Fraters Libertas

Why Didn't I Think Of That? Oh Yeah, I DID...

Eric Black unveils what he believes is a better historical comparison to the current US efforts in Iraq in this piece from yesterday's Star Tribune:

The argument about the U.S. occupation of Iraq is waged on many levels. One is what you might call the battle of historical analogies. Supporters of Bush's Iraq policy like to cite the post-World War II U.S. occupation and reconstruction of Germany, now a stable democracy and ally. Opponents generally prefer the Vietnam analogy: a war that started with a lie (Gulf of Tonkin), and turned into a quagmire.

Some international relations scholars suggest that the little-remembered Filipino-American war offers the most instructive analogy.

Excellent analysis Eric. I happen to agree that the pacification of the Philippines is much more comparable to what's going on in Iraq than either post-World War II Germany or Vietnam. As I did when I first heard it made.

IN JULY.

In fact I wrote about it back on August 19th . Nice to know that the crack Strib staff is on top of things. Yes, they're right on the cutting edge of analysis they are.

Not surprisingly Black's piece tends to present a pretty negative impression of the U.S. involvement in the Philippines. Viewed through today's lens it wasn't exactly a shining moment in US history but compared to the actions of colonial European powers at that time it was rather restrained and magnanimous. To his credit Black does offer two alternative viewpoints on whether the lessons of the Philippines augers good or bad for the US in Iraq:

Professor emeritus Walter Benjamin of Hamline University believes it is relevant and is a positive precedent. In an op-ed piece and an interview, he chided Americans for their impatience in Iraq and argued that the story of the Philippines shows that democratization takes time and effort, but that it can be worth it. Benjamin subscribes to the view of those in the Bush administration who say that if the United States stays the course in Iraq, it could be the beginning of a democratic transformation of the whole Middle East.

Ken Meter of Richfield also believes the analogy is relevant but says it augurs badly for the U.S. mission to Iraq. Meter, who has been active with the Philippine Study Group of Minnesota, said the desire by the United States to gain access to the lucrative China market was among the main reasons for the conquest of the Philippines -- and that is similar to the belief of many in the world that the United States is in Iraq for the oil. The United States says it is in Iraq to help the Iraqis and to spread democracy, but similar justifications were used in the Philippines and they were mostly empty promises, Meter says.

I tend to agree with Professor Benjamin here. Especially since Meter's main point comparing the US desire to gain access to the Chinese market then to the US desire to control Iraq's oil now, is a flimsy canard rather easily dispelled. From Max Boot's excellent: The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power:

But while Americans did reap some profits in China, it was never as much as either boosters of China trade or its critics would suppose. From 1890 to 1920, China represented just 3.5 percent of US exports and 1.4 percent of US foreign investment.

Access to the China market was not one of the main reasons for the US actions in the Philippines then, just as oil is not one of the main reasons for US actions in Iraq now.