To Sam from Corona, CA.
What a poor student of history. In January of 1993 Bill Clinton was sworn into office as were a Democrat House and Senate. Then came one of the largest tax increases in our (US) history. Which, in turn, led to the Republican revolution in '94. Put me down for a "No thanks"!!

Jack, Lynnfield, USA/MA

Sam is obviously biased. To say the Clinton years were the best are definitely biased. The economy has boomed under GWB. Under Clinton things were just average. Unfortunately the war has overshadowed the achievements GWB has made. But, it will come out in time, as it did with Regan..

Mr Jones, Orange,

MOST of the free peoples of the world live in democracies, thanks to the actions, or the threat of action by the U.S. Military. S Korea, Western and Eastern Europe, Japan, etc... If we don't give up, 2 more countries can join the club.

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."---JOHN STUART MILL

Craig, Vermont, USA

Regardless of past events--the world has changed. We live in a technological world now, unlike the Nixon and before years.

I have a simplistic view: During my adult life Reps have been in the whitehouse 20 years while Dems have been in 12. Of those Rep 20 years, there was a Rep congress or senate or both a Republican congress and senate....for the most part. Of those Dem 12 years, there was both a Rep congress AND senate or either a Rep congress or senate.

Without doubt the best years I've known personally were the Clinton years.

The Reps have been in office the majority of time and LOOK at the state of this country. EVERY program/office in our government is ineffective/broken, proven to have made gross error or lies which have hurt either us as a nation or us as a people and many citizens.

This is the ONLY time we' ve had a chance to have a Democratic president, congress AND senate. I say: It's Time, let it be!

sam, corona, ca

America's foreign policy lacks proper engagement with other countries and its military policy assumes that the enemy has got tanks. Does Iraq want democracy? Is Iraq ready for democracy? It certainly needs stability. We are where we are. What's needed now is proper engagement with Iraqis, Iran and Syria, and in particular with the leaders of the counter-insurgency, and above all patience... Is a Republican leadership capable of this? I, for one, doubt it.

Chris, Nottingham, UK

The truly egregious revisionisms in Pres. Bush's latest announcement are that withdrawal caused the death of millions of South Vietnamese and led to the Killing Fields of Cambodia. As, Nixon's defense secretary Melvin Laird reminded, the number of South Vietnamese killed during and after the North's invasion was minute compared to the death rate during US involvement.

The Khmer Rouge were sui generis and had no support from NV. Remember, it was a 1979 invasion of Cambodia by Vietnamese forces (after they repelled a Chinese invasion, what about that Domino Theory and Communist Hegemony in SE Asia?) that toppled the Khmer Rouge and ended the genocide.

And last, Bush plays to the myth that US forces could have won "militarily" but the war was lost "politically". While this may salve the souls of some veterans, political victory is military victory, otherwise victory is pointless. Mission Accomplished

John Campbell, Las Vegas, New Mexico, USA

A fine article about the realities of the Democratic left cornering themselves into another defeat.

Nothing offends me more than know-nothing leftists misquoting Churchill. The quote "If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future" was made in order to holding the British government together despite some members inaction to stop Germany from rearming. In other words, if we argue about who let the situation get here, we'll be too busy bickering to win the war! Unfortunately the Democrats aren't on board with the war in Iraq, they'd prefer to lose for their own political gain.
I suspect if Mr Churchill were given the decision, he'd stay in Iraq, since he knew tyranny when he saw it. Conversely I suspect given the choice to fight World War II or settle, today's Democrats would have settled with Hitler.
If we don't defeat Al Qaida no matter how long it takes, at best we'll be fighting them again later at worst they'll be our masters

John, Detroit, MI

There is simply no credibility to the oft-repeated line that "if we leave, things will be worse then they are now". Yes, there will likely be short-term volatility after a US withdrawal. Yet there is every indication that this volatility is not a matter of "if", but "when".

As has been said all along, only the Iraqis can secure Iraq from civil war and internal terrorism. When the US leaves, there will be a automatic reduction in the levels of insurgency, as the US occupation forces are a partial yet significant cause of this insurgency. It is preposterous to think that the US can any longer be at "war" with Iraq, as we are not at war with the Iraqi government. Any further military action there should be limited support of the Iraqi government in securing its own interests, as the US concurrently withdrawals.

Personally, I don't believe that pro-war voices care one bit about the Iraqis' well-being. Their only care appears to be bravado and posturing of American military might.

Thomas OConnor, USA,

Stability in any country needs a winner - see Florida election 2000. On going chaos and emotional appeals to democracy will not help Iraq become stable. In the end someone has to be in charge. After Tanzania chased Idi Amin out of Uganda, they left Uganda to her own devices. It took 7 years before someone "won" in Uganda and some stability was possible again. The US is the destabilizing force in Iraq and will not be able to avoid the consequences of the invasion no matter what. Someone has to be the victor and we can't avoid that eventuality. An unresolved cease fire in the US civil war would never have allowed for the integration of the country. Only the unequivocal loss by the South allow the country to come together. SO, who will win and do we have a preference?

John K, Fishkill, New York

One crucial fact:

There is not a political solution to the situation in Iraq. Period. There has not been any evidence provided contrary to this from the current occupation, or historically for that matter. This being the case then staying and occupying with a military force makes no sense.

What does make sense is a planned orderly withdrawal which most importantly includes removing the Iraqis who have cooperated with the US and will suffer if left behind. Which by the way is already a problem and another huge failure by this administration.

Seriously, does anyone really believe keeping the military there another 1, 2, 5, 10 years is going to work? If so I suggest they go study some history on the middle east....

cal0kie, colfax, ca

Pro-surrender advocates are fond of citing his low approval rating as evidence that the public believe(s) as they do, that they are for immediate withdrawal or some such. However, it's equally presumable that disapproval of the president can be that he's not sufficiently aggressive, or that they are satisfied with progress in Iraq but don't like his stand (or lack thereof) on illegal immigration.
More than anything, I believe that the pro-surrender crowd aren't deliberately abusing statistics but simply don't understand what the numbers may actually mean. Indeed, that could be the very best news the Rebublicans could ask for the upcoming elections.

John, Tannersville, PA, USA

Liberals (meaning the netroots, the democrats, and the media) don't listen to President Bush or distort his words for their own political purposes. Happily for America, they are not the majority of us. This article hits the nail on the head, rather, bangs the hammer down on the big toe of democrats. Vietnam is both triumph and defeat for them; for, as a consequence of their dishonorable refusal to honor commitments this country made to an ally, they brought an end to a war made unpopular by the lies told by them and the media. With triumph came defeat: nobody takes democrats seriously on national defense. The primary responsibility of the American president is to defend the nation against internal and external threats. Democrats with their reflexive defeatism and unwillingness to face down tyranny are unlikely paladins. There may be democrat congresses, but it will be a long time before America sees another democrat president because we are at war with a relentless and cowardly enemy.

Odgeni Odgani, NYC, US

"Perhaps at this late date we can all agree that we've learned one lesson -- that young Americans must never again be sent to fight and die unless we are prepared to let them win." Ronald Reagan at "The Wall" in 1988.

I can hear the chants at the 2008 GOP Convention now, "let them win, let them win, let them win..."

Jack K., Ocala, FL

All wars or actions like this are political rather than for justice, truth and the American way ! Lets get real about this, Bush went in for political reasons as it has been sequentially about WMD and when that failed it was all about terrorists being supported by Saddam Hussein. When that was proved to be a lie also it then became we must make Iraq a democracy even though three factions didn't and wouldn't work together. I'm not suggesting the democrats were honest and truthful over Vietnam but you'd have thought Republicans had at least a few grains of common sense to see the dangers. Unfortunately they either don't teach recent history in schools in America or the neo-cons are more brain dead than I thought. All the experts predicted exactly the outcome we see today but Bush, his cadre of warmongers and opportunists like Blair thought they could make a name for themselves. They've certainly done this but not quite as they'd hoped and the world won't forget it in a hurry.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

The truly egregious revisionisms in Pres. Bush's latest announcement are that withdrawal caused the death of millions of South Vietnamese and led to the Killing Fields of Cambodia. As, Nixon's defense secretary Melvin Laird reminded, the number of South Vietnamese killed during and after the North's invasion was minute compared to the death rate during US involvement.

The Khmer Rouge were sui generis and had no support from NV. Remember, it was a 1979 invasion of Cambodia by Vietnamese forces (after they repelled a Chinese invasion, what about that Domino Theory and Communist Hegemony in SE Asia?) that toppled the Khmer Rouge and ended the genocide.

And last, Bush plays to the myth that US forces could have won "militarily" but the war was lost "politically". While this may salve the souls of some veterans, political victory is military victory, otherwise victory is pointless. Mission Accomplished

John Campbell, Las Vegas, New Mexico

The truth always comes out in the end and in this case it is a case of the anti-war crowd having apoplexy because the dishonor and disgrace of their behavior and actions in the Vietnam era, repeated this era, are being re-exposed for all to see. There is nothing they can do to stop it, they know they are on the wrong side of the morality argument, and they also know they have lost the argument. They simply can't stand it and hence the vitriol of their response.

It reminds one of the Shakesperian line, "thou doth protest too much".

Alan, San Francisco CA, USA

Refreshingly clear, level-headed analysis of a very complex war without all of the derogatory name calling one gets daily in the American media. Agree or disagree with President Bush is it really that difficult for journalists to stick to the merits of a disagreement?

dan berg, Qingdao, Shandong, China

The Green Zone government is prepared to fight to the last American and no further. Look at whom the Iraqis elected to serve in this Parliament. More than 50% of the vote went to Shi'ite religious parties, more than 20% to Kurdish pro-independence parties and almost 20% to Sunni religious parties. The Iraqi people don't want a united, secular, democratic Iraq.

The surge may be providing the room for a compromise, but the Iraqi political leaders don't want it. The US is going to leave someday, and they all know it. The Shi'ite leadership wants complete control, the Kurdish leadership wants out, and the Sunni leaders want their old places back. The continued American presence in Iraq-Nam is merely delaying the inevitable, and is wasting American lives, treasure and prestige in the process.

In the end, South Vietnam fell not because the US failed to support it, but because the South Vietnamese didn't. The same applies in Iraq-Nam

Jeff Myhre, New York City, USA

If we had the draft today, we would never be in Iraq. The only reason we are in Iraq is because my fellow influential Ivy League alums have all to gain (think government spending, stock prices, etc.) and little to risk (since it is usually the poor who serve and risk their lives. Of my graduating class of ~3000, I think about 3 are in Iraq. That itsself proves my point.

Reinstate the draft and see how fast upper-middle class start protesting the war.

AF, NY, NY

The twenty year resistance the Americans provided in Vietnam drained Communism of the energy required to spread beyond Vietnam. We in Australia were the final target of the spread of Communism through Asia. The fact that Communism never made it even to Indonesia or Malaysia (despite insurgencies) let alone Australia, was solely due to the stiffness of American resistance in Vietnam. So, thank you, Uncle Sam. You helped us Aussies see off those Commie bastards. And the same will happen to Al-Qaida in Iraq.

Paul Francis, Brisbane, Australia

Dems have been comparing Iraq to Vietnam since April 10, 2004, when the Iraq war was going to be 'the' election issue to get Kerry in and Bush out. That comparison was gound in to the dirt for three years. No all of a sudden the Dems do not like when the President agreed that the consequences of leaving was a blood bath in SE Asia, a fact that is denied by Dems or blamed on US invlovement. Even though our pull out emboldened thugs to kill the populace and grab power. The need for an American humiliation is almost surreal. Dems feel like making Bush fail is the best thing for the country, yet they seem to not understand that it will be an American humiliation. An American failure. They keep calling it Bush's war, but it is our war. If the effort did not have to be undermined to try to get Kerry elected, we would be in a far better place than today. I would like one person to tell me why it is so important to hand Iran, Syria, and Al-qaeda a tremendous victory in Iraq

John, Silver Spring, MD

The truly egregious revisionism in Pres. Bush's latest announcement is that withdrawal caused the death of millions of South Vietnamese as well as the Killing Fields of Cambodia. As, Nixon's defense secretary Melvin Laird reminded, the number of South Vietnamese killed during and after the North's invasion was minute compared to the death rate during US involvement.

US involvement was based on disapproval of the democratic unification election with majorities both North and South electing Ho Chi Minh president.

By creating local power vacuums, US covert involvement in Cambodia likely aided the Khmer Rouge ascendancy. Remember, it was a 1979 invasion by Vietnamese forces that toppled the Khmer Rouge and ended the genocide.

And last, Bush plays to the myth that US forces could have won "militarily" but the war was lost "politically". While this may salve the souls of some veterans, political victory is military victory, otherwise victory is pointless. Mission Accomplished.

John Campbell, Las Vegas, New Mexico, USA

Ms. Righter has rewritten the history of the war in vietnam with an artful hand but the facts just don't match up. The most potent weapon of the N.Vietnamese and Viet Cong was the legacy of colonialism and the nationalist aspirations of the Vietnamese people.
Anti Colonial feeling in Iraq, (like here in the good ol USA 230 years ago) are driving this thing. Ms. Righter either has forgotton the anti colonial history of the last 100 years or never read history from a colonized country point of view; either way, the history leasons she bases her article on miss the mark of .

Bob Rowe, Lewiston , Maine

There's a huge difference between American/NATO/Western troops defeating terrorists in Iraq and creating democratic governments.
To Mr. Bush and his strategist's credit, they've attempted to allow the people of Iraq to choose their own leaders, but the party that is currently in power in Iraq has few fundamental differences compared to Iran. In fact, both Iraq and Afghanistan have Islamic Republican government currently, the same as Iran.
If we look to some of the nations Mr. Bush expressed as positive examples of what can happen when nations maintain their allegience to Western democracy (South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan) they invariably have a high learning curve for democracy. (These states were major human rights violators for the majority of their nascent "democracy" periods.)
The ultimate problem with a continued US presence in Iraq is that the Iraqi people don't want it. Occupying powers only get a couple chances at winning hearts and minds, and the Coalition forces haven't.

Charles Brewer, Orlando, Florida, United States

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the American power structure really regards the Vietnam War as a monumental success. They were able to slaughter 3 million Vietnamese and 58 thousand American soldiers over a period of many years, all in the interest of "teaching a lesson" to any 3rd world nation that dared to defy the USA. The War in Vietnam and Cambodia showed the entire under-developed world in southeast Asia that the price of serious independence movements was going to be wholesale massacre and indiscriminate destruction. It WORKED! Southeast Asia became an obsequious supporter of American hegemony in that a4rea of the world.

Of course, the power structure in the USA would never openly STATE this naked position. After all, there are the citizens to consider. That is why the "mistake of Vietnam" attitude has gained so much currency among the mainstream political and media establishment. It's just window dressing.

Concerned Citizen, Thousand Oaks, CA

The Dems predicted 6 months ago that the surge would not work militarily. They are now predicting that things will "just work themselves out" if we pull our troops out leaving an unstable Iraqi government in place. They're just as clueless.

john, jackson, nj

Remember, please, that Richard Nixon (a Republican) withdrew all US troops from Vietnam, and Henry Kissinger, his secretary of state and a Republican, negotiated the terms of the US withdrawal with the North Vietnamese. Those terms were considered a sell-out by the South Vietnamese, and so the USA had to force the South Vietnamese government to accept the deal, by threatening to cut off aid. As part of the deal in Paris, Kissinger agreed to allow the NVA to leave troops in South Vietnam. And when his own staff argued against that, he said he wanted to end the war by the 1972 presidential election.

It is a myth that the US congress cut off aid. In fact, we had poured in arms to the South from 1972-1975 and turned the SVA air force into the strongest in Southeast Asia. Why wasn’t that air force used effectively when the NVA invaded in 1975? Because it was thoroughly infiltrated by the VC. What the right uses as a "cutoff of aid" was the refusal of congress to send ADDITIONAL aid.

Paul Strauss, Arlington, Massachusetts

Congress and the media lost Vietnam. I think the saying is "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Vietnam was done and over but the Democrats, who tend to follow the French in failure, got cold feet, cut off the troops and our allies. The Democrats in congress and media are complicit in the deaths that occurred after our failure to support our allies.

Two big questions arise in my mind. Why do Democrats and media pander to the left wing nuts and are afraid of dictators and communist? Seriously, why do they continually buckle in the face of communist and now fascists Muslims. Seriously, Ted Kennedy's father was a pascifist in the face of nazis, etc. and it seems to be inbred in the Democrats.

The second question which is probably bigger because we'll survive the appeasers in time, is who what allies will trust the US when their backs are up against the wall in disputes with other countries. Why should our allies count on us?

Garth, Portland,

Am I the only one who is tired of liberals talking about us being in Iraq for oil??? Maybe because of oil, but not for oil. I have yet to hear about Americans pocketing up oil and high tailing it out. If we're only there for the oil, we might as well leave.

Ben Horner, Atlanta, United States

America is not a colonialist power, yet conducts its foreign policy as if it was one. However, unlike previous Empires, it is nor prepared for a long term commitment to occupation, the essential element for imposing its will. Iraq is not Vietnam but the outcome probably more important. Withdawal from Vietnam did not bring about the Kissinger's domino effect, but a premature withdrawal from Iraq may do just that..
What Vietnam and Iraq have in common is that America is seen as the loser, something not acceptable to the American public and media; their solution, not for the first time is "bring our boys home". Even a Democrat-elect President would find it difficult to cut and run.
The world has changed since WW2, the threat to American dominance, and their ever silent allies Europe, is rearing its ugly head in many areas, notably the Middle East, Pakistan and now a resurgent Russia,.The Yankee dollar may be welcome but it is made quite clear, even by their friends, the Yanks are not

M.Fishman, London,

Why is the sock puppet for special interest still in office?

And who does Congress serve and protect?

John, Orlando, FL

What's left to win in Iraq? Hearts and minds? I don't think so. But there is still to perhaps win some kind of secure access to its and the rest of the Middle East's oil -- this being the prize mainly sought by the invaders in the first place. Security for the U. S.'s ally Israel? Maybe.
As for oil being the "prize," the U. S. has staged invasions for political reasons but, in the case of the Iraq invasion, because of how critically important a reliable supply of oil has become to industrial nations, I would say it was the big, if not the only, attraction.
In a sense, there is not much point now in speculating on whether the Iraq war will be won by the U. S. The huge expenses and losses of various kinds it has incurred since starting it has already made its outcome a great, if not total, loss to the that country, no matter how it finally ends.

seeman, Sydney, Canada

Well this was th emost useless analysis of he situation that I had ever seen. At leaset for the rightist neo-cons, the end game is pretty clear. They profited materially and financially from the Vietnam war. Cheney and Co. are filling their bottomless pockets from the Iraq war. That's why an end to the war is a disruption to the revenue. They do not care who gets killed or sacrificed as they put it without sacrificing anything themselves, being it Americans, Iraqis, or Vietnamese. The big question how can you stop this profitering machine that is beneficial to a handful of US businesses without imploding the whole region?

Kay Salicornia, San Jose, California

McGovern campaigned on cutting and running in Vietnam. He lost to Nixon 49 states to 1. Reagan called Vietnam a "noble cause," He defeated Mondale 49 to 1. Bush knows his audience. The U.S. press corps doesn't get it.

tom liddy, Chandler, Arizona

This is for all of you who claim that the US can't win in Iraq. You are all wrong. One only needs to look at the spectacular success our occupation of Japan has wrought to be proven so. In the case of Vietnam, that war was not lost on the battlefield but through public opinion influenced by a cowardly liberal democrat media that brainwashed people through propaganda and lack of alternative information outlets like the internet and conservative radio. Besides, I'm sure it bears little comfort to also realize that if what you claim is the case then you must also think that your own country has absolutely zero chance and have already lost. I guess in your logic its better to stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't your problem too. All I hear from those who posted on this subject is doom and gloom Neville Chamberlains. Why don't you grow up, grow a pair and actually fight for what you believe in...Oh that's right...you don't believe in anything; which is why w. europe is a goner.

Frenetic, New Jersey, USA

There is absolutely no accuracy from the perspective of the president to attempt a comparison with Vietnam and Iraq except to say that yes, both have been manufactured wars which we need to stop involving ourselves in especially by using the flowery notion of freedom and democracy to legitimize illegitimate wars. Ironically for the Bush advocacy in the promotion of democratic ideals he has succeeded only in giving democracy a bad name.
First and foremost when this nation established our democracy we did not have it force fed or imposed by another nation. It remains an american experiment in governing and the best that can be said about it is when self-determination concludes that it is the best form of government it should be a government formed by the people who desire it an experiment based on an american model. We could do so much better as a nation if we concentrated on improving our own form of democracy rather than attempting to shape the world in our image. It won't work.

robert machado, Bakersfield , CA. U.S.A.

Whether you like him or hate him, he is still the President.
Show some patriotic respect and address him as President Bush, not Mr Bush.

I pray to God that whoever the next President is, will continue this fight in Iraq. We all know that the terrorists are hoping that a Democrat takes office so they can launch another attack.

Mike K, union, nj, usa

The truly egregious revisionism in Pres. Bush's latest announcement is that withdrawal caused the death of millions of South Vietnamese as well as the Killing Fields of Cambodia. As, Nixon's defense secretary Melvin Laird reminded, the number of South Vietnamese killed during and after the North's invasion was minute compared to the death rate during US involvement.

By creating local power vacuums, US covert involvement in Cambodia likely aided the Khmer Rouge ascendancy. Remember, it was a 1978 invasion by Vietnamese forces that toppled the Khmer Rouge and ended the genocide.

And last, Bush plays to the myth that US forces could have won "militarily" but the war was lost "politically". While this may salve the souls of some veterans, political victory is military victory, as we are learning, hopefully, in Iraq.

John Campbell, Las Vegas, New Mexico, USA

To understand the Democrats, one must go back to their love affair with Stalin ("Uncle Joe"), their disgraceful defense of Hiss (and corresponding loathing of Chambers), and especially the takeover of the Dem party by the Communist-loving far left during the 1960s. Throw in their near capitulation to the Soviets on nukes and communist expansion during the 70s and 80s, their disgusting rejection of removing Saddam's forces from Kuwait in '91, and their willful blindness to the growing Islamist menace during the 90s (remember Khobar, WTC '93, and the Cole?), and one picture emerges -- you cannot trust the Democrats to defend America. The Dems of today are the Neville Chamberlains of our age, except they are worse since they have Chamberlain to refer to as an example. They want us to lose this war in Iraq. They want us to be merely a nation amongst a league of nations, with our power checked and undermined. For nearly 100 years the Dems have sought to bring America to its knees.

deathtosocialism, Mammoth Lakes, ca

I wonder what the response would if President Putin mused, "...if Russia had just stayed the course in Afghanistan...would the USSR have been saved, would Chechnya have been avoided?" This simply highlights the absurdity of Bush invoking a Vietnam analogy to the Iraq situation. And if Bush did grasp "lessons" of Vietnam, why didn't he share this visionary wisdom with the citizens of Iraq and the US when "Mission Accomplished" was declared in 2003, not four years later?

David Coburn, Hong Kong,

Just as it is important not to forget that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, it is imperative to keep Viet Nam in historical context. That was a war of Independence for the majority of the Viet Namese people, not a struggle of communism vs. capitalism. That was our motivation, not theirs. Now, it is particularly ironic that Bush draws parallels with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor because that is the last time a sovereign nation attacked another sovereign nation in a pre-emptive strike designed to protect its people from foreign hedgemony. Doesn't that sound like 'fight them over there so we ddon't have to fight them over here'.

Jeff Tuttle, Oceanside, California

It is amazing that while so many are caught up in the winning and losing scorecard e.g. Vietnam, since we lost that one, we can't lose this one. For Christ sakes, this is not some type of sport where the U. S. must make the playoffs or some ridiclous notion. The reality is we cannot continue to force feed democracy when it is based on self-determination. That is the foundation which makes our version of democracy work and if we somehow could allow other nations the opportunity to evaluate democracy empirically it would serve two important functions, 1. It would allow our nation a chance to refine and improve on our experiment and 2 it would serve as a positive example instead of creating wars for the illiegimate purpose of imposing it on others. This ironically Mr. Bush has successfully achieved a form of "mission accomplished." He has accomplished creating a bad name for democracy world wide; exactly what he has insisted on promoting so miserably on this long arduous road.

robert machado, Bakersfield , CA. U.S.A.

Most scholars agree that it was the expansion of the war into Cambodia that led to the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, not the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. Saying "we were just about to win!" doesn't make it so. I'm sure what "fragile democracy" David H is talking about. Is it so fragile that the POTUSA actively campaigns for removing the elected leader?
I'm unaware of the liberal media mentioned below. Could you point it out to me, please?
I find it baffling that Americans assume peoples in other countries don't have their own dreams and sense of patriotism. If an alien power came to the U.S., with no knowledge of the culture or history, and used violence to institute their own choice of government, would the people really meekly submit to their new and wise overlords, or would they fight to the death to defend their land?
It almost seems like we need a secular strongman in there, an enemy of Iran, to suppress the violence with greater violence. Hmm, who could that be?

Tim, Boston, MA

When a peacful nation is backed against a wall, do not be surprised when that nation acts in self-defense.
Really, when will Europe wake up? I suppose it will, when the Nazi's begin bombing or when Al-Queida does. How many lives will be lost then? I suppose Europe hasn't been our friend since we saved it the last time. "Thanks America, we can take care of things now". Perhaps America should allow the Neo-Russians to have Europe, I for one, am done with spineless wienies. Remember, if you want peace then make war! Terrorism has come to our shores now we take the fight to them. Plain and simple. America will never lie down! Unless we elect a Democrat.

Douglas Dunning, Ruther Glen, U.S.A / Virginia

However the Vietnam and Iraq wars may be alike or differ, what they surely have in common (I am sure I am not he first to point out) is being big mistakes.
That even its supporters are beginning to fear that the Iraq war may end with a humiliating U.S. pull-out is evidenced by that they have already begun to set up its opponents to take the blame, as they did at the end of the Vietnam war. These finger pointers especially target those they identify as "liberals," "the left, " what U.S. right wing propagandist Ann Coulter has called "the treason lobby."

seeman, Sydney, Canada

The post-Vietnam traumatic stress disorder of today's Democratic Party goes back to two things: the Democrat's traumatic breakdown with their radical far left wingnuts during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago is a memory seared in their minds forever. The Democrats foray into Vietnam via the Kennedy and Johnson administrations yielded a despicable record which was rewarded by Nixon's back to back landslide victories. The retreat in Nam from a war which Nixon was winning after the Vietcong were decimated during the Tet Offensive, scarred the Liberals for life. And lets not forget those 50,000 American lives who were sacrificed by the Democrats schizophrenic war effort. Gone, but not forgotten (except in the minds of the radical left): they are just as forgettable in the lexicon of the left as were the troops who were spat upon and called 'baby killer's' by these very same liberal Democrats upon their return to the USA.

JOHN D. PATRIOT, NASHVILLE, TN

Based on the logic of the previous writer, Mr. Hartford then with Congress at historical approval ratinngs at 20% then 80% of the people dont want the defeatest position of Pelosi, Murtha & Co either.......

Paul Hargraves, los angeles, ca

If the Democrats clearly point out the Republicans' utter failure in the "WOT" (Osama lives free while our resources are drained, etc.), they can't be damaged by obvious lies.

But since the Democrats seem unable to even explain that a funding cutoff equals withdrawal, not troops in the field without bullets, so they seem doomed by their political ineptitude to self-defeat.

Logan Waters, Lincroft, NJ/USA

Anyone that believes the US defeat in Vietnam was inevitable because winning was impossible shows utter ignorance of historical facts. We lost in Vietnam because the public was fed propaganda by the likes of Cronkite, and were told we could not win when in fact we were winning. If the bombing of Hanoi had been allowed to continue, Ho Chi Minh would have begged for peace. It was Democrats then as now that won't countenance American victory over repression. Democrats so admire dictatorial control over populations that they can't help but love and support them, even at the cost of US security. It's time for the US to take off the gloves, chase jihadi cowards across borders if necessary, and ratchet up the pressure to the pain threshold of rogue states like Jordan and Iran to end their proxy war against the US or ELSE! We have the means, all we need is the resolve to use them!

Dan Shaw, Atlanta, Ga. USA

When our troops fail, Democrats win.

David W. Moon, Chattanooga, TN

The problem is that the US must maintain its nerve and the Democrats can't help but see a political opportunity, just as they did at the end of the Vietnam War. While Bush's ratings are lackluster at best, those of Congress are substantially worse and the Dems endgame of playing dove for purely political purposes has now been exposed to the point where the White House may actually stay in Republican hands. The Dems have lost - again - on security. On the ground the issue is can we create a local political climate that keeps AQ out. If so, we will be able to eventually help the central government evolve. What many people now want to know - and what I am sure scares many outside the US - is when does the US military begin working on Syria and eventually Iran. If the Damascus airport became inoperable, the insurgency would falter even more - then Iran would be completely exposed. Do we have the nerve to do what is necessary?

EJ Mills, Indianapolis, USA

It is amazing to me that the American public doesn't see this for what it is, another political slight of hand by the Democrats in their enduring distaste for the military. It was okay for Democrats to invoke the comparison to "Vietnam" when they were targeting the military for its "failures" in Iraq and that the war was "lost" and a "quagmire", but suddenly Vietnam is off limits when the Republicans want to point out what happened in Vietnam when there was a total withdraw of American forces. The Democrats have only one goal here and it has nothing to do with saving American military lives. The Democrats are obsessed with their hatred for the President and winning the White House in 08. You know, Senator Biden hit the nail on the head when he finally had enough courage to state that the Democratic candidates were lying to the public regarding withdrawing from Iraq because it couldn't be done even though the other candidates knew that. Kudos to Senator Biden for being realistic.

Jason Fairchild, Madison, Ohio USA

I'm bemused that you can say Democrats have been comparing Iraq to Vietnam all along while GWB avoids it, and come to the conclusion that 'Democrats dread hearing the V-word'. While I'm not a Democrat, I am to the left, and we've been pointing it out all along, as did Vice President Cheney in his saner days in a 1994 speech where he said it was a hideous idea to invade and occupy Iraq, that it would be a Vietnam-like quagmire. The only thing the left dreads is the President's utter inability to understand the lessons of history, and indeed those his own Father understood. It was inevitable that instead of realizing the lesson of Vietnam was that we never should have settled into an occupation of Iraq, he would somehow decide that the lesson was that if we'd just stayed forever, we would somehow have magically ended up 'winning Vietnam'. But 'magical thinking' is common in those stuck in early life developmental stages.

Dr B, Middletown, US

There are three truths that are seldom mentioned by the advocates of retreat.

We DO have the troops to finish this job, but we are not using them. We have CHOSEN to leave them stationed in places where they are not needed.

The enemy will NOT allow us to successfully withdraw. Right now we are right where they want us. As soon as we attempt to leave, they will do something to bring us back.

We CANNOT afford to lose this one. We especially cannot afford to lose it by running out on the Iraqi people.

Don, Houston, USA/Texas

Democrat mistakes led to the Reagan-Bush era. 12 years. Let there be more Democrat mistakes!!! 12 more years!!!

Melvin Buttertoast, manhattan, NY, NY

Thank God I have found a rational voice and informed citizenry in this forum and online publication. The tone of the U.S. media is so defeatist and surrendering that we would all be speaking german or japanese now if they had been an inluence in 1941-1944. Iraq desrves a chance to be sovereign as does any nation. Saddam was strong enough to hold his country together, but at what price? He needed to go. Let us all remember that the modern middle east has only been autonomous since about 1950. They were ruled by the Turks, the British and the Germans for many years. They deserve the chance to develop their own democracies.

Jeff, Lumberton, USA/TX

Kyle, voters in America have already voted for a President like that. Voters in America have elected a president like that in every election since WW2. To get elected to federal office in America you must treat the outside world with ignorance and malice, because voters in America believe that behavior keeps them safe. They want someone who will make "tough decisions", effectively meaning someone who is ready to cause violence and death for whatever political trends exist at the time, whether that decision is action or inaction.

Rest assured that no matter what candidate gets elected, no matter what action they take, it will be the wrong one.

Kase, Olympia, US

Sorry, but President Bush did not volunteer to serve in Vietnam. Here is a summary of his undistingished service career. http://www.thedubyareport.com/lechliter.pdf

Bill Kellett, Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

To all those like John who dispose of Bush's plan and need to act becuase of constant negative media stories, think about this: Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush. Historically low.

Wasn't the lesson from Vietnam, Let the sodiers fight and leave the politicians out of it?

Aaron, Sugar Land, Texas

Let's see...
Our troops are there right now and what's happening? Already there are thousands of Iraqis dieing every month. The country is already spiraling towards a civil war. The governing coalition is already falling apart. All of this has happened WHILE American troops are in Iraq. A SANE person would conclude that either our presence cannot stop what's going to happen, or it's making it worse. I believe the former. The reason to leave.

As far as Vietnam? The 'Domino' theory was proven bunk., America then won the cold war, and today have an American President actively encouraging 'free' trade with the country we had supposedly 'lost'. Somehow I just can't delude myself any further to trust these war advocates.

Dustin Mineau, Canton, MI

oh Lord, what poor commentary.

Its simply factually wrong that Democrats dread talking about Vietnam. Democratic candidates were comparing Iraq TO Vietnam in 2003 and have been doing so ever since. Vietnam conjures about bad memories for the population at large and Democrats have used that to draw a comparison between the quagmire in SE Asia and in Iraq.

Chris, Boston, USA

Democrats dug their anti-war grave a long time ago. They will be buried in it, and rightly so come November 2008.

Scott, Chicago, IL

We had the same problem with you Brits that the Iraqis have with us Yanks. You just didn't understand, in 1776, that it was time to go home.

No military power has been able to successfully occupy another large sovereign country for over a century. Not Hitler in Russia, Britain in India, Russia in Eastern Europe nor the US in VietNam.

It is time for those of you on the right to grow up and accept the lessons of history. Bush and the Republicans made thsi mess. We Americans intend to clean it up in the next election.

Ken Valz, Olympia, WA, US of A

Nathan,

You don't even have your basic facts, let alone any grasp on 'history.' The United States had been out of Vietnam for well over two years. 7 North Vietnamese Armored divisions invaded at all cost. Then President Ford requested from the Democrat Congress funds and supplies to attack these roads bound tanks. You might have some idea what American air power has done to armor columns. Ask anyone from the Germans to the Iraqis. By the way, we had television guided smart bombs by then.

It would have been over in days for the NVA.

So, our allies, the Vietnamese lost, Pol Pot went on to his killing fields, a million boat people drowned and cowardly delusional and factually wrong leftist have been smug ever since.

Paul from Florida, Stuart, Florida

Great article. People who say "the US lost in Vietnam" are simple-minded- it was a complex issue, including looking at it politically and militarily. The truth of the matter is that when the US left Vietnam, it directly led to untold losses of life and liberty. Any person, any good person, should open their eyes, take a deep breath, and say- I don't want to be responsible for millions of peopel dying. Sadly, voters in America may indeed choose to be responsible for just that by voting for a President who panders to their lowest base impluses, who plays politics in a chill cold way, and who only voices simple thoughts to simple people.

Kyle, Waterford, MI, USA

Perhaps Ms Righter hasn't noticed that Bush's approval ratings are around 30% and two thirds of the country regard him with total disdain and is longing to turn the page on Bush and all his works. Until now he has studiously avoided any analogies with Vietnam because this huge debacle is indelibly printed on the US memory. And not in any positive way. The fact that he introduced, historically innacurate, references to this event is really evidence of growing desperation. Basically America has stopped listening to Bush on Iraq and pretty much everything else. However, he and the Republican party seem to have decided to tie their fate to success in this war. We'll see next year whether they were right.

John, Hartford, USA

Bush's argument about Vietnam has upset a lot of people; the response has been furious. It's not an argument often made in polite company - someone is liable to come across the table at you.
That's because the rightness or wrongness of Vietnam is a fundamental issue of personal identity for millions of Americans. The summer of love, Jimi Hendrix, etc. These are the untouchables, the holy of holies, built aroud brave Romantic opposition to the Establishment., the capitalist oppressor, the square, conventional morality, tradition.
And here comes the chimp who would dare to point out that in America, like in other places during the 19th and 20th centuries, those brave idealistic revolutionaries were once again paving the road to the killing fields.
I concur with the author: I imagine Bush raised the argument solely in the context of the Iraq war. But wittingly or not he has hit the Democrat's most sensitive nerve: their own conscience in denial.

Todd Hammond, Valtice, Czech Repubic

What we should take from the Vietnam debacle was that the left leaning media had the large part of making foreign policy. THAT is what is happening once again in Iraq. We were winning in Vietnam and liberals were successful in turning public opinion by using the media. We know today that the North communists were using the media and the U.S. media were willing stooges. Today? the same thing. They have had a more difficult time due to 9/11 but they have hammered defeat again long enough and there have been enough mistakes in Iraq (like all wars) to give the liberal defeatists. We also know that Al Queda is using tactics patterned after the Vietnam. Yet we once again fold. The fact is that Bin Laden was exactly right. The enemy has the human fodder to carry on a losing battle with the real hope that if they are able to last long enough the liberals in congress and their willing allies in the media will bring them the victory.

wade butler, san marcos, texas

An OUTSTANDING article - one of the best I've read in this paper for months. Very enlightening.

Joe, Kent, UK

The US military does not lose when it fights...the only way the US "loses" is if we withdraw from the battlespace prematurely and leave it for the enemy to occupy. The US "lost" Vietnam the same way.

"Enemy" is also a broad term. Bisecting the Middle East by going into Iraq and Afghanistan will go a long way towards eventually creating lasting peace, and even democracy, in several countries there. Isolating Iran is the ultimate goal of Bush's grand War on Terror strategy, which is the correct strategy. We will not know the true ramifications of our action in Iraq until the Iranian question is solved regarding their nukes and their manipulation of events in Lebanon through Hezbollah.

John, Annapolis, USA

"The French lost first, the USA lost second, yet eventually Communism lost."

If the communists "lost" Vietnam, then I want the US to "lose" this war. Today, 30-some years after the end of the conflict and 15 years after the north's main benefactor in that conflict went belly-up, it's STILL basically a communist country. If 30 years down the road Iraq is a functioning democracy (even if the US were to go similarly belly-up) and that means we "lost" this dustup, count me foursquare IN.

Dan, Glenwood, MN/USA

Jeff Larsen: 'The problem with a "surge" is that just that. It is temporary and unsustainable something the freedom fighter/terrorists or whatever are well aware...'
The problem with a "jump" is that just that. It is temporary and unsustainable something the short man trying to reach a high shelf is well aware of, but it allows him to reach the can of beer he wishes to drink. "Temporary and unsustainable" is sometimes more than good enough!

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

Nathan Makiell

You are wrong. You are repeating a lie that is used by those that seek Israel's harm.

Israel allowed Hamas to be elected in the Palestinian territories. It then changed its policy with respect to those territories to reflect the fact that the party in authority had Israel's destruction as one of its aims in its constitution. Or is Israel not allowed to decide its own policies through its elected government? What is your idea of democracy?

Richard, Southend, UK

Expecting results in Iraq from the Patraeus "surge" is insanity. It is our very presence there is creating the incentive the Iraqis needs to fight us. We should never forget that we are the best recruiters for insurgency and terrorism the Middle East has ever seen. No matter what we do or how long we stay, the place is going to be bathed in blood. Once we leave, that bloodshed is going to escalate -- and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

So why should we leave? I can think of three reasons off the top of my head. The first is that we should not be sending our people off to die so that we can browbeat the Iraqis into conceding their oil resources to us. The second is because the longer we stay, the more resentment we create and the greater the violence when we finally do leave. But most of all, the only reason to leave that truly matters is because they asked us to.

Michael, Denver, US

As a Vietnamese American, a son of refugees, I am grateful that this analogy has come up in the debate, lest the same consequences of a US withdrawal happens again. The Left has yet to take responsibility for their actions, or lack there of. The defunding of the ARVN led to the defeat in 1975, leading to an unknown number of dead (perhaps in the hundreds of thousands) in the South China Sea, re-education camps and the killing fields in Cambodia. Not to mention the dispersion of families across the Globe. Perhaps John Kerry ("re-education camps were not that bad") or Nathan Maskiell should talk to my uncle who's also in Melbourne Australia, who spent 2 years in one. The US withdrawal was a mistake then and a premature one now will be bigger mistake.

John, New York, New York

I have been saying this since late 2003, when things first seemed to go south; that our central enemy is investing in Iraq and it well behooves us with this low loss rate to confront them there, and that since we can afford this low loss rate (which is proportionally even lower now that Petraeus is making gains) we should remain as long as it takes to for an Iraqization of the conflict to take place–which is inevitable if we stay–and that once that Iraqization occurs we MUST not abandon the Iraqi’s as we did the South Vietnamese.

The abandonment of the RVN and the fall of Saigon was an “own goal” by the Congress and American people which we must not repeat.

I can’t say I’m not pleased that someone in Britain is loudly agreeing with me, even given the late date.

Tom Perkins, boyce, Virginia

Democrats and the liberal media learned nothing from Vietnam. The Dems are doomed by repeating the same political blunders they did in the past!

Kirt, Marshall, Tx

Excellent commentary. Some of the more enlightened views on America these days come from outside America. A phenomenon generated by our Hollywood inspired mass media.

Thomas Williams, Rapid City, South Dakota

It's probably best to let the middle east fail. We have let our defense industry fail and we need to return to the days of robust missile defense and a large draft - dependant military. We can again build nuclear power plants and implement new technologies.

Contrary to what many believe the drafted soldiers created the most important successful integration experiment ever, and it should continue.

In addition, our scientific frontiers were broadened by the military threat from Russia, which will now be the middle east. Our country will again gain solidarity when we face a strong enemy as we did in the past.

The past is the best teacher! If there is a war, let it remain over there!

chuckiechan, Sacramento, CA

This article is at least slightly sympathetic to Bush, yet manages to toss off one of the usual slanders, which is amplified by letter writer Owen above.

Bush did in fact volunteer for Vietnam fighting but was rejected as qualified on the wrong fighter jet. His F102 had been put out of service. His F102 was also a very dangerous machine even in peacetime, with many killed in training. If his daddy was trying to keep GWB out of danger he did a lousy job.

How do these falsehoods become common currency?

Fred Z, Calgary, Canada

I applaud the president for his remarks equating Iraq to Vietnam. My only complaint is that he is late in doing so. He needs to use the "bully pulpit" much more effectively.

After we were on the verge of winning in Nam, the Democrats withdraw all funding for South Vietnamn.

I have neve voted Democrat again as I was revolted by that act of cowardice and treason. If they do the same in Iraq (which would be worse than Vietnam given its location) The Dems would lose me forever. They are craven and have no backbone-NONE!

Russ Robbins, Salem, MA

Whether we withdraw slowly or quickly, now or ten years from now, the goal of a united, stable democratic Iraq is a delusion, and the Shia-Sunni conflict will escalate into a regional bloodbath that draws in our Saudi and Iranian enemies.

We might as well get it over with. We can take solace in the fact that many of those who die will be jihadis and their supporters, and the knowledge that our precious youth will no longer be scarificed in a vain attempt to prevent the inevitable.

Brian Smith, Sacramento, California

I expected the "V" in the editorial to stand for "Victory", not Vietnam.

Democrats are terrified that we might succeed in Vietnam, because their entire political strategy assumes defeat.

Democrats have politicized this war from Day 1. From the Democrat Congress authorizing the war so they could nullify the issue during the 2002 elections, to declaring it a quagmire only days after it started, to daily giving aid and comfort to the enemy by willfully undermining the Commander in Chief and the US Military, Democrats are the problem, not anything approaching the solution.

Brian Schafer, Arlington, USA/Virginia

The surprise in real-time war laboratories such as Iraq and Vietnam, and beforehand for the former colonial powers, is that there seems to have been little evolution in tactics by the force with superior equipment effectively to counter guerrilla-style insurgency.

The message might be that democratisation of war, whether it be called resistance, insurgency or terrorism has rendered conventional warfare, except of the most inhumane type, largely impotent.

From that perspective there might be advantage in looking for common factors which helped successful outcomes in historic cases where there was transition to peaceful democracy, even though all such cases were different.

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

The are several important distinctions between Vietnam and Iraq. Bush addressed some of them in his VFW speech but the ones he didn't are the ones that will compel continued effort in Iraq and the ME in general. Specifically, while the struggle in Vietnam was part of a greater geo-political struggle with the Soviets, it had no potential economic impact on the US nor was the US threatened with any Vietnamese attacks on our shores. The opposite is the case if Iraq is lost.

The loss of Iraq would effectively allow Iran to gain the hegemonic control of the ME it seeks and its implications on the control of energy supplies and it would also provide a vast base for the training and launching of terrorist attacks of a whole different magnitude.

So, the real question is not if we will remain in the Iraq, but rather how we should remain there, because remain there we must if we are to avoid the consequences of leaving.

Muller, New York, USA

Any one who saw John Pilger's excellent film "War on Democracy" shown by ITV would soon realise that the US does not want democracy in any of the countries it has occupied. The sooner our forces cut the umbilical cord of submission to every whim of the US empire the better for all of us.

Dr Izhar Khan, Aberdeen,

Own in London states: "I agree that a immediate withdrawal would not be ideal, but that's not what the Democrats are advocating, they want a phased withdrawal."

Yes, phased just right to ensire genocide.

Then he states: "And frankly for Bush to be giving lectures on this subject when he used daddy's connections to get out of Vietnam, and got America into the Iraq debacle in the first place, defies belief."

Argumentum ad hominem ... the refuge of a scoundrel. Who should give the lecture? Teddy "Chrysler submarine captain" Kennedy? John "there was no bloodbath" Kerry?

Eris, Boston, USA

I agree that a immediate withdrawal would not be ideal, but that's not what the Democrats are advocating, they want a phased withdrawal.

And frankly for Bush to be giving lectures on this subject when he used daddy's connections to get out of Vietnam, and got America into the Iraq debacle in the first place, defies belief..

Owen, London, UK

Excellent analysis of an excellent point made by Bush. I am surprised to see such an article since the majority I have read seem more focused on calling Bush stupid (as usual) than the actual point. If civilian casualties are as big of a concern as many anti-war protestors say then they need only see examples of other withdrawls to see that no good will come of it.

We will eventually have to withdraw, but to rapidly pull out leaving a fragile democracy high and dry in the face of well armed and financed wanna be dictators is an invitation to mass slaughter and a surrender of all the good that could come from our actions.

Dave H, McLean, VA, USA

George Bush has a degree in History, but fails to learn the lessons implicit in the Vietnam War.... The French lost first, the USA lost second, yet eventually Communism lost. How can the US simultaneously win and lose? Well they are doing it again in Iraq. The principle of a war on terror is sound, the hope of freedom and democracy is sound, yet "terror", "democracy" and "freedom" mean different things to different people. In Israel, democracy means that only Fatah can be "elected" to govern the Palestinian territories. In Saudi Arabia "friendship" is a country whose people seek to murder and maim, "freedom" is a repressive regime not unlike Egypt or Kuwait or Yemen. The Conservatives in America still think that withdrawal from Vietnam was a mistake, and should the US do the same in Iraq, they would argue well into the 22nd century that was a mistake too. Churchill said it best: "If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future".

Nathan Maskiell, Melbourne, Australia

An excellent analysis that should be widely read. As an Australian Vetnam veteran I endorse every word. With a little more political will and less treason the West could have won in Indo-China and the human tragedy of the boat-people, the Cambodia genocide and the Laos Gulag avoided.

Kevin Dunn, Nedlands, Western Australia

Expecting results in Iraq from the Petraeus "surge" in this short time is being unfair to the generals on ground and the troops they command. Insurgencies require a huge amount of time, which unfortunately elected leaders don't have. Oppositions will like to exploit all that they can even if there policies advocated borders on the fringes of unpatriotic policies.

Brij Mohan Ghungesh, Karnal, India

The problem with a "surge" is that just that. It is temporary and unsustainable something the freedom fighter/terrorists or whatever are well aware.The US has the choice of pulling out now without "winning" or doing so sometime in the future, still without a win, but after suffering many more casualties. The only justification for staying on was if there was evidence that in the near future there will be a change in the situation on the ground. There is no such evidence today. The only comparison with Vietnam is the inevitable result - an American humiliation. The longer the wait, the bigger the humiliation.
The official song of Al Quaida? Time ...is on my side...yes it is...

Jeff Larsen, Christchurch, NZ