The Berg scandal created an uproar worldwide because of the sheer cruelty and inhumanity of his death. But the context in which the incident took place bears closer scrutiny as the right attempts to deflect blame. I keep hearing RW shills saying the beheading was not revenge because "they" have been killing "us" en masse. And yet, Berg was not officially a part of the ground forces deployed for the war (as far as I know). Neither were the mercenaries who were killed over a month ago. So when the RW talks about "them" killing "us" what purpose is served by blurring the lines between those who are actually fighting the war and those who are there for other reasons?
And for that matter, who are "they"? We were supposed to be greeted with flowers for liberating Iraqis. We were saving them from torture chambers and sex slavery

. But as "we" die "they" become the enemy.
The RW must grab onto these sensational opportunities to rile up the sheeple in order to support a war whose cause is increasingly vague. Consider the fact that we are fighting a war where we don't know how much it's going to cost, how many troops will be needed, what the definition of winning the war is, who the enemy is, when it the war ends, or even who's fighting--mercenaries or troops. How are our real troops supposed to know the difference? What makes this situation any different from the hunt for "Charlie" in Vietnam?
I never understood the definition of a quagmire until now. Boy are we in trouble.