[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.

[nicollo]

In terms of tactics, Vietnam works, as you say. In politics, and geo-politics, the Philippines works better, I maintain.

1890s conservatives did oppose the Span-American war, but few continued to oppose it once it happened. Those that did, like House Speaker Thomas B. Reed lost their support. Others, like Root, Hay, or McKinley himself, saw it as unfortunate, inevitable and well worth the effort to win it properly. As for TR, his role in the war, especially its onset, has been hugely exaggerated, and not just by himself (lol!).

The fiercest opposition to the Span-Am war came in its aftermath (just as today) from the Bryanites during the 1900 election and onward. It carried on into the Wilson administration, in which Bryan was the 1st Sec State. He near managed to unwind all the good work done in the Philippines and Cuba through then.

Conservatives may have disagreed, but they didn't work against it.