ABSTRACT
Historical analogies can, and often do, play a particularly powerful role in attempts to frame (and orientate) the discursive context within which attempts to justify military action take place. This chapter explores the significance of one such historical analogy as it was used in a relatively contemporary context. As with Lewis's contribution, some sorts of claims and accusations using historical analogies create discursive problems for opponents, who cannot afford to be directly lined up with the appeasers of the past—given their moral evaluation. Specifically, the chapter considers the ways in which World War Two was invoked in the debate that preceded the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It analyses material from British Parliamentary debates, looking at two main, interlinked, aspects of analogical discourse: the assertion that Saddam Hussein was another Hitler, and the associated implication that those against the proposed invasion wanted to engage in appeasement.
