The War on Terror vs. Wwi
The War on Terror can readily be compared to WWI. The following analysis will compare and contrast these two important historical occurrences. It will also examine just a few of the many consequences of both.
Beneath its cloak, the infamous War on Terror garners striking similarities to WWI. The terror attack on Austria-Hungary ignited the War on Terror…nearly a century later. It was not until 1914 that a terrorist attack was utilized to provoke military response. The attack of September 11 is a modern replay of this attack. George W. Bush leapt into the war against Baghdad in 2003 with the same attitude of Woodrow Wilson in the Great War. One of Wilson’s reasons for going to war against Germany was based on his belief that his country’s victory could birth democracy and peace in foreign lands. George Bush agrees with this principle; this is proven in how he attacks Baghdad’s dictatorship with the aspiration to bring democratic change. Both wars appear to be debilitative yet not decisive. The Great War could practically be defined by the word “stalemate.” The general American population has no idea whether or not their country is winning the War on Terror; rather, the war seems to have relatively equal success on both sides and may end in surrender much like its predecessor. With an assassination spark, both of their American leaders shared similar views, and both are indecisive wars.
As they differ in time period, so the War on Terror differs from WWI in a multitude of aspects. A young man living during the time of the Great War would have eagerly rushed to enlist in the military; now, however, people do not have the same excitement for the War on Terror. In the times of WWI, it was a veneration to serve in the war; people volunteered readily. Today, there is minimal propaganda in advocation of the war, and many Americans are actually opposed to the War on Terror. European nations are not jumping on the aggressor bandwagon in the War on Terror as
Beneath its cloak, the infamous War on Terror garners striking similarities to WWI. The terror attack on Austria-Hungary ignited the War on Terror…nearly a century later. It was not until 1914 that a terrorist attack was utilized to provoke military response. The attack of September 11 is a modern replay of this attack. George W. Bush leapt into the war against Baghdad in 2003 with the same attitude of Woodrow Wilson in the Great War. One of Wilson’s reasons for going to war against Germany was based on his belief that his country’s victory could birth democracy and peace in foreign lands. George Bush agrees with this principle; this is proven in how he attacks Baghdad’s dictatorship with the aspiration to bring democratic change. Both wars appear to be debilitative yet not decisive. The Great War could practically be defined by the word “stalemate.” The general American population has no idea whether or not their country is winning the War on Terror; rather, the war seems to have relatively equal success on both sides and may end in surrender much like its predecessor. With an assassination spark, both of their American leaders shared similar views, and both are indecisive wars.
As they differ in time period, so the War on Terror differs from WWI in a multitude of aspects. A young man living during the time of the Great War would have eagerly rushed to enlist in the military; now, however, people do not have the same excitement for the War on Terror. In the times of WWI, it was a veneration to serve in the war; people volunteered readily. Today, there is minimal propaganda in advocation of the war, and many Americans are actually opposed to the War on Terror. European nations are not jumping on the aggressor bandwagon in the War on Terror as