In 1940 British troops, resoundingly defeated on the European continent by the Nazi German army, fled the beaches of Dunkirk, France for their English island homeland in warships, yachts, small boats, smaller boats, rowboats, canoes and inner tubes. In 1945, after their victory, British troops began to leave France for England for things like vacation and discharge.
In both cases British troops left France for England. Is it hard to understand the difference in the two circumstances?
Likewise, in 1941 American troops fled the Philippine capital of Manila for the temporary safety of the Bataan peninsula. In 1945, after victory, American troops also left Manila for home.
If you were one of those American troops who left Manila on both occasions, would you have trouble explaining the differing circumstances to your aunt in West Virginia?
In 1941 Russian troops fled eastward toward Moscow from hundreds of western Russian cities to escape the powerful German offensive. In 1945, after victory, Russian troops continued to move from those cities toward the east.
Could any honest person over the age of 5 possibly fail to understand why those Russians on the move were frowning in 1941 and singing in 1945?
Today, apparently, Americans have a terrible problem understanding that troop movements from point A to point B may be prompted by defeat; or, on the other hand, they may be prompted by victory. It can be confusing, especially when one political party feels the desperate need to confuse.
In 2006 the war in Iraq was perceived as going badly for America. A chorus of prominent Americans, including but not limited to, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, were imploring the President to abandon his swine-headed ego-driven, utterly misbegotten and obviously failed "stay-the-course" policy and admit defeat and bring the troops back home from Iraq.
Gen. David Petraeus, architect of the "surge" deserves as much credit as Gen. Douglas MacArthur got for his surprise invasion of Inchon during the Korean War. The Petraeus surge caused the fortunes of war to turn completely around.
America's dramatically improving position became increasingly hard to conceal and then impossible to spin away or deny. The rest is history; happy history unless you're a Democrat heavily invested in American defeat as a campaign issue.
The Sunni chiefs of Iraq turned against al-Qaida and the Iraqi army began to sink mud cleats and grab traction and whale the hummus out of the terrorists on the battlefield.
But look what happened then!
Iraqi victories were portrayed by America's main media as defeats, a sinful act of journalistic and political malpractice which was never corrected even after the Iraqi government wrested control of the southern port of Basra from naysaying thugs and the matter was no longer debatable. The major media shamelessly slant, twist and lie to the disadvantage of the American side.
The Bush administration has to score a knockout in every round to break even.
Then along about mid-July of 2008 the White House announced plans to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq. And no sinews of honor, ethics, professionalism or shame could keep Obama's throaty cheerleaders in the media from chortling, "Looka here!
The administration is so affected by the overpowering virtue of Obama's reasoning that, even in mid-election-campaign, President Bush is doing exactly what Obama recommended a long time ago! Why, behold! Bush is actually going to withdraw American troops from Iraq, just like Obama told him to!"
And, indeed, they're absolutely correct. Obama urged troops withdrawals from Iraq. And now President Bush himself is agreeing to troop withdrawals from Iraq.
"Obama!" chortles the left and the stupid. " Whatta guy! He's not even nominated yet, much less elected, and yet President Bush can't resist cupping his hand to his ear and saying, 'Hark! This young man Obama speaks such undeniable wisdom. He recommends we remove troops from Iraq. How can we possibly resist the irresistable? We shall comply with this brilliant young man's helpful advice!"
Please forgive those of us who stand here open-mouthed and robbed of our audio by the dimensions of the gargantuan and insulting scam being successfully pulled off by Obama and his media marionettes. Got it? War goes badly. Obama, Hillary and the Dems cry, "Let's get out!" Then the war turns dramatically in American's favor. And, instead of saying congratulations, we were wrong or shutting the hell up, those who begged for a bug-out are claiming authorship of the idea of withdrawing troops. And they even have the chutzpah to add that the leaders of Iraq favor American withdrawal, too; a move that would have been suicidal for those leaders had we done it when Obama and the Dems were first demanding "Out!"
Nobody could have pulled off a conceptual swindle like this in World War II. Then we knew the difference between our evacuations and our invasions, between scurrying to get troops out of harm's way and dismissing them when they're no longer needed.
Many populations have undergone tremendous upset throughout history when their country loses a war.
Never before now, however, have so many people been so upset about winning.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.