Instead of insurgency the talking points have changed to how Sunnis might soon become victims of an ethnically hostile Iraqi army in a Civil War. Going from a boast of conquest to a portrayal of victim is usually an indicator of something. In my view, the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is an American fiasco.
Yes, isn't it interesting how the talking points of the left have changed to coincide with Zarqawi's latest tactical maneuvers?
Like good little propagandists, the MSM and many of the lefty blogs have followed along and pinned their own hopes for America's failure in Iraq on the successful implementation of Al Qaeda's long-range strategy.
As Wretchard notes:
What famous individuals say about a situation is a shortcut for encapsulating a factual assessment; it describes reality as public figures see it but is not the reality itself. That remains a mystery until developments unfold.
Some day in the future after events have unfolded; and after all intended and unintended consequences have played themselves out; the spineless traitors and apologists of the left, who have done nothing to advance the cause of freedom and democracy in Iraq--or in the world, for that matter--and instead have actively and enthusiastically supported the enemy's psychological operations and become their propaganda outlets, will be finally subjected to evaluation by history; and their true psychological motivations will not be in doubt.
Because, however events turn out in Iraq--for good or ill, and there is certainly no guarantee that what is right and good always overcome-- the underlying motivations of the left (and all those who proclaim themselves to be the champions of the little guy, and yet for some reason always end up defending the Milosovics and Saddams of the world; always enabling the Hitlers and Bin Ladens) are perfectly clear to anyone who will look.
The vast majority of individuals who remain committed to the left's communist, socialist and/or marxist agenda are simple dupes, without any appreciable psychological insight which might make them even question their masters, let alone history and the tragic legacy left by their ideology. They will neither look too closely at history, nor will they search too closely in their own souls to understand why they believe as religiously as they do. They don't want to know the truth.
Those who have control and direct these mindless minions are not content with any limitation on their power, and seek to expand their oppressive agenda to any who would oppose their will. They know the truth and it does not concern them.
Both admire the new totalitarians of Islam and the ruthless ambition, cruelty and domination expressed so freely. Some on the left allow themselves to openly admire the oppressors, even as they claim to be against oppression in principle; and the others are more discreet. But both hope to align themselves with that unleashed and powerful dark side of the human soul. In fact, the secret admiration that unexpectedly shines through is one of the keys to understanding their own hidden desire to master others.
They are able to deeply relate the despot's dreams because those dreams of absolute control over others are their own. They might tell themselves it is for the "good of others", but they are lying or deluded; will not look too closely at the darkness in their own souls.
They had a choice in the last century and they have had a choice in this one. When it comes right down to it, the left will always throw their lot in with those whose dream is to enslave the world, no matter what lies they tell themselves to be able to sleep at night. Because that is their hidden psychological need - to exert control over others and bend them to their will; and that is why they collaborate so effortlessly with the enemies of freedom and humanity.