Iraq vs WWII, part 2

Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 02:12 PM

Updating the previous WTW story comparing the war in Iraq to WWII, note that come December of 2006, Iraq will have lasted as long as the period from Pearl Harbor to the final Japanese surrender.

In a strange, strange show a week or so ago, I saw the ever-dependable Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke on Fox's Beltway Boys, where one of them professed to be completely mystified why anyone would think this fact significant.

Gosh, Fred and Mort, I share your wonder.  I mean just because our entire involvement in a "world war" will turn out to be shorter than our involvement in Iraq, despite all the "last throes," "greet us as heroes" crap emanating from our esteemed assistant leader in chief--who could find any relevance or significance in that?  I mean, surely the immensity of the WWII task, involving multiple continents, armies relatively well matched in technology, and most of our allies already defeated by the time we entered the war, doesn't mean that we should have expected Iraq to be resolved in a shorter amount of time.

Right?  Am I right?

And since there's no relevance in the relative lengths of the wars, surely we wouldn't want to start examining the differences in the way they were conducted--like the size of the armies employed, the degree of sacrifice imposed on a willing populace, an abiding trust in the motives and goals of the president--would we?  Well, would we?