In Slate, David Silbey argues that as we fight the war in Iraq, we could learn from the lesson of Teddy Roosevelt and the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902.

In the Philippines, the United States won with relatively few casualties. A little more than three years after the start of the war, President Theodore Roosevelt could declare victory and, unlike George W. Bush, not be undercut by a continuing insurrection. America succeeded less by waging war and more by waging politics, politics that co-opted much of the Filipino population and isolated the revolutionaries. That victory offers a central lesson for our current involvement in Iraq: Counterinsurgency is less about conquest and more about persuasion.

It's a fascinating piece, and it also suggests that a crucial difference between the two conflicts is the men in the Oval Office. GWB, in short, is no TR.

It also suggests at least one disturbing continuity: the use of torture. Now, we water-board. Back then, we used the "'water cure'—in which a captive was forced to drink gallons of water and then vomit it back up...."

And, of course, it raises the question of whether either war was really necessary....