Of the American Revolution, for one.

British troops got shot at by Americans who were hiding behind trees. Was regarded by the British as unfair. Don't know if they had the word "terrorism". But the Brits were "over here", on American soil, and the Continental Army wasn't much. And Washington wasn't kind to colonials who sided with the Brits. They got shot, too.

The French, by the way, were instrumental in the American Revolution succeeding. They kept the Brits busy protecting a lot of the rest of their Empire so they couldn't devote all the resources they might have to suppressing these colonies. Ben Franklin did a lot of good for the young US in Paris.

Moving on to WWII. The terms "Quisling" and "collaborator" come to mind. Sort of the saying that "the friend of my enemy is my enemy". The US is using that with Pakistan - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" even though it turns out Pakistan is behind much if not most of the nuclear proliferation. (What ever happened to "You're either for us or against us!!")

Quislings and collaborators were regarded as fair game, if you will, during that war.

Moving along to now. If there were Iraqis patrolling my streets, if they invaded my little section of the world, I promise you I'd be plotting against 'em. Wouldn't regard them as "liberators", wouldn't like 'em one bit. And if my neighbors cooperated with 'em, I'd throw them in the same category. That's no surprise, really. And the tactics would of necessity be classified by some as "terrorism", certainly "guerilla".

All this is to say that the problems America has over there aren't PR, it's what we've done, and done unilaterally. Even with coalition of the mercenaries as a cover, it's an American operation. Remember when Bush was talking so bravely about going it alone? The US is reaping what it has sowed (isn't that Biblical?) and shouldn't act so surprised about it.

Or regard it as a PR problem.

Some of the greatest of American kids, trusting volunteers for their country, and their families are suffering along with Iraqis.

And there were no WMDs, and after all this time no definitive tie to al-Queda, and it seems to me if it's "freedom" for Iraqis, then Saddam is gone and we would leave. It seems to me that if it were "freedom" for the Iraqis, we wouldn't be building the largest embassy in the world there. The only reason I can think of to hang around with the biggest embassy in the world there is for oil.

Or maybe it's to guarantee the Iraqis are "free". Of everyone but US.

Free to apply for jobs at Halliburton and McDonalds.

Sigh. But it ain't a PR problem.

Arf