With the president's speech tonight it appears we are back to the supposed 'Korea analogy' for the occupation of Iraq. We've been in Korea for more than a half century, as we have been in Japan and Germany. And for all the commitment of troops and money, we now have three highly prosperous allied democracies where in two of the cases we had ardent foes.

Forgive me for saying the obvious. Because it is obvious. But sometimes, apparently, the obvious needs saying.

We garrisoned troops in these three countries for half a century, as we did in Saudi Arabia for about a decade. The periods of military government in Japan and Germany were relatively brief. And most importantly we never mounted counter-insurgency operations in any of these countries.

This simple fact tells you that all these Korean, Japan, Germany analogies are bogus.

And fundamentally why was this sustainable? Because the US troop presence was a defense against a perceived greater threat -- either the Soviet Union or the Soviet Union and China. We might add that this is also the premise of our military presence in the Balkans.

On neither count is anything remotely like this in Iraq. The premise is an indefinite period of counter-insurgency and military occupation. And if things calmed down, who would we be defending Iraq against? The question answers itself. No one. If Iraq could get its act together it could certainly defend itself as it did for many decades. We are defending Iraq against itself.

Anyone with a bit of sense can see these comparisons are ridiculous.