The most common comparison for The Iraq Debacle, whether attempting to illustrate or refute a point, is America's involvement in Vietnam. Recently, I have seen some begin to make a comparison that I have always believed to be more accurate, Iraq and Yugoslavia, post-Marshall Tito. In the end, however, all comparisons fail to capture the essence of what is plainly becoming the worst U.S. military misadventure in history. The reason is simple:
Iraq is Iraq.
First, I want to note the almost tectonic shift that is taking place even as I write this, as the administration of George W. Bush comes under increasing attack by conservatives. These former sycophants and enablers who cheered his election are, of course, without shame and appear almost eager blame the failure of the conservative movement on Bush himself failing to be "true to the conservative cause." This, of course, is absurd since many of these same hustlers were absolutely giddy in 2000 because THIS Bush was "even more conservative" than Reagan (you could look it up).
What amazes me is not that these people are two-faced, lying, cheap bags of pig excrement--I knew that long ago--but that they have failed to latch onto the single most obvious excuse for the failure of their ideology: Operating any policy from the White House with The Iraq Debacle ongoing is like trying to run a marathon with leg irons and handcuffs. I guess the problem is, they so, so desperately wanted a war in the Middle East that Iraq is an intrinsic part of their failure, and to admit it was so badly conceived, fought and managed is too close to saying "We were wrong."
There are elements of this sorry mess that can be compared to other sorry messes in other countries (here's an informative, depressing list of sorry messes), but it is a unique situation. This is because, like most of the countries of the Middle East, the Allies arbitrarily drew up Iraq after World War I as they were carving the Ottoman Empire into "manageable" pieces (I kind of miss those Ottoman guys now). I'm not enough of a World War I scholar to say whether these boundaries had ancestral or cultural meaning, but as nations go, Iraq has a short history and was manipulated by the West to such an extent that as a nation, it never really had the chance to gain a solid footing.
There are valid comparisons to Yugoslavia--a multi-ethnic, secular nation kept that way through the iron will of Marshall Tito. He died, and the country disintegrated violently, a victim of ages-old ethnic and religious disputes. If anyone has been tracking that situation, it's not so great either, but it's light-years ahead of Iraq.
There are valid comparisons to Vietnam, but more in the sense of failed military and political strategies. America's entry into the "proxy war" in Vietnam against Russia happened under Truman, who sent the first advisers, then Eisenhower sent more, Kennedy more and, when the French, Vietnam's former colonial masters, got their asses kicked at Dien Bien Phu and quit the place, Kennedy was pressured by the hardliners on the right to not let that domino fall to the Russians. Enter the U.S. combat troops. Everything I've read said that Kennedy wanted out, and was going to get us out after he didn't need to worry about re-election. It was LBJ who blew the thing up to massive proportions.
The real comparison to Vietnam, however, is that the two wars were strategically hopeless and horribly bungled. Unlike Iraq, which we foolishly and illegally invaded, we were already in Vietnam as a part of the larger Cold War when the escalation built upon lies and stupidity took place and was only made possible by JFK's assassination, which changed the course of history. Nixon just made it worse, expanding it to other countries then dragging it out so a "withdrawal" would not look like a "retreat" (that should feel REAL familiar right now).
You could also compare what we are trying to do in Iraq with the British Mandate over Palestine after World War I. Finally, the Brits gave up trying to "manage" Jewish and Arab hostilities. Then, World War II came along, and when it was over, the U.N. created two nations: One for Jews, one for the Arabs of Palestine. One people accepted their nation, the other rejected theirs and we are still grappling with the fallout.
Maybe the best comparison, however, is Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Following long-observed military strategy and a tradition of conquest, he captured the enemy's capital, Moscow. The problem is, the Muscovites didn't surrender--they just left, burning the city and much more behind them, and waited for winter to set in. Governing frozen, deserted Russia from a city of smoking ruins proved pointless, and Napoleon withdrew. While his Russian expedition was not the cause of Napoleon's ultimate defeat, it was a disaster that proved the turning point of the Napoleonic Wars and the beginning of the end of his empire.
I believe Iraq should have been regarded like Cuba. Either of Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein would have acted to hurt American interests if possible, but neither really posed a threat or, in another sense, there was just as much reason to invade Cuba in mass force, as there was Iraq. What the Bush Mafioso had in Iraq was OPPORTUNITY, thanks to 9/11, and MOTIVE, thanks to Iraqi oil, and certainly they had the MEANS to act, through the powerful (but not limitless) American military. For anyone keeping score at home, MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY are the elements law enforcement focuses upon in finding, arresting, and trying the alleged perpetrator of a crime.
So, while there are historic comparisons to Iraq, ultimately they fall short. The world has a U.N. presence in the Balkans that, more or less, maintains order and hope. Vietnam "fell" but is a friend to the U.S. and increasingly a vacation destination. Israel is the largest gated community on the planet. The closest comparison for us to Iraq is Napoleon's invasion of Russia, where anthropologists have unearthed mass graves of retreating French soldiers but damned if they can find a statue of "Old Bones-apart" anywhere near Moscow.
It all seems useless pontificating now, rather like being on a sinking ship and analyzing whether the situation is more like the Titanic--plenty of time, no lifeboats--or like the Lusitania--plenty of lifeboats, no time. All we have left in Iraq are bad options as The Good Ship Dubya takes on water.
And it's all because Iraq is Iraq.