For the past few years I noticed how people in the media, especially the New York Times have this fascination with comparing the Iraq War to the Vietnam War. People are so obsessed with comparing this war to the Vietnam war that they forget to look at the real facts.
There really is no basis for the New York Times' comparisons other than the Iraq War is unpopular to many people. The interesting thing, is that the Iraq war does parallel another war in history. The Philippine–American War.
Interesting right?
- Both wars were almost exactly a hundred years from each other 1902- 1913
- Both wars involved about 130,000 troops.
- Both wars had over four thousand US troops killed.
- Both wars were/are unpopular.
- Both wars were fought against a stubborn insurgency that ended when the population tired of the death and destruction and helped US forces put and end to it once and for all.
- Both wars involved Republican US Presidents.
Another interesting thing to note is that in 1902, the US declared victory over there, only to have to fight the Phillippine insurgents until 1913. All of this sounds familiar right?
Now we all know that the end goals in both wars were different. One goal was to colonize while the other is to stabilize the place and leave. However from a military point of view, they are incredibly similar.
The insurgency in Iraq had a similar strategy that terrorists used against the French in Algeria. A strategy that worked and the French left. A strategy the Philippine insurgency used. It seemed like a sound theory. De-stabilize the whole place and maybe the occupying forces will leave. Fortunately for us, the Iraq insurgents strategy completely backfired and it looks like we are finally on the road to achieving a democratic, stable Iraq and victory. Again, similar to how the US gained the upper hand in defeating the Philippine insurgency.
Interesting how the New York Times refuses to acknowledge these logical comparisions.
