This chapter argues that analogical reasoning was used by the US and the UK decision-making groups to establish their case. However, different analogies were used, and they were used in different ways. The US group used analogical reasoning rhetorically, to present the case to militarily intervene against Iraq. In the UK, analogical reasoning was used to both present this case for military action publicly and provided a “roadmap” for the decision-making group on how to approach military action against Iraq. This use of World War Two analogies in making the case for invasion in Washington is then compared to the comparisons between the situation the UK decision-makers faced with Iraq and their experiences regarding intervention in Kosovo. This public use of analogies was similar to that in the US, seeking support for military action, despite the different points of comparison (Kosovo rather than WW2). In both the US and the UK, the consequences of non-intervention were used to motivate support for military action. However, the UK decision-makers used analogies within their decision-making to guide and support their decisions and discussion, drawing on personal experience, demonstrating a more direct impact upon the decision-making process.