Iraq != South Korea

As has been well-reported, President Bush recently made comments to the effect he envisions a US role in Iraq similar to the role the US has had in South Korea. It's probably just as well I wasn't near him when he made those remarks -- I'd hate to be smacked down by his Secret Service detail for boxing him on the ears and berating his stupidity.

Some history: after WW2 the Korean peninsula was divided into two parts, US and Russian occupation zones. In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, the US intervened (as head of a UN-backed force), established a beachhead at Pusan, eventually drove the invaders all the way back north near the Chinese border, when the Chinese joined the fray and pushed things back south again. The line eventually stabilized pretty close to the original border between the two Koreas, and after several more years of largely stalemated fighting an armistice was reached in 1953. (It's worth noting no formal declaration of was was ever made by the US.)

Compare the above synopsis with the current situation in Iraq. In Korea, we were responding as defenders of an invaded nation, requested to intervene by the South Korean government. The United Nations supported the intervention (Russia was boycotting the UN at that time, and thus wasn't available to veto the resolution), as did the South Korean populace. After the war, there was popular support amongst Koreans for US troops remaining to help secure the border.

In Iraq, we were the invaders, no governmental body asked us to intervene, we entered without UN support, and the populace has never indicated any desire for a long-term US troop presence. (Not to mention we no legitimate casus belli to invade Iraq in the first place, but hey, what's an unnecessary, unjustified war or two between friends?)

Only our current President could find the two situations comparable.

In poll after poll, one of the greatest concerns Iraqis (and Arabs in the region in general) have had is they fear the US intends to stay permanently in Iraq. This is among the most common justifications given for supporting attacks on US troops. The US had generally denied this (for example, in 2004 Bush said "Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.") while simultaneously establishing large mega-bases that seemed to belie those denials. Iraqis were afraid actions spoke louder than words, and those fears certainly seemed justified now.

War-supporters have harped on war-critics ever since the invasion (well, before the invasion, really) that criticism of any kind -- of the President, of the war, of the
intelligence, anything -- only served to "embolden the terrorists". President Bush has now done far, far worse than embolden the terrorists. He's proved them right.