The latest Julie Burchill has already gotten the usual overpraise from Stateside pro-war bloggers. It’s OK — up to a point. She seems to endorse the swipes at the US forces (civilian deaths, friendly fire incidents) rather than simply describe the British mindset about American military professionalism. Well, permit me to disagree. As the major power on the ground, the US was bound to commit more of both, and given the awesome potential firepower, were there really a lot? I consider our troops no less professional than the Brits. But the main problem with this article is that I don’t think Burchill sufficiently drove home the illogicality of supporting volunteer troops while trashing the cause they volunteered to fight for. This never convinced anyone not because it was an out-and-out lie (did that ever stop an ideologue?) but because it made no internal sense. If they were saying that the war was immoral, how can they support troops who volunteered to carry it out? Answer: They can’t. The antiwar movement supported the troops like I’m a Saudi kleptomaniac princess. BTW, don’t you think that in this picture she eerily resembles Christopher Hitchens?