I also think that the broader strokes in the article are well thought out...but comparing Iraq to WWII is an exercise in futility...up until we dropped the first bomb in Iraq, the two wars had absolutely zero in common.

The goals of the politicos ordering our military about had nothing at all in common with those of WWII...as the first wave a Marines crossed the border from Kuwait into Iraq, they were ordered to go straight to the oil wells and guard them...we were liberating something, but it sure wasn't people.

As the occupation continues, the "reconstruction" of Iraq is moving at a snail's pace, and at a massive economic cost to US taxpayers...while those favored no-bid contractors doing the work are siphoning billions out of our economy, and pocketing it.

There is no winning of the "hearts and minds" the way we are doing things...people can't get water or electricity, and skilled Iraqi workers sit idly by and watch ultra-expensive American contractors foul up the job over and over again.

The Iraqis, while this is going on, are also able to see the fast-track expansion of American corporatism into Iraq...everything is being privatized by the U.S., and that is going off without a hitch, quickly and efficiently.

When people aren't allowed to work, can't get basic necessities, and have an occupying army/corporate contractor right there to blame for it, they join the insurgency, and shoot at those people.

As long as we are there, and they are not getting their basic needs met, there will always be an insurgent to replace the one we kill.

The only thoughtful comparisons to be drawn between the two wars is that for the troops on the ground, war sucks. Other than that, the two wars couldn't be more different.

Fish on...

Todd