend, and Roger Simon (not the blogger) shook his head:

I just don’t find much comparison between World War II, in which we were fighting predatory fascism that was trying to take over the globe, and invading Iraq for reasons that the administration now admits were false.

Never mind that he seems to be repeating the WMD myth. (Despite the use of the plural “reasons” instead of the singular “reason”…better work on that, Mr. Simon) He totally misses the point.

Even if we ignore the lazy attempt to cling to the WMD myth and the fact that what Mr. Reynolds said went totally over his head, we still have some issues with Mr. Simon’s point, summed up neatly by Simberg in his follow-up post:

“…predatory fascism that was trying to take over the globe…”

I guess he’s never bothered to read any statements of intent from Al Qaeda.

Which part does he think is untrue of the enemy? That they aren’t fascists? Well, admittedly, the term has lost much of its currency from overuse by much of the left to be applied to everyone who disagrees with them on almost any conceivable subject, so let’s call it totalitarianism instead (a term that I would hope that Mr. Simon would agree also applies to our enemies in the second world war). If that word can’t be applied to people who want to run every aspect of everyone’s daily existence, will brook no dissent, and have no apparent value for human life, as the Jihadis objectively do, then to whom does it apply? And even if you want to imagine that the “secular” Saddam didn’t support the “terrorists” (one would have to disregard the Salman Pak training camp and the bounties offered for attacks on the Israelis to buy that one), he was as totalitarian (and fascist) as they come.

The comments section of the post has a lot of good stuff, as well.