Josh Marshall picked up this doozy from Reuters:

President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop
presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but
not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.

The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.

Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to
agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly
opposed by the president.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea.

"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security
presence, but you’ve had the development of a successful democracy in
South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States
is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters.

     Josh makes a couple of the obvious points in rebuttal: Korea is more culturally and ethnically unified than Iraq, which is not unified at all; and Korea was embedded in a very different Cold War international context.  He also reminds us that US forces in South Korea, after the armistice of 1953, were oriented outward, to prevent an attack from North Korea; US forces in Iraq are currently engaged in internal civil war.  Big difference.

      I would add that this is just another reminder of how deeply and fundamentally incompetent the Bush administration is.  Remember when, back in 2003, they would regularly roll out the Japan and Germany comparisons to suggest that US occupation (we couldn’t use that word then, remember) would establish democracy.  Well, Japan and Germany are long gone as analogies; so, let’s try Korea…. pathetic.  What’s next?  Viet…no, can’t do that….  How about the Philippines?

      I imagine the operative element of the Korea comparison is the "50 years" time frame.  Bush senses that getting Iraq right will take a long time.  50 years sounds about right, and that’s just about how long we’ve been in Korea (actually it is more like 62 years – we landed there in late 1945 to take the Japanese surrender).   

     But notice what’s missing: any sense of strategy.  What is the purpose of a long term commitment to Iraq?  Are we there to keep it "united" or will we accept and encourage a partition of some sort? (And can we even be the determining factor in such a transformation?)   Are we comfortable with a Shia-dominated government that is closer to Iran (which is what is emerging)?  How will we counter what has become the most challenging strategic error of the whole sorry episode: the fact that Iraq is now an exporter of global terrorists? 

      None of these difficult questions is being addressed by Bush in public debate.  He is incapable of facing the horrendous mistakes he has made; and so, many, many people continue to die…

      This passage from Mencius captures the current situation well – and with no misplaced comparisons to Korea!

Now the Yen emperor tyrannized his people, so you attacked him.  The people thought they were being rescued from fire and blood, so they welcomed you with baskets of food and jars of wine.  How can you justify killing elders and taking the young captive, tearing down temples and stealing sacred vessels?  The power of Ch’i was already feared throughout all beneath Heaven, and now you’ve doubled your territory without making your government Humane.  No wonder all beneath Heaven is us in arms.

Hurry!  Send out orders to release the old and young, to leave the sacred vessels where they are.  Consult the people of Yen, appoint a new ruler, and then leave….(2.11)

      Korea is not the future of Iraq.  Iraq is not Korea.  Somebody please give the president a history lesson.  Then, consult the people and leave.