It seems our apparently imminent military engagement with Syria has some people experiencing de ja vu. The parallels with Iraq are obvious. Neither country attacked us. Both are muslim nations. Both have oil. In both cases we are preparing to use military force. But the distinctions between the two situations are equally striking.
When it came to Iraq circa 2003, we were accusing Saddam of possessing chemical weapons. Accusations of actual use of chemical weapons referred to 20 year old incidents. In Syria's case, Assad is accused of having used chemical weapons less than 2 weeks ago.
Iraq circa 2003 had a fairly stable if not very good status quo that had lasted for more than 10 years. Syria has been in an acute crisis for more than 2 years now, with more than 100,000 people dying in a civil war.
In 2002/2003, George W. Bush made it clear that he would accept nothing less than regime change and would not be satisfied until we had invaded and occupied Iraq. In 2013, Barack Obama does not appear to have any desire to invade and or occupy Syria and is making it clear that he wants a limited retaliatory military strike to punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons.
In 2003, I was furious that Bush was dragging us into war for no good reason. In 2013, I'm not certain that use of military force is the right thing to do in Syria, but I'm not certain it isn't either. Invading Iraq was utter lunacy. Whether to use force against Syria is very tough call.
I think Obama's actions regarding Syria are clearly more justifiable than Bush's actions regarding Iraq. I can't fault Obama for not wanting to sit on his ass while this humantiaria crisis unfolds in Syria. If we are drawing historical comparisons, I think Rwanda and Bosnia are at least as apt as Iraq.