And really, just as Lowry laments, there is nothing worse than those naive "supporters and opponents of the war who support their clashing narratives of victory and defeat with the gross simplifications." He must be referring to those manipulative propagandists and war-cheerleading simpletons who spent years telling American citizens things like this:

By Richard Lowry

April 27, 2005

It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq.

If current trends continue, our counter-insurgent campaign in Iraq will be fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the British victory over a Communist insurgency in Malaysia in the 1950s, a textbook example of this form of war. . . .

Based on conversations with administration officials and key combatant commanders, this is the story of how, two years after the fall of Saddam, the U.S. has begun to win the war for Iraq . . .

Or maybe Lowry, when he condemns "gross oversimplifications" and "narratives of victory," is referring to his travelling companion, super-tough-guy, war-loving, combat-avoiding Victor Davis Hanson, who just this week, in Lowry's own magazine, growled like the cigar-chomping General he fantasizes himself to be: "But the current orthodoxy that America is losing the war on terror inside and outside Iraq, while bereft of allies, is simply not true. Instead we are winning -- it's ugly perhaps, but winning nonetheless." Or perhaps he means War Theorist-Genius Fred Kagan, who writes one article after the next explaining "Why We're Winning Now in Iraq."

Today, the war expert Lowry explains: "The U.S. government has never brought to bear its resources in a truly national effort to win." In April, 2005, the very same war expert Lowry explained: "The basic approach of the Pentagon to the insurgency was right from the beginning."

There is no error, no deceit, no contradiction too extreme to give them pause, let alone shame. Not only does their inane and disgraceful record not give them a moment's thought, but most do what Lowry is doing -- as their errors grow, they intensify the flamboyance of their play-acting as war experts. Four years into this war, Rich Lowry -- ultimate cheerleader Rich Lowry -- is lecturing us all about how we don't understand the complexities of War and thus are missing out on all the Glorious Successes.

Yesterday, in a Washington Post chat, Actual War Reporter Thomas Ricks described what is certainly one of the most devastating diseases in our political discourse -- the complete lack of accountability for spewing falsehoods on the most critical matters we face (emphasis is Ricks'):

San Pedro, Calif.: Hello from California! I don't have a question, I just wanted to say thank you for setting people like Ken Adelman straight on "Meet the Press" a while back. That guy has some nerve showing his face on national television, don't you think?!

Thomas E. Ricks: I don't want to attack Ken Adelman, but generally I am surprised by how some people who were so wrong about the Iraq war keep holding forth.

I am especially struck by the people who say, "oh yeah, last year we were losing, but now we are winning." And they seem to say it year after year.

In those two short, understated sentences, Ricks captures perfectly the complete dishonesty that lies at the crux of the entire pro-war faction in this country. Ricks is describing the incomparably dishonest simpletons and war-crazed (war-avoiding) cheerleaders who have been -- and continue to be -- little more than drooling propagandists for years, as epitomized by the truly humiliating record of leading right-wing "war blogger" and law professor Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds of the University of Tennessee, who has been tirelessly surveying and promoting these vapid, misleading cheers for years.

Led by the likes of Lowry, our pro-war cheerleaders have held themselves out as some sort of resolute warriors and deep thinkers while spitting out idiocies literally copied from a seventh-grade pep rally. Instapundit readers over the years have heard this:

* May 9, 2006: "AL QAEDA SAYS WE'RE WINNING: That's not news, really, if you've been paying attention."

* January 19, 2006: "YES, WE'RE WINNING."

* December 18, 2005: "Bush went out of his way to take responsibility for the war. . . .Why did he do that? Because he thinks we're winning, and he wants credit. By November 2006, and especially November 2008, he thinks that'll be obvious, and he wants to lay down his marker now on what he believed -- and what the other side did."

* April 22, 2005: "WE'RE WINNING THE WAR, says Victor Davis Hanson . . ."

* April 3, 2005: "WAS NIGHTLINE BAD FOR AMERICA? Michael Socolow: . . . 'The era of the big three network news divisions is over.' Perhaps that's why we're winning this war."

* March 22, 2005: "Dave Weigel reviews Gunner Palace and asks: . . . 'We have 150,000 soldiers risking their lives for us 24/7 in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . In what twisted universe is this not interesting?' A universe in which it's become apparent that we're winning the war, I suspect."

* August 10, 2004: "Belmont Club: 'The truism that victory has many fathers while defeat is an orphan may partially explain why the Democratic Party sought to rebrand itself as the War Party during its recently concluded convention in Boston.' Indeed."

* August 10, 2004: "Austin Bay emails from Iraq: 'Victory has many fathers. . . . I do think we're winning."

* July 12, 2004: "AUSTIN BAY SENDS THIS EMAIL FROM IRAQ: . . . 'we're winning. We can't quit.' Indeed."

* March 3, 2004: "The war effort is, in fact, going well."

* October 8, 2003: "Ralph Peters is hopping mad about the Iraq coverage: 'Recently, I visited Germany to speak with our soldiers, many just back from Iraq. The situation depicted in the media was unrecognizable to them. They'd just left a country where every indicator of success was turning positive. Yet the media insist we are incompetent and failing.'

Actually, there have been some modest improvements as late. But he's basically right. . . . Terrorists are parasitic on the press, and a particular kind of press coverage. Likewise, the press has become parasitic upon terrorists, since they provide dramatic stories without hard work. But will the public respect, or trust, parasites? Or even continue to support expansive press freedom, in light of the press's irresponsibility? Just something to think about."

* September 12, 2003: "LEXINGTON GREEN WATCHED THE OSAMA VIDEO and observes: 'This is the best they can do? Ha. Dude. We're winning.' Yes."

* August 27, 2003: "AUSTIN BAY WRITES THAT WE'RE WINNING: . . . 'It's war. It's also a war we are winning.'"

And on and on and on and on, with no end. Needless to say, in 2007, we're still winning, winning, winning, winning -- and the "proof" is that all of the same people are saying so.

The real problem here is one that Kathryn Jean Lopez -- of all people -- stumbled into a couple of weeks ago, where she recounted what she described as an extremely awkward moment, one that made her whole "group mentally cringe." At a small White House gathering of war supporters and right-wing "journalists": "the aunt of a military medic currently serving in Baghdad asked the president if he's done anything to encourage Americans to volunteer for service. He replied: 'No.'"

Lopez, echoing John McCain's recent criticisms, lamented that Bush never urged Americans to enlist in the military -- not once -- in order to fight our epic War on Terror, and speculated as to what accounts for Bush's failure: "That he did not serve in Vietnam has been an issue for him and so he felt like he couldn't ask men and women to give up their lives and volunteer."

But that is only part of the explanation. The real reason that Bush -- while spewing lofty War of Civilization rhetoric for years -- never even suggested, let alone compelled, a duty of military service is because he knows better than anyone that we are a Nation of George W. Bushs -- a nation of Rich Lowrys, Rush Limbaughs, Michael O'Hanlons, Glenn Reynolds, Joe Liebermans, Victor Davis Hansons -- people who love to talk about and wallow in wars fought by others, who have an insatiable quest to feel powerful and purposeful and "Churchillian" from watching it all unfold and theorizing and talking and typing about it, but who will never risk or sacrifice anything for it.

And the President and Karl Rove and the entire Bush P.R. edifice knew that -- they knew there would be Glory from "The War on Terror" only if our morally stunted warriors could fight it from a far and safe distance, could vicariously feel purpose and glory from it without having to get near it, could cheer it on endlessly as long as there was no cost. We're a nation of people who cheer on wars while avoiding them yet saying things like this, from Glenn Reynolds in November of 2002:

ANTIWAR DEFLATION: A "study" by a group of "medical experts" reported in the New Scientist reports that an Iraq war could produce 500,000 casualties, mostly civilians.

This is progress. Before the Afghan war the usual suspects were claiming that millions would die. Now they've trimmed their hyperbole to a mere half-million. Another five or ten wars and maybe their estimates will start to approach reality. . . .

I wonder, though. After reading a piece in The New Yorker (not on line) about German civilian casualties in World War Two, and then this post by Jim Henley on not going far enough in the Afghan war, it occurs to me that trying so hard to prevent civilian casualties might be a mistake. I'm all for minimizing civilian casualties to the extent possible, consistent with winning the war. But if people are beaten so bloodlessly that they don't feel beaten, and have no real reason to dread a confrontation with the United States, is this really a good thing?

We have a war in Iraq and a government in the Bush administration that reflects that kind of country we are. And we are that kind of a country because of the people in it -- the people who, as Thomas Ricks put it, "were so wrong about the Iraq war [yet] keep holding forth," and who say, "oh yeah, last year we were losing, but now we are winning. And they seem to say it year after year" -- and who will keep doing that, to ensure that Glorious War never ends, as long as they never have to pay any price for it.

UPDATE: Two other related points worth noting. First, He Whose Credibility May Not Be Questioned, the High Honorable Gen. David G. Petraeus, has a record of statements about the war substantively similar to (though slightly less juvenile than) the Rich Lowrys and Glenn Reynolds. According to Petraeus, we are Winning Now and have always been Winning. And as Lowry himself noted, his 2005 proclamation that "We are Winning" was "based on conversations with administration officials and key combatant commanders." But when Generals speak about war and laud Our Progress, we must not question their veracity.

Meanwhile, over at Pajamas Media, Victor Davis Hanson is worrying in his "trip report" that "Our army and marines are far too few and overextended." Our War of Civilizations is suffering due to lack of fresh-faced volunteers. I wonder what Rich Lowry thinks about that.