In Many Ways the War in Iraq Resembles the War for American Independence

http://www.hnn.us/articles/17187.html


Although Iraqi citizens have now voted on a new constitution, the recent spike in violence in Iraq leads many Americans to wonder why victory remains elusive. Surely, they say, the world’s lone superpower can defeat the insurgents and the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s former armed forces. However, if Americans set aside their repugnance at the comparison, they will note that the Iraq War’s structural correlation of forces—not the methods or goals—resembles the American War of Independence (1775-1783). Although Britain enjoyed a huge economic and military advantage over the thirteen rebellious colonies, London saw its imperial power in North America destroyed by a rag-tag colonial army.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sought to wage war in Iraq by keeping the number of U.S. combat troops to a minimum. This strategy has backfired. There are simply too few American forces in Iraq to patrol adequately a country roughly twice the size of California, to protect the Iraqi people from attack. Moreover, U.S. forces are also too small and widely-dispersed to protect Iraqi civilians and officials from insurgent attacks. At the beginning of the War for American Independence, Britain also hoped to triumph with minimal force, but the great geographical size of the thirteen colonies rendered this strategy impossible.

This imbalance between the size of the occupying army and geographic size of the theater of combat also has other effects. Throughout the Iraq War, U.S. officials have insisted that most Iraqi people support U.S. policy toward their country. Ironically, these officials have continually underestimated the strength and commitment of the insurgency, just as the British did over 200 years ago. Convinced the rebellion lacked popular support, Britain confidently predicted that its small commitment of forces would quickly and easily quash the rebellion. This confidence proved misplaced, as the small number of British forces was unable to protect Loyalists to the British Crown from the Patriot retaliation. snip

The Bush administration has also tended to paint all Iraqis who oppose U.S. policy in Iraq as radicals, terrorists, and extremists. The administration has refused to deal with these individuals, citing their fiery rhetoric as proof of their malevolent intentions. The administration should remember, however, that the colonists also used uncompromising rhetoric, such as Virginia Governor Patrick Henry declaring “give me liberty or give me death!”

How unpatriotic! Long Live the King!

in history, it's mind-boggling. To begin with, the fledgling colonies were getting jerked around by a certain King GEORGE. It seems that George was hitting the colonists with taxes that were too high, and all kinds of other revolting things.

If ANYONE should understand how the Iraqis feel, it should be the Americans. We didn't like it when George was being a tyrant. We finally fought to get rid of our protectorate. No country wants to be occupied, and it amazes me that anyone would buy Bush's "plan for democracy". It's an occupation.

And just in case anybody should jump the gun, Bush even made a reference to the Iraqis and their Constitution. He said something to the effect that "we didn't turn out our constiuttion on a coffee break, so the iraqis can't either.

He even made some ludicrous references to Lincoln & Iraq.

By the way, guess what happened to that genius King George? Yup, he was unseated after his big loss. He was sent into exile somewhere in England. Got it, George?

does rather sound like Iraq. Only this time we are the nasty empire and they are the "colonists." Although I did rather like the analogy to the Teutoberger Wald (9th century) incident with the Roman legions. The similarities are interesting...militaries sent in by political decisions, with the result that the locals took great umbrage at their presence.