comments
Comments Upon the War
By Daniel G. Jennings
Historical Comparisons
Over the past couple of weeks, President Bush has used the 60th Anniversary of D-Day and the opening of the World War II memorial to compare the present conflict in Iraq with WWII. At the same time numerous antiwar activists have compared the Iraq War to the US war in Vietnam.
Neither of these comparisons are very good, World War II was a global conflict between great powers, the present conflict is a battle between various groups of insurgencies and US troops. The Vietnam War was a conflict between a well-armed and well-organized guerrilla force and US and allied forces. Any similarities between either of these conflicts and the Iraq War are superficial. The comparisons are propaganda ploys designed to appeal to emotion and sentiment rather than legitimate historical comparison.
This war instead is something new and different, a new war for a century. The US isn't fighting an organized enemy with a hierarchical command structure instead it is fighting a sort of mass movement. In Vietnam, the Communist forces had leaders with whom we could negotiate and deal with. There are no real leaders to deal with in Iraq behind a few loudmouths who claim to be leading the opposition such as Sadir, who appears to have no real control over his troops.
American troops haven't faced a situation like this since they were fighting Indian tribes in the Old West, many of which had no real leaders or organization. Americans could sign a peace treaty with one Indian but the war would continue because there was no Indian government with which to deal. Yet that's a very poor comparison.
Some people have raised comparisons to the Philippine Insurrection after the Spanish American War when US forces occupied the Philippines after defeating Spain in 1898. In that war, the rebels had leaders and a formal command structure. When American troops captured the leaders, the rebellion collapsed.
Perhaps the best comparison would be the Boer War of the early 1900s when British Imperial Forces fought Afrikaner or Boer (Dutch speaking South African) guerrillas for control of South Africa. After the fall of their capitol, the Boers had no real leadership or government and usually fought in bands called commandos (from which the term "commando" for special operations soldiers was derived). The disorganized resistance continued until the Boers realized that couldn't achieve their objectives through warfare. This was only achieved after the British employed brutal methods such as placing tens of thousands of Afrikaner civilians in concentration camps in which many women and children died of starvation that the war ended. Like the US in Iraq, the British were condemned around the world for their actions in South Africa and like Americans in Iraq the British were poorly prepared for the new tactics and weapons technology they faced. Eventually the British agreed to a political settlement in which most of the Boers' demands were met.
There is no real good comparison for this war in American History and only a poor comparison in British history. Perhaps it's time for our politicians to face the reality of what's happening in Iraq and abandon their misuse of history. That is probably too much to ask.