A couple of days ago, Senator Kennedy characterized the conflict in Iraq as George Bush's Vietnam. Apparently, the anti-American cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr agrees. The press has been all over this comparison. They love it because it speaks to something very deep within the American collective memory. And in many ways, I think we can all understand the reasoning behind this comparison. But, I would contend that Iraq is not another Vietnam. Rather, it is another West Bank.

Think about it. A modern, western-style democracy is occupying an Arab country and doing so using tactics such as house demolitions, checkpoints, and shutting down whole towns (ie Falluja). Among the occupied are militants who use terrorist tactics (including suicide bombing) as well as angry young men as an "army." The truth is that the Arab media has already begun calling this an intifada, and, incidentally, so has Al-Sadr.

Of course, there are even more comparisons one could make. The incident yesterday of the US military firing rockets at a Mosque is a great example. US troops were taking fire from the Mosque so they returned fire. Seems reasonable. Unfortunately, the Mosque was also full of non-combatants and the US rockets killed up to 40 of them. This is basically a scene right out of the west Bank. The effect, of course, will be to stir up even more resentment and anger at the occupying forces, but on the other hand, what would we have the troops do? Just sit back and take fire without responding? Does anyone else smell a "cycle of violence" brewing?

Now, there are differences between the situation in the West Bank and the situation in Iraq. No one really expects the US to be in Iraq for 35 years and I would be really shocked if we started building American settlements in Basra. Nonetheless, the similarities are striking and I think the US would do well to have a good long look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (especially the last 3 years). Talk about quagmire.