Comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are always going to be tenuous and largely irrelevant. Far from being a 20th century war, the Vietnamese conflict can be traced back to the 1860s when colonialist France under Napoleon III decided that his country should not be left behind Britain and other European states in acquiring colonies in the Far East. As a result, a conflict that largely went on for over a 100 years imposed an alien culture on the indigenous people for commercial gain and imperial prestige.

In contrast, Iraq was a pariah state which under Saddam was yet another source of weaponry and funding for arab and palestinian terrorists engaged in their campaigns to drive the Israelis back into the sea. Saddam's sponsorship of suicide bombers' families to the tune of US$25,000 every time they blew themselves and nearby Israelis to smithereens was enough justification for his removal by force. Sadly, the efforts to contain him were being undermined by France's trading ambitions.

Ali D, St Helier, Jersey

Is there any concrete judgement on the folly adventure more than that withdrawal now seems disasterous
Also what happened in the last 4 years was no less destructive and criminal than what happened in Veitnam
America should acknowledge the truth it is long trying to avoid and let the international community represented in the UN come foreward for real help. The longer the murderous forses of Bush stay , the more Iraqies will pay with their lives
G Bush and T Blair should be tried as war criminals _ no less

Mohamed Ahmed, London, UK

I feel there are many aspects of the big question that are deliberately forgotten whenever a decision has to be made about it in american congress.
The big question is why and how should U.S.A get involved in a conflict at the first place and what is the objective and does U.S give enough material and intelligence to achieve the mission in a reasonable time.
Once engaged, the big question for U.S congress is exaclty the same and yet is completly opposite: "Why should U.S.A leave a conquered country and what would be the consequence of leaving before losses get through the roof!"

U.S.A is a huge machine of industry and army defining itself as a peacekeeper police force throughout the world, faster and more efficient than U.N. forces to get involved anywhere but unable to pursue its objectives because it's moving (in or out) before thinking about consequences.
It worked well in 2nd world war because there was a defined side of enemies and a defined side of allies...now who knows!

Philippe Le Tiec, St andrews Guernsey, C.I.

Yes, America stay on in Iraq and fix the place. Problem is that this administration has been proven to be wholly incompetent to do the job. The president and his team should simply do the honorable thing and resign. Bring in someone who can really gather world support to help fix Iraq.

In parliamentary democracy Bush would have resigned a long time ago and someone from his party would have taken his place.

rajendra, Santa Cruz, Bolivia

I think the hitorian and Mr Bush trying to change the history of Veitnam. because what American did in Veitnam killing inocent people they saying that people were killed after American left Veitnam that is not right. Now more than 1000000 people been killed in Iraq in future historian going say those people were kiilled after American left Iraq. Powerful people or nations always
mess up things for others to sortout after.

Ian, Manchester, UK

So, William Shawcross, having first supported the unjustified, unnecessary and disastrous invasion of Iraq, now wants us to stay there because if we don't things will get worse. It's not that Shawcross is wrong: the consequences may indeed be as bad or worse than what happened in Indochina. Or they might not be, and given that his original analysis was wholly wrong, why should we listen to him now?

As Bruce Sharp put it back in April: 'Does a surge stand any realistic chance of making a difference? Do we believe our enemies to be idiots? They are brutal, despicable thugs... but are they fools? A temporary surge in troop strength can be rendered irrelevant if the enemy adopts a strategy that can be summarized in a mere five words: Lay low for a while.'

Bush's "surge" strategy is nothing but more of the same. Blind hope and blind faith: this is all we are offered. What good is remembering 1975 if you ignore the lessons of the previous 30 years?

Jon Latimer, Ferryside, Carmarthenshire

Stay in Iraq? This ain't the WW2 we're fighting, against a truly visible foe(s)! This is a manufactured war thought up by Neo-Cons in the White House who have manipulated a dumb, fundamentalist zealot, fired with retribution after 9/11 and with oil revenue for their oil business buddies at the back of their minds.

The real war was not in Iraq. There was no need to invade. Alas, it may well be now a hotbed of fundamentalism, due to a needless and botched intervention; thanks to the USA and good ol' Mr Blair, the flim-flam man of Downing Street. Why should we compound the error and waste more lives by staying?

Peter K Day, Doncaster, UK/ Yorkshire

America destroyed Vietnam with its chemical warfare and a hundred thousand massacres. Long after the war, U.S. continued to choke Vietnam through enforced economic isolation. We even threatened to punish India when India not long ago wanted to give a hundred water buffalo to Vietnam. Remember, we killed their water buffaloes., which take the place of tractors. American effort at causing suffering in Vietnam has been relentless, to prevent Vietnam from becoming an inspiration of resistance to invaders.

But U.S. lost the war in Vietnam anyway, and it will lose the war in Iraq. God is great.

Sabina Giordana, Chattanooga, TN

Of course, Vietnam is "orderly!" It's a Communist police state!
And they didn't defeat the U.S. --we left because we'd lost the poliitical will to fight and win that war.
Are you willing to have Islamist thugs like al-Sadr say that they defeated the British and that's why you left Iraq?
Staying in Iraq is defending Britain's national interest: better to fight the jihadis on the streets of Basra than those of Birmingham, don't you think?

Jennie Taliaferro, Dallas, TX/USA

"the Soviet Union destroyed communism all by itself"

Yes, indeed, just POOF into thin air, there was never any doubt...

Paul Kelley, Columbia, SC, USA

And what about the case of the prosecution against the Viet Minh? I mean before we were involved except as an ally of the French? WE justified our intervention because of their akready well-known methods . From the earliest days of that organization, it always employed Leninist methods against its opponents: French or Vietnamese. Fanaticism is indemnic to Leninism. What are regarded as abuses by our system, no matter how widely applied, is SOB to its adherents. I suppose that if the Viet Minh had taken over in 1955. Vietnam would be better off today. But for the same reason that Russia and China and Vietnam are better off today. Stalin, Mao, and Ho are in their graves and most of their acolytes with them.

John Schuh, Lake Dallas, USA

In both the cases of Vietnam and Iraq, in regards the horrible humanitarian consequences, the basic fact is that neither would ever have had to occur if the Americans had not initiated the bloodstorm with lies, self-delusion, and slogan based fantasies. For example, it is so wrong to see the Cambodian genocide of the Khmer Rouge as a result of our leaving Vietnam, because they never would have been able to sieze power absent our massive bombing and the "incursion" of 1970, which fatally undercut the Royal Cambodian government that sought so assiduously to stay neutral. And then of course, the Vietnamese were the ones that finally invaded Cambodia to end their rule. Not to forget that.

Tarquinis, Seattle, USA

Speaking of those who were killed after Vietnam fell, Steve says "The lesson from Vietnam is that a generation of blood does little but fertilize the soil."

I wonder if Steve has a family. Steve - how would you feel if someone fertilized your yard with the blood of your loved ones? Ought we not to care what happenned to millions when America betrayed them?

John says "Defeat of the Americans had no long term negative results" - Tell that to the women raped by pirates as they fled on a rickety boat. Tell that to families that lost their father or mother in a "re-education" camp. 5% of the populace fled the country.

John says "Sorry, a Western pull out from Iraq WILL lead to deaths, but that is NOT our problem"

Such callouse disregard for the sufferring of other people, people we have an obligation to defend and assist! I thought those on the left were supposed to defend the defenseless! It has been said that leftists love humanity, but do not care for people. How true!

KSM, Williamsburg, USA

Bush may be partly right! After withdrawal of Occidental forces from Vietnam there was a bloodbath, although not as bloody as predicted. During the thirty year effort to retain the Euro-american empire after wwII there was also a blood bath.It seems likely that had France not returned to French Indo China and the US not rushed to fill their shoes after Bien Diem Phu that both blood baths would have been avoided. While it is important to learn the lesson of history it is important to learn the right one. That there will be blood letting and mass immigration from Iraq seems certain. It is going on now, the lesson from Vietnam is that a generation of blood does little but fertilize the soil.

Steve, Lyme, USA

Mr. Shawcross seems to ignore the key point in his article about abandoning Iraq. That is if the U.S. had left the impotent Saddam administration alone in the first place then we wouldn't have the present dilemma he talks of. The same goes for the fifties and sixties era of communist hysteria. Note the Soviet Union destroyed communism all by itself without the need for a World War, nukes and millions of deaths. How close were we to that scenario and how long would Mr. Shawcross have been willing to sacrifice millions of American lives for that cause?

Martin, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

The USA should never have gotten involved in Iraq, but having got involved it has a duty to remain until there is a new state to replace the one they overthrew. All that a withdrawl now will show is that the lessons of the past have not been learnt.

Rachel, Chch, NZ

I agree with this story, however: My husband is a contractor in Iraq right now. He has talked with soldiers concerning their view on leaving.

They don't want to, but stated that the way rules of engagement are now, they are just sitting ducks. They feel they can do no good for anyone unless rules of engagement change. They stated that their only role there now is to just get shot at.

Patty Joss, Lake Jackson, TX/USA

Thank you, MR. William Shawcross, for saying a fact even at this time not many Western journalists want to touch: the true outcome of the Communist victory in Cambodia and in Vietnam. With time, the true face of the authoritarian rulers of communist Vietnam has revealed itself. The Vietnam war was indeed a war started by the rulers of North Vietnam, through their cadres who went underground in the South after the signing of the Geneva Accord in 1954 in order to instigate troubles in the Republic of Vietnam. A war that was waged to impose Communism on the whole country, even after the communist block collapsed on its own in Eastern Europe and the USSR. It has never been a "patriotic war of liberation to rid South Vietnam of imperialist US neocolonization" as the communist propaganda broadcast in Vietnam and around the world, then and now. The cost of the war is so staggering, even after the war ended in 1975. Who knows how many died escaping Communist Vietnam or in prisons.

TV Son, Singapore, Singapore

If you want to hear the case for the prosecution, check out the war museums in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). Look of the evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. US "advisors” asked the questions, Vietnamese torturers did the dirty work. Photographs of bodies exhumed still tied with wire; nails hammered through the knees, elbows and shoulders. The Americans always were the bad guys, Iraq has made it undeniable.

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Kanagawa

Dear Mr. Shawcross,

In the context of Vietnam, it is not enough to say that the consequences of leaving were terrible without also saying what could have been done avoid those consequences. This is particularly true if you also accept that a Northern victory was inevitable. What could the United States have done in 1975, which would have prevented either a Northern victory or the resulting horrors?

Similarly, what is your proposal for achieving a situation in Iraq in which an American withdrawal would not result in a civil war and the mass slaughter of innocents, which is sure to be followed by the subjugation (under particularly inhumane conditions) of any Sunnis who did not or could not flee to safety? It seems to me that arguing in favor of continued American sacrifices is justified if---and only if---there is some reasonable prospect that in a year, two years, five years or ten years it would be possible to withdraw and not have a civil war and terrible massacres follow.

I

Mitch Guthman, Los Angeles, California USA

Many of the replays of Vietnam that pretend to show that things would have been better if the US had stayed assume that the US also would have engaged the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. This assumption seems very strange, given the lack of political will to stay even in Vietnam. The likelihood is that Cambodia still would have had its killing fields, even had the US continued to defend South Vietnam.

What is more certain is that the US intervention in the region led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. The revisionists want to exculpate the US intervention for what it did cause, while pretending that had it just continued more, it would have undone that.

Russell, Austin, Texas

The best way to dissuade future administrations from this sort of opportunistic adventurism is for the United States to be thoroughly humiliated and discredited, most importantly at home, but also abroad. This will in effect save thousands of lives by forestalling this sort of behavior. It's called "The Vietnam Syndrome", the unwillingness to support agression against those unlucky enough to live in the rest of the world. What we do in the Third World is mostly evil, exploitative and wrong, and our defeat will give our victims some respite. I realize that the United States is too powerful to be thoroughly defeated, but even 20 years of inhibition will save countless lives. Losing wars can be a very good thing for nations; we don't worry about the Germans or Japanese anymore, do we? I know there are good aspects to our foreign policy, but it is mostly tainted by considerations of self-interest, and it does not outweigh, in my opinion, the harm we do. The important thing is to walk that fine line between a defeat that sours America on further agression and a defeat that provokes fantasies of revenge against "stabs in the back" and the like. That is why the current situation is desirable: a slow, grinding descent into futility, untainted by delusions of nobilty in defeat. It's for our own (and the rest of the world's) good, believe me.

Chris, New York City, USA

well, u forgot to mention that had i been a communist vietcong after many years of being hunted and oppressed by US and ARVN forces I would feel t is not a crime to make some of them pay for their betrayal- In all wars where you have a foreign army come in and support a faction over another there is going to be score settling- that should come as no surprise- Besides, appalling crimes are being committed right now in Iraq...

roberto, milano,

i agree with shawcross's articile 100%, we,uk/america, were wrong to get involved in iraq from the start. but now we cannot abandon the peaple of iraq, the consquences would be veitnaim 10 fold . my opinion , leaveing 1raq is a cop-out; learn from our previous conflicts and get our act together on how to deal with this problem, an example is my own country.

Lenny Deans, Waringstown, Northern Ireland

Can we restore our world class reputation only with continued military operations? Is the promulgation of death and violence the only option? Pol Pot would not have won power with out the societal disruptions we caused to the Cambodians. We were flailing against the massive anti-colonial tide of history then. Does anyone really think prolonging our military presence will succeed?

Mack, Silver Spring, USA

I have to say that I agree with the article entirely. I was against the innitial war, but now that we are there it would be immoral for us to just leave the country in turmoil.

It is indeed a horific situation, but we must prove that we have the stomach for a long and costly war. Otherwise we and future generations will have to pay the consiquences.

Andy Hedges, London, England

I have visited Vietnam and I found the country orderly and well run.Defeat of the Americans had no long term negative results.As far as I am concerned the various do-gooding wars in Yugoslavia, and Iraq called wars of choice are completely needless.Failure in Iraq will inevitably follow and hopefully will put an end to unnecessary interventions in the affairs of sovereign states.One thing is to defend our national interests, it is quite another to carry on the preent tragic farce.Sorry, a Western pull out from Iraq WILL lead to deaths, but that is NOT our problem.It will not mean that an Al Qaida attack on the UK or US will not be defeated- so long as we retain the means of protecting ourselves we should stop these foreign interventions.What the US does in not our business, Mr Brown get those British troops out of Iraq before the New Year.Period.

John Walker, London, UK

Local (Sunni) insurgents have rallied to the government! What planet is this guy on?

Falluja was an act of mass punishment in revenge for the killings of four Blackwater mercenaries by the same type of people the Americans are now arming to fight Al Qaeda. One day they will use these same weapons against the government they are supposedly supporting, and American troops who stand in their way.

Leaving Vietnam didn't lead to the domino effect, it saved hundreds of thousands of lives and the Vietnamese army in its turn ended the horror of the Khmer Rouge.

Perhaps Iraq is more akin to Cambodia and one day Iran will ride to it's rescue. All the conditions put in place by the fools who got us into this mess.

Iraq is already a living hell for it's people and Mr Shawcross has played his part in this from his armchair or otherwise.

Martyn Millard, Calvia, Mallorca

Surely, it would have been less costly to have allowed Saddam to continue killing Iraquis instead of having Al Qaeda do it. Might leaving Saddam in place only have delayed the Sunni/Shia interchanges that we see now? Who Knows? Bush faces the problem we all face. We have no context in which to examine the choices. Past great leaders all had decades of immersion in the issues they handled - Churchill and Germany, Reagan and the USSR, Lincoln and slavery, etc. Religious terrorism is an issue to which we are evolving answers as we go, so it is really hard to "get it right" the first crack out of the barrel.

That said, cut-and-run is not likely to be a successful long term national policy - nor is undercutting your leaders, while they are attempting to work out difficult problems.

R. Jones, Nashville, TN