I know a lot about World War II. It's a topic that I have studied and read about since I was very young. These comparisons between the Iraq war and WW II are ridiculous. Previously I debunked the 'similar to the occupation of Germany or Japan' comparisons, but now there is a new one. Apparently the Iraq war is similar to Omaha beach or the Battle of the Bulge. Stretch as I might there is just no way to justify that comparison. Both of those battles were between uniformed combatants in a classic army setting. You shoot at the people wearing the enemy uniform. This was not a fight against an entrenched local insurgency.
Even the small instance during the Bulge where a small group of Germans dressed in allied uniforms to try and infiltrate the lines before the attack, doesn't really parallel anything in Iraq.
As I have said before, this war aligns far better with the conflict in Vietnam. Which is not flattering to the administration, but at least attempts to parallel reality. There was insurgent activity during World War II, but I doubt people would like the comparison between ourselves and those fighting against the insurgencies in that war. There was no sustained insurgent activity in the post-war period of World War II.
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)