President Bush yesterday commemorated the formal Japanese surrender on board the USS Missouri sixty years ago by delivering a speech in which he compared World War II with the Iraq war. "As we mark this anniversary," the president declared, "we are again a nation at war. Once again, war came to our shores with a surprise attack that killed thousands in cold blood." He subsequently referenced Iraq more than a dozen times.

Iraq is not Vietnam, as too many war opponents contend. More than 25 times as many Americans died in Vietnam as have died in Iraq. The enemy, the terrain, the tactics, and so much more differs.

Iraq is also not World War II. Had Franklin Roosevelt attacked China after Pearl Harbor, as Bush attacked Iraq 18 months after 9/11, then the comparison would hold. But since Japan attacked the American Navy, and Germany declared war on the United States, the comparison with Iraq does not hold--as Iraq neither attacked the United States nor declared war upon it. Similarly, Bush juxtaposed Japan's reconstruction with Iraq's reconstruction. "American and Japanese experts claimed that the Japanese weren't ready for democracy," he told those gathered in San Diego, who presumably were to fill in the blank with "Hey, people are saying the same thing about Iraq!" The difference is that Japan and Germany had some experience with self-government; Iraq has no such history. Other glaring differences emerge from such an ahistorical comparison, such as America's lack of allies in Iraq vis-a-vis our World War II experience. Ninety percent of the coalition war dead, for instance, are Americans.

Generals, the thought goes, foolishly prepare to fight the last war. War's proponents and opponents are far more guilty of this offense, rhetorically fighting their adversaries by appealing to the glories or horrors of distant conflicts regardless of their relevance to the present one.

"Iraq neither attacked the United States nor declared war upon it." But wait, I keep being told that Iraq never stopped being at war with the U.S. as they failed to keep the terms of their ceasefire negotiated in 1991.

Oh, but wait a second. Iraq negotiated a ceasefire not with the U.S. but with the United Nations. Geez, I also forgot that Iraq didn't even attack us then or declare war on us but instead attacked Kuwait. Awwww man, we didn't even declare war on Iraq back then, did we?

Yep, this is clearly WWII all over again.

You wrote earlier that GW is likable, but not liked. This is true. He's a hard guy not to like if you overlook the fact that he's the leader of the free world and he sometimes doesn't act like it.

But, if he really believes the most recent statements he's making, he is fried.

To equate Iraq to any other foreign conflict we've been involved to justify it borders on irresponsibilty.

They didn't directly attack us and although we are fighting an aggressive force that could be likened to Communism, this could have been fought in countries more involved than Iraq.

Agreed, Iraq is neither Vietnam nor is it WW2

Brian: Regardless, Iraq was in complete violation of the cease fire agreement. There is one single legitimizing factor for US war, and it isn't the United Nations security council, it is United States national interest.

How is upholding the integrity of a United Nations cease fire accord in our national interest?

I don't think Ben is connecting the two. That is the breaking of a cease-fire and our national interest are seperate issues to him.

as they should be I might add, and Eric agrees.

Brian has it right.