Will Iraq Become Another Korea?

There has been a great deal of talk the past few weeks over President Bush's comparison of the war in Iraq to that which began in Korea more than half a century ago. The president seems to be suggesting that the long-range mission in Iraq will keep American troops stationed there well into 2065, and that they will continue to be needed in such a way as to cause them to be in harm's way.

Some of the disagreement I hear about this has to do with the stretch involved in the comparison of the two wars. I suppose this is correct even though the two seem to have a great deal in common. True, Korea was more traditional in the beginning with the localized fighting of hill wars and urban conflict coming near the end. But in both cases we are dealing with a civil war that will not (did not in Korea) end when the primary fighting is over. In both cases we are dealing with highly nationalistic peoples who, while seeking their own agenda, are willing to take on the cover of an international crusade (Islamic or Communistic).

Part of the difficulty, I believe, it that the current administration, like so many we have had recently, do not have any historical sense whatsoever, nor have they learned anything from America’s involvement in numerous localized wars. In Korea it was obvious from the beginning that we did not understand Communism, nor did we comprehend the distinctions between national and international communism, linking China, Russia, and then North Korea within the same system. Systematic to the problem in Korea was the determined nationalism of its leaders, both north and south, and failure of a UN imposed division of their nation. In what way is the problem in Iraq much different?

But aside from these arguments of comparison, let us not ignore the horror of what is being suggested: American soldiers will be engaged in another dangerous occupation well into the last three quarters of this century. Have we thought this one through?

Senior Fellow Paul Edwards