Black Box Report

We have a new "Worst Historical Analogy for Iraq Ever!"

First, the administration compared the Iraq mission to North and South Korea, which isn't comparing apples to oranges as much as it's comparing apples to an ostrich, or a coffee table. Then Iraq was going to be like Northern Ireland, where senseless sectarian violence has been going on for centuries. Then there was suggesting Iraq view Israel as a role model, because if there's anything that war-ravaged Arabs want to be like, it's Israel. And now, Iraq is like the US War of Independence. Over in Shakesville, they're saying Bush is treating Iraq like a Rorshach test:

The Psychologist-in Chief whips out a new inkblot on which to project our hopes for Iraq: Revolutionary War America, conflating images of Continental Army soldiers trading pitchforks for muskets to defend their homeland with National Guardsmen sent to play referee in another nation's civil war unleashed by, well, us.

To be fair, it does kind of ring a bell. Loosely knit local rivals fighting a successful guerrilla war against the world's mightiest military power. Beyond that, the analogy sort of breaks down:

The Revolutionary War was a movement initiated from inside the colonies - not thrust upon the colonials from an outside, invading power which toppled our leadership and infrastructure, and then had utterly no plan at all for reconstruction. The men who fought in the Revolutionary War knew precisely why they were fighting, and what the stakes were. They were fighting for freedom from domestic oppression.

Also, the pursuit of that war was based on truth, and not lies for conquest.

How completely stupid do his handlers and speech-writers think Bush's audiences must be?

Those who fail to learn from history are....something something something. Indeed, a closer inspection of this analogy begs the question, who's playing what role?

Interestingly, if we are the British, in the present day Iraq, then what does it make the British? The British must be the French then...I am getting confused. Thanks, Mr. President. Doh, they can't be the French! The French supported the insurgents! (George Washington and the rest)

...

In Iraq, US stands alone for all practical purposes, just like the British stood alone in the American colonies, fighting General Washington's "insurgents" and "terrorists". Except, of course, for the German mercenaries. That's it! The British in Iraq today are just like the German mercenaries in America then. So, we are the British, and the British are the German, not the French. Silly me.

And so the administration will no doubt continue searching for another horribly inept analogy to try to rouse some enthusiasm for the war. Fortunately, there aren't that many more comparisons to be made:

bush has now compared the iraq war to the revolutionary war, the spanish american war, world war one, world war two, the cold war, the korean war, and the vietnam war. i think we can also throw in the gulf war since the iraq war is arguably just a continuation of that war.

so what's he gonna compare it to next? the war of 1812? some other people have compared it to the barbary wars, maybe bush will pick up on that. um, what else have we got? panama? grenada? kosovo? any of the invasions of haiti? the war against mexico? the various indian wars? is he allowed to use the french and indian war even though that took place before 1776? what happens when he runs out?

in any event, i'm guessing he won't go with the civil war.

Of course not. Makes too much sense.