[nicollo]

As with all historical parallels, there is no direct link to be made; one has to go with the best available. In terms of domestic U.S. politics, the local insurgency (not the methods, but its type and motives), the war that led to it, and the U.S. goals for the occupied land, the Phillippines occupation offers the best relation to what's going on now, far better than what happened post-WWII in Germany or Japan.

[Austin Willard Wright]

You are right that there are some interesting parallels in domestic politics though in 1900 far more conservatives were leading figures in the anti-imperialist movement. Among them were Grover Cleveland, William Graham Sumner, J. Sterling Morton (all were officers in the Anti-Imperialist League). Some conservatives oppose the Iraq war, such as Ron Paul, but far fewer than in 1900. By contrast, the most ardent imperialists in 1900 were often progressives (today's RINO's) such as Teddy Roosevelt and Albert Thayer Mahan.

As far as the actual military situation on the ground, I think that Vietnam parallel (hackneyed as it is) works better. Most notably, as I said, the insurgences in both Iraq and Vietnam were awash in guns in contrast to the Phillipine insurgents.

[Austin Willard Wright]

You are right that there are some interesting parallels in domestic politics though in 1900 far more conservatives were leading figures in the anti-imperialist movement. Among them were Grover Cleveland, William Graham Sumner, J. Sterling Morton (all were officers in the Anti-Imperialist League). Some conservatives oppose the Iraq war, such as Ron Paul, but far fewer than in 1900. By contrast, the most ardent imperialists in 1900 were often progressives (today's RINO's) such as Teddy Roosevelt and Albert Thayer Mahan.

As far as the actual military situation on the ground, I think that Vietnam parallel (hackneyed as it is) works better. Most notably, as I said, the insurgences in both Iraq and Vietnam were awash in guns in contrast to the Phillipine insurgents.