As the Soviet armies marched across Europe during World War Two, the continent's civilian populations trembled with fear. Justifiably so, since rape, mass executions, looting and pillage were the order of the day.

Horrible as it was, the Soviet terror was not all that unusual by historical standards. Even a quick glance at past wars shows that atrocities against civilians are a commonplace in every intensely contested conflict. This has been the case from the earliest antiquity up to the present day, from the mass killings by the Assyrians to the slaughter fields of Serbia and Rwanda.

It has always been recognized that — albeit sad and tragic — such excesses are an indelible feature of war. Perhaps never more so than during World War Two when despite its horrific acts the Soviet Union was considered our friend and ally. America's political left especially hailed the Soviet efforts as an example of nobility and heroism.

The left's attitude, however, is completely different when it comes to its own country. Let it be alleged that our Marines shot twenty—five civilians and the left is at once ready to portray our military as vicious, our cause as unjust, and our country as oppressive.

This reaction is truly remarkable since regardless of what the specifics turn out to be, the outcry occasioned by this incident makes one thing clear — our involvement in such episodes is very rare and in conflicts of this nature, this level of moderation is virtually unprecedented.

The real question is not really whether our military is brutal, but how we are to understand the breathtaking absence of historical perspective and evenhandedness on the part of its critics. How can they blithely overlook the systematic mass atrocities of the Soviet Union — and a host of other regimes — while at the same time denounce our soldiers and our country for isolated incidents which are insignificant in comparison. One would like to believe that this glaring inconsistency is rooted in mere ignorance, but sadly its roots lie in something altogether more insidious.

There are some among us — and they almost invariably congregate on the left — who hate their own country so much that they work for its defeat whenever it is engaged in conflicts with foreign powers. Needless to say, the older among them are the same people who cheered for the Soviet Union during the Cold War, caused our defeat in Vietnam and now seek to do the same in Iraq.

Admittedly, theirs is not an easy task given that our military is almost always greatly superior to the enemies we face. The only way to achieve their goal is to weaken us from within by trying to undermine the public's confidence in our mission.

To this end, the left employs a two—prong strategy. It bombards the airwaves with an endless beat of casualty figures hoping the public eventually concludes that the effort is not worth the price. At the same time, it tries to depict our military as a vicious force bent on torture and mayhem. The idea is to build up public disgust to the point where the American people will insist on withdrawal as a means of putting a stop to the train of alleged abominations. In this way, the left tries to pluck on two cords in the American psyche: our sense of justice which condemns wrongdoing regardless of the perpetrator, and the desire to escape the torrent of worldwide opprobrium which is invariably triggered by allegations of this kind. It was with this mind they sought to make a scandal of Abu Ghraib, and they will almost certainly try to do the same with Haditha. They hold out much hope for this tactic, especially since it succeeded in Vietnam.

It is crucially important that we place the left's hysterical accusations in a historical context. Once we do so, we cannot but arrive at conclusions which are completely at variance with what the critics would have us believe. In sharp contrast with what normally transpires in wars of this nature, our military has conducted itself with rare restraint.

Rather than being the evil institution painted by the left, it is in fact the most humane fighting force in recorded history. Never before has a civilian population been treated with so much concern nor have enemy combatants enjoyed the rights and privileges granted to those in our custody. In what other conflict have prisoners of war been treated to three—course meals and benefited from communal living with access to television, libraries and soccer fields? And as far as Abu Ghraib is concerned, this was the first time in the history of warfare when it became a crime to knock about a group of murderous subversives. In all other wars insurgents of this type would have considered themselves very fortunate to get off so easily.

Although it is inevitable that some regrettable incidents will occur in a long—drawn and bitter conflict such as the one we are fighting in Iraq, the truth remains that our military is a worthy child of the great nation from which it comes. Fair, humane and good it truly represents the best of America. This has long been the case, but never more so than today when extraordinary measures are taken to ensure the welfare of civilians as well as that of captives. 

The unparalleled benevolence of America's armed forces should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of historical sense. It is imperative that this is imparted to the public so that we don't fall prey to the demagoguery of those who wish to see us defeated and humiliated.

The moment we are able to place what happened at Abu Ghraib, Guant疣amo or Haditha in a larger context, the conduct of our military will cease to be subject to controversy and we will recognize it for the outstanding institution it really is. At the same time, we will gain a sobering insight into the insidiousness and treachery of the zealots bent on impugning it.

Vasko Kohlmayer defected from Communist Czechoslovakia at the age of 19. He lives in London and works in the publishing industry.