Response to Sanger Article

To me, comparing the US's presence in Iraq to Korea is just another one of the Bush administration's excuses to stay in Iraq indefinitely. In his article, Sanger references Donald L. Kerrick, a retired general who states: "If we can make this [Iraq] like Korea, then we have been successful". He also says that this analogy does not fit Iraq, so although the Korea model may seem like a positive model for the US an the US's military actions, it does not apply to the current situation in Iraq. By comparing the invasion of Iraq to a 'success story' like Korea, of course the current invasion will sound positive. However, Sanger also tells us that "Historical analogy has been a problem for this administration since the start of the Iraq war in 2003...even then, historians and analysts were warning against such comparasions, arguing that those were two cohesive societies that were exhausted by years of war and bore little resemblance to the fractured Iraqi society and its potential for internal violence". By comparing the Iraq war to historical sucesses of the US, the administration puts a positive spin on the current situation and also gives a false representation of the reasons and goals of invading Iraq. According to Sanger, President Bush refuses to quit, stating, "We'll succeed unless we quit". Again, this claim seems like an easy way for the administration to insist that we stay in Iraq, lest we fail at our goal. The impression that I get from the Sanger article is that the Bush administration will say just about anything and make historical and political connections where there are none to justify staying in Iraq.