(Originally posted Oct. 1, 2004) People have been trying to find a good historical analogy to Iraq. The Philippine insurgency, the post-WW2 axis, etc. Each analogy illuminates, but each misleads as well because every situation is unique and some improvisation will always be called for. All we can hope for is to have each parallel shed a certain amount of insight.
Lefty blogger Sean LaFreniere points us to a very thought-provoking historical parallel for the coming Iraqi (and Afghan) elections: El Salvador.
Brooks' column provoked a very intelligent blogosphere discussion, and it's worth updating this post to include some additional links.
Marc Cooper has a different view and makes some worthwhile points. It's worth reading, as he was there. David Adesnik of Oxblog comes back with his own analysis. First, he reminds us what was being said about El Salvador before the 1982 elections, and explains the relevance of El Salvador to talk of a "partial vote" in Iraq that excludes regions like Fallujah. David's next post sets out some terms for the debate, and works to answer them:
"The most important points of contention in this analogical debate are first, whether the 1982 & 1984 elections were, in fact, the success that America likes to remember; and, second, whether or not the elections were responsible, over the long-term, for the consolidation of (a still imperfect) democracy in El Salvador."
I think that's a reasonable summation. Read the respective posts and see what you think.
I'll add one key point that neither party mentioned: Marc Cooper missed the most important factor in the fighting's end. Hint: what major political entity with an interest in El Salvador's conflict and a proxy in the field was around in 1982, but not in 1992?
P.S. Sean LaFreniere's review of Jet Li's movie "Hero" is right on the money!
Yeah, I thought the same thing, especially after Negroponte was named ambassador. But Iraq is much bigger, much further away and has its own problems. The analogy can't be stretched very far.
The El Salvadorians were one of the best of the other-than-US national contingents in Iraq: they patrolled Najaf, set up checkpoints and did civil affairs projects, while many other national contingents stayed in camp as much as possible. As this story shows, they were one of the few national contingents ready to fight if necessary.
Sane lefty Marc Cooper - who was in El Salvador during the election - doesn't think much of this simile...
A.L.
Joe Katzman,
...but it remains true that El Salvador did become a functioning democracy and began to build a civic base that could accomodate what came later.
But - argues Cooper - this had nothing to do with the 1982 election which Brooks praises as the start of the process. I think you fail to understand his argument.
Gary- There are about four ways of looking at the facts that Cooper presented. He doesn't see a direct link, and your "nothing to do with" might be accurate for his views also. But a weaker argument can be made that while the 1982 election was neither well conducted nor immediately fruitful, it set the precedent for following events. It began a trend, so so speak. A US parallel is how the colonial administrations in the US led eventually to the US Constitution, despite their imperfections, particularly in the abusive use of executive powers by the governors, which led to armed conflict in 1774-5. Nonetheless, these administrations were distinct precedents that led to our government today (to include, ironically, strong executive branch powers).
The US has 100 long term UN monitors in the US. Iraq had a mission. When the Bio Sheild fails; that might be an interesting analogy.
As far as the Constitutuion, they are changing the electoral college as we speak.