Why do conservatives insist on comparing Iraq to World War 2?

Question

WW2 was against the axis forces who had taken over Europe. Uniformed soldiers who had invaded and attacked countries all over the continent. Clear enemies with tanks and planes and infrastructure we could attack. They used familiar tactics and fought according Uniforms we could recognize we'd know which side was which.

The war in Iraq consists of the United States occupying one country, which WE invaded while guerilla warfare happens all around us. The country is in civil war, coming apart at the seams. There are no uniformed soldiers. No conventional warfare, it's a war of attrition with the lines blurred between civilians and fighters. Terrorism is the weapon of choice. Hit and run attacks etc. You can't tell who is the enemy and who is a harmless civilian.

That SHOULD remind you of a famous war from America's
past----BUT IT AIN'T WW2.

I know the Bush apologists are tempted to associate Iraq with an honorable and romantic struggle against evil like WW2, but it's just not honest

Answer 1

As your narrative points out, the alternative is to make the more accurate comparison to Viet Nam (which didn't turn out so well until we left). As an unapologetic bleeding heart liberal, I LOVE the WWII comparisons because once again, the right has lead with their chin. Consider...

FDR would never have given a tax cut to the wealthiest 2% of the country in war time. Moreover, there were rations imposed on everything from sugar to gasoline (allowing raw materials and the means of production to be concentrated on the war effort). The burden of our conflict was not borne upon a volunteer army. Even celebrities and professional athletes had their service celebrated in news reels.

Here's the thing. If you're going to compare your war effort with the last successful conflict this country engaged in, you can't pick and choose only those parts that fit the message you're trying to sell your base. WWII was a time of shared sacrifice. Everyone gave something, had to live without something and / or served with courage and valor. If America is presented with a WWII set of sacrifices to begin with (tax increases, rations and a draft) we never go into Iraq (under Bush or anyone else). If we are not willing as a nation and as individuals to commit our personal resources to victory the way the America of WWII did, perhaps we should not be commiting that of our neighbors.

Answer 2

I don't think all conservatives compare the Iraq War with World War II because some of them are totally against the war. I know it seems crazy but it's true. I'm a moderate and oppose the war in Iraq but favor the war in Afghanistan. I agree with you because many people are comparing. Why not compare Iraq with Vietnam? Also, you made your pint clear as crystal when you said that when we fought for the Allies in WWII, we helped fight the Axis and there was an enemy. Now, we're fighting alone and there's no clear enemy. And WWII was to cooperate and Iraq was to invade for personal benefits (I believe). Many people say that WWII was the last decent war we've been in.

Answer 3

well two things.

first, they really want to somehow set bush up as this amazingly heroic guy who is on the frontlines of this epic struggle - instead of a guy who is about as qualified to be president as elvis was.

though the one major comparison that they seem to forget about when doing their really clever WWII analogies, is that during WWII the entire nation was totally involved in the war. the factories were retooled to make whatever was needed and gas, rubber and other things were rationed, and lots of guys were in the army fighting.

the only sacrifice that americans have been asked to make is to go shopping or go to disney world.

the second thing is that they are really really really stupid and are at a point in their talking points lives where they are tapped out - and hence the really low quality lies that the right wing spin machine has been producing.

Answer 4

I think they are trying to compare the bleakness of ww2 with the Iraq liberation to point out it can be won. Personally that is faulty logic as far as I can see. I have said for months, how can you effectively fight an enemy who is not wearing uniforms? Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam?

Answer 5

I don't think they are comparing the tactics and the detail you describe, but making a point that we learn from history, and had we not gone to war in the past this world would not be what it is today; so to make you understand more, we took no chances with leaving Saddam there. But you knew that already.

Answer 6

I completely agree. When people are desperate they say and do outlandish things. It's in every psychology textbook out there. They have no position, their policies are failing horribly, and they are waking up to the fact that they have been in complete control the last 6 years and have f'd it all up. That's why the best comeback they have when it comes to the Dems is "The Dems don't have a plan". Repubs don't have one either, obviously judging by their failure. And they forget that they're the ones that got us in this mess in the firstplace.

Answer 7

Because they love to live in the delusion of what a great war it was and how well america performed. As a liberal I tend to agree with some of those notions but I don't let myself get diluted from the reality of the situation we are in today.

Answer 8

NAZI-ism was a force that wanted to take over the world. NAZIs hated jews. NAZIs used the rule of law to rationalize the opression of a segment of their population.

Now replace NAZI with ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.

How can Iraq be in civli war when most of the insurgents are from Syria, Iran, and Arabia? Civil wars are INTERNAL.

Answer 9

Why do liberals insist that WWIII (the war against islamo-fascism, which began in 1979 when our embassy in Iran was attacked) isn't worth fighting? Get a clue, people!

Answer 10

You are surely correct, but to answer your question, the only way to legitimize a war is to compare it to WWII. WWII was the last war that the US was involved in about which there is not widespread criticism.