Parellels: American Revolution / War in Iraq

[DivinBreuvage]

A post by hippiechick on another thread http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=220333&mesg_id=220333
got me thinking. It seems to me there are a great many parallels between British involvement in the Revolution and American involvement in Iraq.

Please note that I'm not making any kind of moral comparison between the two. I'm simply pointing out the similarity of circumstances. It's sort of an academic discussion at this point anyway since it now looks like the US is going to be pulling out of Iraq in less than a year.

I welcome additional suggestions, as well as correction on any errors I may have made.

The British push to war was goaded along in part by conservatives and businessmen who wanted to keep making profits from the colonies. The Buscho push to war was goaded along in part by conservatives and businessmen who wanted to make profits from Iraq.

The British invaded a country on the other side of the ocean, which made it difficult to supply the troops. Bushco invaded a country on the other side of the world and is having difficulty supplying our troops with night-vision goggles, body armor, and I don't know what all else.

The British were occupying an enormous expanse of territory with armies that were too small to control it. Bushco is occupying an enormous expanse of territory with armies that are too small to control it.

The British thought the "radical" patriots were a tiny, unwelcome minority who would be overwhelmed by the joyous return of loyal subjects once Britain reasserted itself. Bushco thought the tiny, unwelcome minority of "Saddam loyalists" would be overwhelmed by the joyous dancing and flower-throwing of liberated Iraqis.

The British supposed the southern colonies were essentially loyal and would help to supress the revolution if properly encouraged, but violent animosities between the southern colonists themselves ended up spilling over and causing trouble for the British. Bushco supposed the Shiites in southern Iraq would be among the most fervent supporters of an American invasion, but even now there are signs of internal conflicts among the Shiites which may erupt into violence that could engulf American troops.

The British hired German mercenaries. The American army is employing large numbers of "green card" soldiers.

The highly trained British professionals had trouble bringing their amateur opponents into pitched battles when their opponents felt the odds too heavily against them. The highly trained Bushco professionals find it impossible to bring their amateur opponents into pitched battles because their opponents feel the odds are too heavily against them.

British troops had trouble with opponents who fought like "Indian savages", sniping from behind trees and fences and then melting away. American troops have trouble with opponents who fight like "cowardly terrorists", sniping from behind walls and rubble and then melting away.

At places like Concord and Bunker Hill the British professionals suffered shockingly large casualties from their amateur opponents, who were not supposed to be so fierce and so effective. To date the American professionals have suffered casualties which have shocked and disgusted many Americans who did not expect their amateur opponents to be so fierce and so effective.

The British managed to discourage loyalists and drive many neutrals into the patriot camp by mismanagement and heavy-handedness. Bushco has managed to discourage Iraqi supporters of America and drive many neutrals into the armed opposition by mismanagement and heavy-handedness.

The British found their war becoming increasingly unpopular at home, although diehard conservatives still kept screaming to pursue it. Bushco finds their war becoming increasingly unpopular at home, although diehard conservatives still keep screaming to pursue it.

The British war ran up immense debts and wrought havoc on the economy. The Bushco war effort is running up immense debts and wreaking havoc on the economy.

The following effects on the British have no parallels in America as yet:

The failure of the British war brought down the Prime Minister (Lord North).

The British were forced to abandon America because they found themselves involved in a world war with nations who were just itching to make them pay for the humiliations they'd suffered at British hands.

Two hundred years after the war the American president demands the city of London be shut down for three days so he can get his picture taken with the Queen. (okay, this one is just thrown in to be comical).

Françoise

[starroute]

1. Great parallels -- and here are a couple more potential similarities

For one, the British ultimately lost not because they were weaker than the Americans but because they lacked the will to pursue the war any further. There were British radicals who sympathized with the Americans and British moderates who saw the whole business as counter-productive.

For another, there was some truly amazing bureaucratic bungling on the British side. In 1777, the Secretary for the Colonies approved a plan by General Burgoyne to bring his army down the Hudson River from Canada at the same time General Howe advanced up the river from New York City. If this plan had succeeded, it would have split the colonies in half and might have brought a rapid end to the Revolution.

However, the same secretary a few weeks later approved Howe's own plan to move his army south and attack Philadelphia. The result was that Burgoyne was left stranded above Albany, was defeated by American forces at Saratoga (twice), and was forced to surrender. This impressive victory not only saved the colonies in the short run but also led to France's entering the war on the American side, which may have been the crucial factor in the long-term outcome.

Modern communications would probably prevent an exact equivalent from occurring today -- but bureaucratic bungling and crossed signals are as likely now as they was then, and have as much potential to decisively affect the course of events.

[DivinBreuvage]

2. An excellent point, starroute!

And it does seem to me that bureaucratic bungling and crossed signals have tended to work hurt on the Bush administration's foreign policy, not just in Iraq but across the board.

Françoise

[cliss]

3. excellent posts, Francoise &

Starroute. AND, don't forget the Bush himself was comparing fledgling Iraq and the Constitution. I'll try to paraphrase: "well, if Franklin had emerged from Iraq, we couldn't have expected a Constiution in 2 weeks", or something to that effect.

He meant, if Iraq, the "emerging democracy" took a little bit longer to put the final touches on its Constitution, why should we hurry them unnecessarily?

Interesting choice of parallels.

[DivinBreuvage]

4. You raise a crucial point, cliss, I didn't even consider...

the similarity in the attitude of the two King Georges toward the political aspirations of the folks in their respective colonies.

Françoise