Of course it's political correctness. We don't want Germans to feel bad so we separate them from what must have simply been non-German Nazis. We talk about Nazis as if they weren't Germans nor supported by the mass German population. We can't even state that our enemies are Muslims because people seem to want them to be separated from the Muslim civilization. Everything seems to have to come with a disclaimer so as not to offend. Perhaps this is part of the reason we haven't had an enemy unconditionally surrender since the end of World War II. Our quest to civilize war by "winning hearts and minds" and separating the nails from the hammers allows much of the guilty to escape. Hence the carved in half Korea, lost Vietnam, fractured Iraqi population, Croation/Bosnian/Serbian pause, etc.
I've never heard anyone present it this way. I think some overuse the temr political correctness. Perhpas it is more an effort to be accurate. Everyday people are both responsible (party to what went wrong) and detacted as they had more worries than what the government was doing. It is not that our enimies are muslims that is what is often disputed. It is that all muslims are our enemy. There is a proper distinction there. MY enemy may use a child, but all children are not my enemy. The trouble with grouping is that they are nto all inclusive.
The disclaimer is to be accurate. Those shouting poitical correctness seem to me to be the ones havig the political correctness issue.
Still, I would look at history from a different vantage point if I were you. You have the facts right, as most do, but misinterpret, as many do. Germany had an army. Was a declared war. Made things simplier and more direct. Since then we've done police actions, had no rationale that would carry us to a conclusion, and fought enemies less defined, and more the entire populas. Hell, today, there isn't even a body that can surrender. The msitake is in us, but not in political correctness. It is in fighting ill defined conflicts against vague enemies. USing the hammer instead of the scalpel. A poor way to do surgery.
It's only a big problem if we decide to point it out. Nobody really seemed to care when Clinton became the first President to defy the UN and send troops to sort out Bosnia. In regards to Kosovo, the UN called it an illegal act conducted by the French and the U.S. It was't until we focused on the belligerent thorn in the Middle East that people seemed to really care. It's true that most of the world complained largely because the U.S. has proven to be able to do whatever it wants without permission. Considering history, it is understandable because the rest of the world has proven to not be ablt o handle its power. But we are the first of any empire to actually prove that can be responsible with our power. After all, we didn't seek to colonize the world, start World Wars or Cold Wars. Being the only nation to drop atomic bombs, we have proven to even be responsible with this power by refusing to use them again and to monitor the rest of the world. But another truth is that while people were chanting "No War For Oil," they should have also been chanting "Continued Starvation For Oil." Under their chants, they still wanted their gasoline. They just didn't want to have to hear about it.
The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the laws we agreed to right after World War II does not reflect the modern globalized world today. The end of World War I saw us create the League of Nations for peace. They failed. The end of world War II saw us create the United Nations. This time we stuck around to enforce the idea of peace through stability. But after the Cold War we saw no reason to recognize the emerged democratic world? Since World War I, the world had seen over 130 democracies created and by the end of the century Democracy won. The Age of Ideaology and all the "isms" that wrecked the world lost. We saw no cause to create an organization that not only catered to stability, but rewarded Democracies? What we did, instead, was fal to recognize the world we created and we continued to adhere to international laws that reward the dictator for his ability to maintain stability. America did lead this. You have got to at least acknowledge that. And today, almost the entire Middle East is seeking exactly what the West and even Israel has been doing for itself. They seek what has proven to work. The world's stubborn reliance on these ancient laws is like the 21st century surgeon demanding to operate with 17th century tools. Whether all Americans agree with Bush or not, they all have to be able to see the very real changing of eras and the very real historical turn we are in right now.
You make another mistake here. Many of us opposed Bosnia, though the rationale for it was more tolerable. We still opposed it. The ones being consistent are those of us who opposed it and still oppsed this action. Many in the military opposed Bosnia as well, but somehow managed to find justification for Iraq, a far less reasonable course of action.
And if the laws don't apply (convienent), than do what all law abiding people do, work to change the law. Don't break it. Don't ignore it. Make things that are right are sometimes hard to tolerate. Every listen to the reverand Phelps for example? He makes supporting free speech dificult to say the least. But I would not abandon the concept because he absues the right. That road leads us to palces we really don't want to go. And so does ignoring rule of law when it suits us.
But it sucked the world into it. Perhaps our goal should be to help the Middle East sort itself out without needing the European recipe.
Sucked us? We were there all along. Us being their, interfering, supporting bad actors, that is what cost us.