Iraq is to the US the same that the Sicilian Expedition was for Athens?

Question

2500 years ago aprox the first democracy in the world Athens, went to a military expedition in Sicily agains the city of siracuse allied of the spartans. For that operation the athenians armed the most powerful army of that time. But there was a lack of political substance in the idea. so this increace the unpopularity of Athens in the ancient world. The athenians get stuck in siracuse and they lose their army, after the war almost all nations allied with sparta even the persians and the allies of athens. The situations became the world versus athens, obviously athens lose the war and this was the end of the firs democracy of the world. So the war in iraq could become the same for the United States? Iraq is the Sicilian Expedition of the US? what do you think?

Answer 1

Kudos on an excellent question, Maravilla! This looks like a fun one!

My read on the comparison is that it's a poor analogy if one considers the Iraq War from a military perspective, but there are some striking parallels when one considers the political situation.

From a military point of view the Iraq Invasion was a spectacular success. Six weeks long, our forces met virtually no resistance, and Hussein's regime went down in six weeks. The mismatch between the armies in terms of morale and resources and coordination could not be more obvious. This bears no resemblance to the military situation in the Sicilian expedition, where Syracuse put up a reasonable fight.

The striking comparisons are the political ones. Unfortunately, they are exacerbated by actions and incompetence if not outright self-delusion on the part of the Bush administration.

For starters, the Bush administration clearly had no idea of what the situation on the ground was in Iraq. They clearly had no plan for dealing with the consequences of toppling Hussein's regime. Unfortunately, by conflating the Iraq invasion with the War on Terror the administration has misled many people about the nature of the conflict. Combine that with a general lack of knowledge we Americans have about much of the rest of the world in general and the Middle East in particular, that makes one commonality between the two conflicts broad misperceptions on the part of the citizenry about the situation in the region.

There's also the lack of allies, although the Athenians lost theirs as the war proceeded while the Bush Administration drove many allies away even before the invasion began. I wonder how many people remember the estrangement of many would-be allies like France and Germany, or the pittance of financial support provided by the U.N. (about $250 million, one percent of what we asked for at one point, which was the diplomatic equivalent of giving a penny tip to your waiter).

Furthermore, another difference between Iraq and the Syracuse expedition is the circumstances leading to the growth of opposing forces. In the case of the Syracuse expedition it appears the opponents grew as a consequence of military failures. In the case of the Iraq invasion, opposition has grown as a result of political failures:

* The failure to secure Baghdad and restore basic services estranged many Iraqis.

* The failure to find any WMD's in Iraq and the disclosures how WMD intelligence was handled has seriously damaged the credibility of the U.S.

* The lack of any explicit statement describing a tangible and precise limit to U.S. in Iraq has fed suspicions of American imperialism on the part of many in the middle east.

* Abu Ghraib was the first of many incidents to damage America's moral credibility in the conflict.

As the political disasters shredded the credibility of the Bush Administration and tarnished the the legitimacy of U.S. forces, the U.S. had nowhere to turn to help stabilize the country while distrust on the part of Iraqis led them to lose faith in U.S. forces, particularly as sectarian death squads set about killing anyone who was seen helping the U.S. military (which is still happening to this day).

All of these have fulfilled the Bush administration's campaign promise of being a "uniter and not a divider" in the worst way possible: much of the rest of the world hates the U.S.

Vali Nasr has some interesting comments on the Bush Administration's unintentional transferring of power from Sunni to Shi'a factions, the revival of Shi'a politically in the region, and the consequences of that (see link below). Sadly, although it is a highly illuminating presentation it is also rather infuriating to listen to because one almost gets the feeling that the Iraq invasion has played out like an enormous, obscenely violent Pink Panther movie with the Bush Administration as Inspector Clouseau.

Basically, Nasr describes the situation as the result of Shi'a groups brilliantly taking advantage of the circumstances of the Iraq invasion. By encouraging Shi'ites to step aside while the U.S. invaded, they let the U.S. do the work of taking down Hussein. And since they're the most populous group in Iraq, they're in the best position to dominate the government and institutions by sheer numbers. Since the U.S. operates under the perception that they're fighting Hussein and al Qaeda forces, they fail to see how their actions play into complicating a long-standing sectarian divide, and many of their moves only serve to undermine their own efforts to bring the Sunni's into the political process in Iraq.

So all in all, I think the Sicilian Expedition is a much better fit if one considers it as a political metaphor than a direct comparison of military conflicts.

The last part where I hope the U.S. doesn't resemble the Athenians is the part about the Sicilian Expedition representing the beginning of the end of Athens. If Iraq's sectarian violence spreads out into the region that may be a possibility.

Answer 2

Points go to you for actually thinking and knowing some history.
Your question is very interesting but I think there were other aspects that led to Athen's downfall.
This sounds like a history roundtable discussion, it would be fun.