Islamofascism and the Treaty of Versailles

Michelle Malkin, in a recent column, spoke about the recent announcement by the Phillipine government that it was going to withdraw from Iraq. She writes:

The Battling Bastards of Bataan have given way to the Mollycoddling Milksops of Manila. And ultimately, we -- not just Filipinos, but all Americans and our allies battling Islamofascism -- will pay a grislyprice for this disgraceful capitulation.

I suppose that's a very fair estimation of how conservatives see our current execution of the War on Terror-- that it has the same moral urgency as did fighting Nazi fascism in World War Two. I think that this lens allows critics of the War on Iraq to understand conservatives a little better, and it seems plausible that over the long term, this so-called Islamofascism could represent as great a threat to freedom, human dignity, and development as did Nazi Germany.

My analogy, however, is that the way we're handling the threat of terrorism too similarly to the way the threat posed by Germany in World War One was handled. It's been said that the overly brutal and demeaning conditions applied in the Treaty of Versailles led to suffering of the German people, which led to resentment under wich Nazism was able to flourish, creating a "bigger threat" for World War Two.

That's exactly how I believe many liberals view the War on Terror. From our support of the Israeli apartheid wall to incommunicado detentions at Guantanamo Bay, I believe we're bungling the war and whatever peace may come about later by in the same way the writers of the Treaty of Versailles bungled it. I believe this bungling will come with a "grisly price" as well.