So, Lori P of Williamsburg, VA: I enjoyed your comment about some troops having to pay the ultimate sacrifice in this cause. I invite you to Google "Marine, burn, wedding", to see that it may be some of them who died who were among the more fortunate. If we had stayed in Afghanistan and pursued Bin Laden, (of "he can run, but he can't hide' fame: do you remember who said that?) I would be in synch with this war. But when we invade a country on sketchy evidence (remember the guy (former Marine) on the UN inspection team after the first Gulf War who passed CIA info to the UN inspection team? Scott Ritter? The guy who pleaded in the run-up to this invasion not to invade, because he knew Iraq didn't have the weapons capability we were claiming they had? How we diverted special ops teams and translators from Afghanistan to Iraq and replaced them with special ops troops who spoke spanish. (well, the Moors did invade Spain). It takes special faith to still believe. I commend yours.

sam, alexandria, va

Frenchreader,

Have you ever wondered what if Iraq does become under control by another nation such as Iran? Iran and Venezuela will control roughly 50% of all oil. Have you heard that Venezuela has been taking over Oil company operations in that country? Yes, ask Shell, BP and the other manufacturing plants how they were able to stay involved. It was to turn their operation over to their leader, Chavez, and he would do what was best for his country with the oil and they could all get proceeds from the sales. Have you heard that they have been investing heavily in military purchases like F15's, F16's, bombs andgreatly increasing military enrollment. Some think he is using the oil money for these purchases? Do you think America would be very formidable when these forces are able to join. Think about a more unstable Iraq and think about what can happen if the groundwork for a stable Iraq is not put in place before we leave. I for one will retain my will.

Payne Walker, Shalimar, FL

The last thing that America needs just now,

Is a President that is prepared to say,

"in all honesty I think we got it wrong"

MAC, Dresden, UK

I see we have a 'Stab-in-the-back' myth beginning to forment here. America betrayed by 'communist' fifth column at home.

Don't forget, America is supposed to be a Christian nation, not a bombing-everyone-we-don't-like-the-look-of one.

There's a lot about the USA to admire. It's more right wing constituents are one of them.

Sean, Manchester, UK

It's easy to sit in judgment of my President, but I praise him for the job he has done of fighting terrorism, thwarting al Quada, and keeping attacks away from American soil. People who say Bush & Cheney WANTED this war are nuts. No president ever wants war. However, this president, thank God, realized after 9/11 that ultimate peace required a swift and strong response. Unfortunately, at times the ultimate sacrifice by the men and women defending freedom is also required. I agree with Ben G that our soldiers can win this war, and in my view, in order to truly support these troops, we have to support them to VICTORY. I honestly believe most Americans do support winning this war -- despite the vocal minority demandng we abandon the people in Iraq (as if appeasement ever stopped a terrorist!). PS - Keith T, if you are saying that a non-service member cannot lead America well, I guess that leaves out Hillary, Obama and Edwards too?

Lori P, Williamsburg, VA

Hooray Mark Rubin. Very well said. God help us all if more people don't come around to this way of thinking. If we can't survive as a nation all the things we each hold dear about our great country, and the freedoms it offers everyone, will be lost along with the battle. I don't remember who said these lines but someone once said "a great nation can only stand strong so long as the strength of the nation that made it strong can support it". Unfortunately, I see a country that I dearly love getting weaker and weaker by the episode. And sadly the enemies of our nation may be seeing the same weakness.

Payne Walker, Shalimar, FL

To call James Q. Wilson's unsupported personal opinion an argument is to give false impetus for us to debate a supposition that is wholly unsupported by facts, and this is why Wilson is a darling of conservatives everywhere.

Mr. Wilson presents no facts to support his personal opinion, which is that the American mass media is the bogeyman who subverts the American public's will to win. Then Mr. Wilson's shameless supporters demand that we treat his personal opinion as a hypothesis worthy of argumentative debate. But it isn't a worthy subject for debate because Mr. Wilson can marshall no facts to support his opinion. Mr. Wilson's desire that we submit an unsubstantiated personal opinion to debate as an argument will lead only to confusion and uncertainty, which is what Mr. Wilson and his supporters desire. As long as we ask ourselves the question "Where's the beef?" we can avoid this outrageous trap.

Tim Kavanagh, Salem, Massachusetts

There is nothing revisionist about the fact that America lost in Vietnam due to a lack of will to win. Once the leftist press decided that the war was lost, the American people were subjected to a ubiquitous drumbeat of defeatism which eventually sapped their will to win. After Tet in 68, the Viet Cong ceased to be a credible military force. The NVA was reeling from unsustainable losses. Yet the according to the press, the war had become a quagmire in which America could never prevail. The similarities to what we see in Iraq is inescapable.

David Westphal, Homestead, Florida

President Bush needs to stop being a puppet for the rich and remember what his job is, to represent the people of the United States and their best interests. The only reason we went into Iraq is so that VP Cheney and his Haliburton cronies and other rich people could get richer off the blood of our soldiers and the poor unfortunate Iraqi people who are being killed in droves daily. President Bush and VP Cheney in my opinion need to be impeached and then put in jail for murder along with their masters, the rich.

Dwight, Pensacola, Florida, USA

Speaking of revisionist history. John Warner supposed said the following accoding the not so curious auther of this article.

“The army generals would come in [and say], ‘Just send in another 5,000 or 10,000’,” Warner recalled. “You know, month after month. Another 10,000 or 15,000. They thought we could win it. We kept surging in those years. It didn’t work . . . You don’t forget something like that.”

During the high point of our military involvement in Veitnam, 1968 we had 536,100 boots on the ground, John Warner was in private practice as an attorney then. By the time he was appointed Under Secretary of the Navy in Feb. of 1969 we only had 475,200 serving in Veitnam, in 1970 troop strength was further reduced to 334,600.

Unless all the Generals he is talking about visted him at his law office he is lying. Unless of course he has confused a withdrawl with a surge.

rob, Kirkland, WA

"Can't the Americans simply understand that it is wrong from the beginning that the US waged war against either Vietnam or Iraq, and now it is almost the right time to check their ignorance and correct their "mistake"?

Zuo, Shanghai, China"

Time for the eye test.....how many fingers am I holding up?

Zeitgeist, Toledo ,

'Fine Backing' --> First of all Bush would have had to come correct about the war with Saddam in the first place (eg the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', 'Aiding and abeting Al Queda').
There was absolutely no reason to go into Iraq, as we can now see, Saddam was a stabilizing influcence that kept the 3 parts of Iraq together.
Witness what the Vice President said in 1994 about why George Bush Senior never wanted to invade Iraq.
Bush's view is that he had 'political capital' to spend and merely wanted to do what he wanted to do. And damn the advice that his advisors gave him, as well as what his own father said. (Bush Senior) Why did you not invade Iraq? 'Because there is NO EXIT PLAN.

Gerald, San Diego,, California

It is clear from the history of the last half of the 20th Century - revisionist or not - that America is not very successful at winning conventional wars. Our greatest success at conflict resolution has been when we seek and achieve alternative approaches to direct battle; e.g. Kennedy with the Cuban Missile Crisis and REAGAN in defeating the Soviet Union. President Bush refused to explore such options in the run up to the Iraq war and America now is paying a far more dangerous, expensive and failed price.

Bruce Jett, Orinda, CA

If Dick Nixon had picked Dick Cheney as his running mate
in 1968, the USA would still be in Vietnam; they would still
be in power - Nixon would only be 94 : wiretapping would
have obviated the need for Watergate; and Saddam Hussein
would have known to invite in the USA..

John Dutton, Terago, NSW. Australia

It seems that there are still a lot of people that follows Chomsky's theories about war for oil, etc.. Oil is not the future, everybody understand that who will be the first to not depend on oil anymore, will rule the international economy. It is not a war for oil, it's a war to give a new shape to the middle east: actually, a stable shape congenial to the Americans.

Stefano, Varese, Italy

Johnson did not want to go into Vietnam; he wanted to fight the war
on poverty but felt he would look weak if he didn't act. George W. Bush,
on the other hand, had a father-son obsession and was determined to
go to Iraq even before 9/11 to finish his father's unfinished job. This is
all a part of the dry drunk syndrome, his immature logic.

Katherine Van Wormer Professor of Social Work University of Northern Iowa www.katherinevanwormer.com, cedar falls, Iowa, USA

No weapons of mass distruction? No links to Osama? Nope. Now what are we fighting for in Iraq, again? Demacracy? Hummm..... How likely is that? Ooops! Lots of oil under Iraq. Anybody happy with gas prices? Getting hot, isn't it? Fossil fuels = CO2 = g-warming = ??? We're fighting the wrong war. 911 was a fluke because we were oblivious. Now we're acting like cowards, afraid of every shadow; starting fruitless wars. The day of the idealog has passed. Time to start looking at the facts in a rational way before making policy. Terrorists won't be the end of you. It'll be cancer or heart disease. Wake up and look at the numbers! See ya!

mike, O'fallon, mo

Bush is interested in the other side of Vietnam history, but he's also interested in the "other side" of global warming and the "other side" of evolution. He'd rather have an answer that addresses what he wants to believe than an answer that makes any kind of objective sense, and he'll spare no effort in finding the politically correct answer he wants to hear.

Tom Destry, Farmington, Maine, USA

Everyone tells America how to fight the war why dont they tell the terrorist stop hiding behind innocent people. All these people criticize America lets see who they cry too when Iran decides they want to invade their country. They wont cry to China for help they will cry to America so we can die for their country again. How fast they turn their back on us after we died so they can be free and asked for nothing in return.

Gonzales, chicago, United States

It is always an interesting moment when a European lectures America about the effects of War. They should know, they were at the center of the two biggest wars in history. Now that they have spent their ability to kill each other somehow they have forgotten as well that many, if not most of the worlds problems have been caused by their colonization. Iraq is not a country, it is a division of land created by the British. Perhaps our good European Allies of years past would do well to remember who caused the problem and try to find a real solution to Islamic Terrorism.

Geoffrey B Slater, Samara, Russia

Ike said get out of Korea. It worked. Bush says stay in Iraq, it won't work. Ike fought, Bush didn't

Millington, Millington, NJ

I am 70 years old, so I have my own keen memories about WWII, and it is perhaps THAT one that to which we should be comparing the 'pre-emptive' war in Iraq. It was a war against nations, where it was clear who and what the enemy was, and where to strike. This one is not!
In WWII, we were fighting against three right-wing movements gone radical as they tried to rule the world through military invasions - Germany, Japan, and Italy. And, I wondered even then about the culpability in it of the people who gave their support to those leaders, for that is necessary in a war of attrition such as that was. For us, it was a war NOT to be ruled by a few people who use the iron fist to determine the very quality of life for everyone in the world. That is the part that we are revisiting today - is ours to be democracy, or a military dictatorship led by a privileged few?
And, as I look at 'political' positions today - we have become the new German people, you and I. Hitler taught - a lot!

Barbara Jarman, Houston, USA, Texas

Nothing can be more contrast between the starting and ending of the Vietnam war, and those of Iraq war. In Vietnam, the starting was right; the ending was wrong. It is the reverse in Iraq. If not for the American involvement, China would have trampeded Vietnam after the French withdrawal in 1954 by one way or another, would have spread its communist doctrine by force all over South East Asia. The US entered Vietnam with a perfectly good cause. But in 1974-1975, all it took was about $1 billion a year, no American lives lost (all had come home in 1973), but the Democrat Congress cruelly cut all aids to South Vietnam, resulting in massive massacres, tragic boat people phenomenom, killing fields, etc. In Iraq, Saddam was "containable" and anti-terrorist, never a threat to the region. Now, the withdrawl can only be right because nothing can be more wrong. With the US presence or not, Iraq is a killing field, and will be so for centuries to come, thanks to George W. Bush.

Minh, Boston, USA

To me it seems that Americans in general and American Generals especially do not realize that all wars fought by the USA are overseas wars where the USA is always in exactly the same position as England was in April 1775.
The other parties to those wars are on their own landmass whereas the USA has to supply from overseas.
Even in the age of airplanes and aircraftcarriers you can march more people on land in a day from A to B than you can ship in a month unless of course you command "the biggest armada the world has ever seen".

zyclop, AVONDALE, USA, AZ

Can anyone please tell me why Americans (Bush n co.) are so concerned about the people of Iraq and not the people of sudan? Can someone please tell me why the best way to bring peace is with fire power n death and not dialog? So fighting these terrorists in iraq is the best option so americans dont have to fight them in america i.e its ok aslong as your not the ones dieing. I think America needs to sort out its own problems before going to sort problems of other countries.i.e New orleans needed help but help was in iraq, the current floods and helps still in iraq. And who exactly are you guys fightin? Iraqis (sectarian) or alquaeda or just anyone who looks like an arab? How do u guys power all those heavy machines of distruction? Do they run on piss or are they solar powered? Using iraqs resource to destroy it n kill its people. Can we all please lookup the meaning of genocide. Who is keepin a toll on iraqi deaths? Sort out your own priorities then you can think of others. WAKE UP PPL

Adegbola, London, UK

In bringing democracy to Iraq and "saving" the Iraqi people, Bush and his cronies have killed more civilians than Saddam Hussein ever did.

Jeffers, Maidstone, UK

Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is not facing a united enemy that threatens to consume it once America pulls out. More likely the civil war would escalate and the worse possible outcomes would be Iran's involvement and a resurfacing of the Taliban. Pulling out would definitely have a big impact, at least initially, on the whole country. But once a faction takes over matters should settle down to at least pre-invasion levels. Rather the biggest threat is external involvement and America should focus more on pacifying the region diplomatically than invoking unilateral military actions.

Tian, Birmingham, Alabama

To focus on the Vietnam analogy alone is to miss the point of the speech. It is often said if you ignore history you are doomed to repeat it. That goes for both positive and negative lessons. Why not take the lesson from both points in history and take what worked for Japan and learn from the mistakes made in Vietnam. The mistake in Vietnam was to leave before the job was done and leaving our allies holding the bag before they where ready. The success in Japan was to stick with it even though it was thought to be impossible. When you turn your back on your allies and ignore American interest you are only strengthening your enemies. One main point to consider is why is a political party so invested in their own country’s defeat. It would be a better political position to unite no matter the party and just debate on the usual social issues. Right now the perception is the Democrat Party wins the election as long as America looses the war. That's like betting against your home team.

Luke Williams, Anchorage, Alaska / USA

Minor point for Dick, and I am not a Democrat or Republican or even an American: The "killing fields" you talk about were in Cambodia and the ones who stopped them were the (North) Vietnamese - by invading Cambodia after the American withdrawal. And for that they were made an international pariah for years. What did the freedom-loving western world (and non-western world) do during that period? Nothing, just like Rwanda, and now Darfur.

JDesai, Bangalore, India

it is all good to call in the Gipper, or throw out "when the going gets tough" . The question is why does America have to win? and What are you winning? Without he vision or clarity on these questions how do you know you have one. You can say that Americans are spineless, but If some bully asks you to compete in a contest to see who can smash their face against a wall the most times do you call in the Gipper.

ghgh, vancouver, B.C

It is a sad time for America that we have lost the will to win a war whether we have declared it or it was imposed upon us. That is the lesson from Vietnam and Korea. I hate war! I HATE WAR!!! But I hate being told how to live even worse and that is exactly what is going to happen to this nation if we continue on this downward slide. We as a nation have to choose whether we will fight to the end, win or lose, or give up and go home and wait for the next time hoping nothing ever happens. There are groups of people out there in the world who hate us and our way of life and would like nothing better than to see us fall.

Tom French, Florence, Kentucky

Revisionists ignore that the Soth Vietnamese themselves lost the war as they gave up!

skeptic griggsy, lamberthml@comcast.net, Augusta

Toppling Saddam Hussein and the Baa'th Party in Iraq was a noble casue. But like everything the Bush administration does, seems to be ill thought out and simplistic in nature. OK, mistakes have been made, and real boo-boos at that -- such as that 'Dodgy Dossier'.

The American Military has stated thatey they are not in the business of... "Hearts and Minds" in Iraq or Afghainistan, but there to kill 'Bad Guys!'. That is the problem, how do you differentiate between the 'Good Guys & Bad Guys!'.

The term 'collateral damage' is bandied around so freely by the Co-alition forces in both countries. But who is it who are getting it in the neck? The ordinary Iraqi and Afghani citizens of course. If History teaches anything, then the Co-alition Forces will never 'subdue' either country in a conventional sense --. 'Democracy' has always been tenuous in both countries. As for Bush raisng the spectre of 'Vietnam' -- thats rich coming from an 'alledged' draft dodger!!

B Clarke, Chelmsford, England

The back-stabbing ploy by the "home front" used by GWB is an old Nazi propaganda tool
It was invented by German WWI generals and perfected by the Nazi propaganda. Later the right wing of the GOP used it to attack the Yalta agreement and deflect responsibility for the Vietnam War as shown in this readable 2006 analysis by Kevin Baker in Harper's Magazine "Stabbed in the back! The past and future of a right-wing myth".
http://harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080
"Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America."

Hans Wall, Queretaro, Mexico

Wll said Jason, Santa Fe, you have hit the nail on the head. Bush wants the oil, Blair wanted his snout in the trough as well.

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

Laudable analyses and comments from from Marc of Hartford, South Florida Jack of Miami Beach and Sean of Berkeley CA all in the States. We have a moral duty to stand up for humanity otherwise we may one day be at the receiving end of wars created by a naive leaders

K Urban, London, UK

Imagine that a coalition of willing nations decided that Dubya Bush was a dangerous madman armed with WMDs, noted that his government had used WMDs in the past, and concluded he was about to use WMDs again. Imagine they invaded America, deposed Dubya, tried and executed him, and all the while told us how they were really trying to create true democracy--under *THEIR* terms.

Now if you believe Americans would fight fiercely and absolutely against such an invasion, would bear any cost and endure anything to drive the invaders out, then why do you think the Iraqis (or the Vietnamese before them) won't do the same thing? The Vietnamese certainly showed an enormous willingness to fight and endure defeats, and many, probably most, Iraqis certainly seem to acting in a similar way. I prefer to believe we would fight, and I'm not at all surprised that they would fight, too.

If you don't believe we would fight for our freedoms, then you must believe we've already lost them.

Shannon Jacobs, Kawasaki, Japan

Revisionist historians say the American people lost the will to win in Vietnam. But it would be more accurate to acknowledge that was after a decade of war, 60,000 dead or missing Americans and the devastation of Vietnam. It was less a lack of will than the realization by the American people that the price of the war was too high. The revisionist historians are resurrecting that old canard "Stabbed in the Back" so beloved by Adolph Hitler. Jane Fonda no more caused the defeat of the US than the Jews caused the defeat of Imperial Germany.

Jerry Rife, San Diego, CA

The question lurking here is "what does 'win' mean?" In Vietnam it meant allowing the south to remain independent from the north.This goal was defeated by the faiure of the government and army in the south to defeat its own insurgents as well as the north. In iraq the goal is less clear.despite (or because) of repeated restatements of intent and objectives .The presence of at least three internicine opponents which share a common distaste for the US and a ineffectual national government render a miltary triumph unlikey and probably worthless since it would yield an ungovernable mass as the fruits of victory.Iraq is not Vietnam..it is much worse.It is the product of stupid arrogance and inept performance and will haunt the US for decades.

t mulhern, becket, ma/usa

As usual and echoing Vietnam, the debate is about surges, troop levels, strategy, policy and results. Never on whether you should be there in the first place....that question cannot/must not be allowed to enter the public domain, because it means questioning almost 60 years of US foreign policy doctrine...

Jaco, Singapore,

I'm curious as to how many of the "posters" to this article were
even born, or were adults during the sixties and seventies.
Many folks come to an opinion through the words and printed
matter of national and international opinionated media.
The "Bush-haters" apparently preferred the previous President,
who declared virtually the same solution as President Bush.
Ah, but memories are so short, and politics are of the utmost
importance.

betty armacost, Westminster, Md.

Revisionist History is the nice term for lies. Every thing Bush has said about Vietnam is wrong. First Cabodian Pol Pot was financed and armed by the US. When the "killing fields" were going on the US did nothing just like they did by arming Sadam Hussein and finacing his genocide on the Kurds. It was the North Vietnamese army who when they got through with the US invasion went into Cambodia to end Pol Pot. As for the "boat people", what about the 1,000,000 Iraqi refugees fleeing Bush's personal war? Lastly, as for reeducation camps, Abu Gharib anyone? Lies, Lies and more Lies. The Corporate media needs to STOP telling lies about and supporting this war!

Kate Cooper, San Francisco,

...the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot rose to power because America stayed too long, not because they left ... and oh, by the way, the Vietnamese Communists finally crushed Pol Pot in 1979 ... God Americans are soooo poitically stupid. "Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." Harry S. Truman

Robert Parker, Roseland, VA

who was it that said, the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn anything from history. Each war, each campaign, each battle, has elements that anyone on any side can seize on and say, "if this had been different...." So we have stumbled into a war for the wrong reasons, with a short sighted objective, no plan after 'victory', and insufficient understanding of the underlying political and religious dynamics that were being brutally suppressed by a strongman. We are told that with the surge, we are making progress towards providing the security the Iraqi government needs to resolve those dymanics. They are not doing so. We supply training and weapons and billions in cash, a substantial amount of which seems to be funding efforts against our own troops. When you find that you are digging yourself deeper into a hole, the first thing you must do is put the shovel down. We seem to be trying to get a bigger shovel.

sam, alexandria, va

Our President's imbalanced and arrogant policies abroad have been witnessed by all.
Now, in more ways than ever, he'll leave office with egg on his face.
Blow back.
Yet, he'll have no shame.

Mike, Providence, R.I

Frenchreader, I will assume the lies you are referencing are the lies that there would be WMD's in Iraq, correct? It seems as though you and lot's of other people have already forgotten why we went in in the first place. It was not because we said he had WMD's, it was because he wouldn't tell us or the U.N. what he had done with his previously disclosed WMD's. Remember this guy, Saddam, and all the sanctions we tried to enforce, he had just a few years earlier invaded a little known place called Kuwait. Documents discovered after we invaded Iraq showed that part of his plan after taking over Kuwait he would move further South and take over some 1400 oil wells in Saudi. I think that would have put him in control of something like 35% of the world's oil. When you have 35% control of the world's oil you get new friends like Hugo Chavez. Do you or anyone else find the relationship between Chavez and Iran odd? Imagine the two of them working together to bring America to her knees

Payne Walker, Shalimar, FL

LOL! The Viet Nam War was lost before American's troops got there. The mentality in the Pentagon sealed the fate. Too bad it is the same mentality that dominates today's Pentagon. While it is true that we could have won both wars it is predicated on the will to destroy this country or everything in its path. We could have won in Viet Nam if we had simply gone in there with 1 billion soldiers. The same is true in Iraq. Ho Chi Mihn could have defeated the US if he had used 1 billion troops. The same can be said for Saddam. Its not about the will to win, its about the cost of destroying the youth of a nation in worthless adventures that may seem worthwhile on the surface but are actually in play for other purposes as we always seem to find out years later. Today, like before, the war is being run by accountants not fighting generals. If we really wanted to win in Iraq we could have done so long ago but then contractors that fund politicians wouldn't be rolling in clover.

J Galt, Ft Lauderdale, Florida

Why would historians be authorities here?

And even if you thought historians appropriate guides, which ones would you consult?

My God, you can read two entirely different stories of something like the war in Vietnam.

As for Bush, I'd be willing to bet he's never read a serious history book on any subject.

This whole business is just a dirty game with the lives of others.

The mess America left behind in Vietnam, and Cambodia, is America's responsibility, and that includes the creation of the conditions that created the Killing Fields.

The real question here should be: When is this military Frankenstein going to learn that its bombings and invasions do nothing but harm in the world?

Its great power has never been used once since WWII for a worthwhile purpose, although it has been used many times.

JOHN CHUCKMAN, Toronto, Canada

o(h) leary.. Bush and Hitler/Nazi comparison, original and well thought out. Where are the Nazi references to current political leaders on your side of the pond? Adolf pursued world domination on many fronts, simultaneously and against a multinational force. I guess you are right, the Vietnam and Iraq wars are almost exactly the same as WWII. Oh, and Bush is Hitler. got it. Now, if you only had an opinion about what should happen next.. Just kidding! Stick to what your kind seem to do best and repeat negative 'catch-phrase' references and make-believe statistics. Self-governance by the Iraqi people ( western democratic style, or other) is the goal. Complete and sudden withdrawl is not the answer (just guessing, but that is your uh.. solution, is it not?) You never did mention if Vietnam ended up better or worse. One would think with the "no end to the courageous Vietnamese resistance" that they should be a super-power filled with prosperous citizens by now. do your history.

seamus Mc Wishiwashi, Enniskerry, Ireland

Bush keeps pushing the envelope. This is insanity like not forgiving the Vietnamese submitting to our will. We are living in age of insanity that this would even be seriously discussed.

Shaun , Boston,

I say let's find out once and for all what happens if we stay in a war indefinitely. Otherwise we would never know. The troops are expendable anyways. So lets support Bush and lets give future war 2 precedents - Vietnam and Iraq, one in which we retreated and one in which we did not. Oil or no oil, this sounds like an awesome experiment. And we could apply what we learn in the Iran Liberation war in 2010.

Dave, Newport Beach, CA

How come so many Americans always comment in the Times? Don't they have their own newspapers to read?

Boston T, Boston, U of K

I' m 65 years old. I was a Marine Lt. in Viet Nam. After two tours of duty there, I left twith the rank of Captain (O3). There are a few things I'd like to say:
1. We were winning in Nam and would have completed the job had it not been for cowardly U.S. leftists and our defeatist major news media.
2. Liberals are immune to rational arguments. No matter what the dictates of common sense, logic or, the clear examples of history, they irrationally cling to their left-wing religious dogma. Don't bore them with logic or facts, they just don't give a damn if it's not part of their distorted view of reality.
3. Liberals are not anti religion. Their left-wing dogma is their religion and they will not suffer common sense to convince them of anything other than what they already believe.
4. No, I'm not either Christian or Jewish... As a matter of fact, I I suppose the best way to describe me is a hopeful agnostic. I hope I'm wrong. I hope there is a god but, who knows?
RJ (Arizona)

Richard J, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Democracies should have civilian control over the military. The electorate decides the policy, while the armed forces are just employees, doing what they are told.

But lately in America, some have been suggesting that military people should be the ones making decisions, while civilians should comply.

It is implied for example that the opinion of an occupation soldier in Iraq is worth more than the opinion of a U.S. civilian at home.

Someone just said on a Sunday talk show today, that one reason against withdrawal from Iraq was that the soldiers would be really upset.

Sibylle, Belgrade,

In this kind of conflict, even the ennemy of your ennemy is not your friend. You actually have no friend. So you can win all the battles but you’ll never win the war.

frada37, La Membrolle, France

Yeah sure, and the lesson from 'Deep Throat' is how to keep your chastity.

Krish, Sydney, Australia

We are making progress. It may be baby steps but it is still progress. Lets stay the current course as General Petraeus will suggest and see where it takes us. I am the mother of a soldier I do have a stake in this war. Idon't like our soldiers losing their lives. But what I don't like more than that is walking awayand knowing the ones that have died so far dies for nothng.

Cindy Jnes, Greenfield, Indiana

It's easy in hindsight.

Iraq was invaded as part of the war on terror. It is clear that terrorists prosper in nations that are either governed by radical clergy or by politicians beholding to radical clergy. Iraq was ruled by a despot dictator acting out of self interest. Absolute power.

While he did not act in the best interest of all Iraqi's he was not responsible for supporting international terrorists.

Gadaffi is a case in point. His leadership supported international terrorism. The US tried to take him out with an air raid. Many of his family members were killed, but he was missed. This has proven to be a great result, Libya rarely now makes the newspapers, and certainly does not support international terrorist organizations, and cause no problems for the West.

Learning lessons from the past is paramount, but when it comes to Iraq the Libya lesson should have been applied, not the Vietnam lesson.

Glenn, Melbourne, Australia

The USA was not defeated militarily in Vietnam, but the difference between not losing and winning is a big one.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, the US and Britain were suckered into war by religious fanatics. The neo-cons and ayatollahs are fighting a proxy war which would put human civilisation back 500 years if either side were allowed to win.
Neither side is going to win, but a lot of people will die before we realise that and stop the madness. The only question is, how many?

Trevor Mason, Hassocks, UK

How many need to die to support the delusions of this history deprived president? The revisionists are the ones who refuse to learn the lessons; instead they seek to rationalize their mistakes, in hopes of bamboozling other history deprived persons. In the 21st century, dumbing down starts at the top.

Joe, Grand Ledge, Michigan

"A humanitarian disaster on this scale would cast a pall over Bush’s decision to invade Iraq."

This seems to imply that no such pall exists now. That's hardly the case. The US invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, targeting the wrong nation, launched for the wrong reasons, with too few troops and incompetent leadership, and later justified as providing "freedom" for which the Iraqis themselves seem utterly unwilling to give up their own sectarian grievances. Even if security was now restored; even if the Iraqis suddenly turn away from violence and towards freedom; even if a new US commander-in-chief launches a mor successful military campaign (the evidence is against the incompetent Bush ever doing so) -- even if all this transpires, the pall over the invasion and occupation is and always will be there. It is that bad.

Eric Scott, Bloomington, California, USA

Can't the Americans simply understand that it is wrong from the beginning that the US waged war against either Vietnam or Iraq, and now it is almost the right time to check their ignorance and correct their "mistake"?

Zuo, Shanghai, China

Anti Americans ,comunists and The left own the vietnam war.They are the ones who protested the vietnam war who reported what a noble people they were who took fotos with their tanks and who called for retreat and who turned a blind eye to the atrocities the comunist commited and rejoiced when their villains the vietnamese people and troops surrendered to vietcon and media.This is the real comparison. As then as now most people dont hate the radicals in iraq nor the comunist in vietnam. They hate the so called Neocons or rightwing christians.The leftist elites specially in the media and entertaiment(hollywood) have framed it this way.Bush is no roosevelt because the europeans are not fighting for their freedoms today. The vietnamese south koreans and Iraqis will always have to suffer their snobby leftist point of view with their only solution being to abandon their fate nomatter the cost.Bush stands in their way and I hope he keeps it that way.

tyrone P, fairview,nj, USA,NJ

The generation of Americans that "saved the world" during WWII, showed us what was necessary to win any war. Turn the country's manufacturing facilities toward full war production; ration all commodities for war efforts and troops; call all able bodies to uniform; ask all citizens to truly sacrifice for the common good and then start killing until there is no enemy left alive or until they surrender, unconditionally. Today, we enlist immigrants, persons in need and convicted felons to fight this war for us so that we can go shopping. Why? Because we are a Christian Nation, of course.

Patrick Byron Matheny, Flagler Beach, FL

Josef Goebbels "big lie" theory which he carried out in practice on the German people is the exact same big lie theory carried out today by the Bush Government. See how the might have fallen though bit by bit when the pressure comes on, Tenet, Blair, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz and so on. Probably 66 percent of the American people and 90 per cent of the rest of the world have seen through the lies but the meglomaniacs push on. One more battle, one more division, one more month, the new weapons, one more rosy report from the front - eventually Adolf realised there were no more troops, no more chances and that the German people were not worthy of his genius and fortitude. Vietnam was lost on two fronts - no end to the courageous Vietnamese resistance and corruption of the American body politic and the American Constitution.

Michael O´Leary, Dublin, Ireland

"Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp."

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/18/192250.shtml

North Vietnamese General Giap was, evidently, one of the earliest of the neo-con "revisionist historians". Who knew?

Bud Hovell, Montgomery, Alabama, USA

The most apt parallel between the vietnam war and the Iraq war is that in both cases the privileged classes in the United States decided not to participate.

the chicken hawks of Vietnam and Iraq are the same species.

Jack swallows, san juan capistrano, USA, ca.

I am amazed that after so many centuries of wars and misery I live in the society that still does NOT understand the reasons for the human struggle. All of the above comments represent the mentality that hasn't changed in thousands of years. It is time to grow up.

Jacek Kulikowski, Los Angeles, California

Jim Jones, Tampa, Florida USA
"It is shameful to see how many Americans suffer from selective amnesia. Would America be engaged in this war if it weren't for the attacks on Sept. 11th?"

Jim, did you drink the Kool-aid??? You must have amnesia if you can't recall that the war in Iraq really has NOTHING to do with the attacks of September 11th! Can you say AFGHANISTAN AND BIN LADEN??? When you wake up (if you do) from your Kool-aid maybe you'll remember who ordered the attacks of 9/11!

james larkin, weymouth, MA
"Today, it seems, we've lost the national will to protect the rights won in our Revolution."

THANK YOU Mr. Larkin!!! This country was founded on DISSENT and to call dissenters "traitors" is completely against what (as a nation) we're supposed to stand for! Muzzle dissent and you have dictatorships and totalitarianism, NOT democracy!
Purple Truth

Leonora, Arlington, USA

American troops should not leave Iraq now.Vietnam is a different story.No country want to be colonised.Americans were perceived to be that.Besides the youth of America at that time was in drugs and were very liberated in their thinking.They lacked patriotism.They wanted their leaders to leave them alone.It was a time when the country had no sense of direction.
Now the scene is different.America had entered the region physically and morally to support Democracy.No matter what religion the region holds , the people want freedom.The reason that oil is one factor hold no ground.The world is leaving oil and going towards other energy.Here it is the fight of the same people.If America leaves under a good pretext that may be supported by the world, it is leaving a region which will snowball into catastrophe.America must think the best solution to save that nation(Iraq).Perhaps the UN can play a part but in any eventuality the major forces should come from US..Israel will be secure.

isahbiazhar, kuala terengganu.Terengganu, Malaysia

One of the fundamental elements of History is to learn from the past, and its mistakes, and try to correct the present situation for fear of repeating these errors in the future. If Bush is looking to Vietnam as a justification for staying in Iraq, then I can wholeheartedly understand where he is coming from. There is a valid analogy. Primarily, America sees terrorists as their arch enemy, just as the communists back in the cold war epoch, and similarly, both Vietnam and Iraq have fallen again to the sweep of negative public opinion. However, if Bush is to compare Iraq to Vietnam, he must also learn from the major mistakes actioned by American forces. America's failure to win over the hearts and minds of the people undermined its success colossally. Now, it is time for Bush to win over the citizens of Iraq, for him to sympathize and empathize with their lives at the moment, and the dangers they face, but also to promise them a better future.

Gemma Knott, London,

i think that the situation in iraq now is more complicated than vietnam. i believe thet the similarities between the two cases are very few. while in vietnam there was one front resisting the americans and their vietnami allies, in iraq now ther is more than one resistance and tens of militias that fight not only against the americans but also against each other. moreover, in vietnami case there was one side that supportted the resistance which is china. in iraq now there was more than one side that back the different groups, on the one hand we have syria, saudi arabia and other countries that contribue in arming the sunni groups, on the other hand we have iran which equipped the shiit militia with weapons. so if the americans want to withdraw from iraq safely they will face the big question "what is the side that we should speak with to guarantee a safe and clean drawback". in fact the americans can not gurantee a peacefull pull out of their troops unlike in vietnam.

mohammed, oujda, morocco

The Vietnam war was originally against communism. From about 1969 it was agains Soviet-supporten Vietnamese communisme that Beijing wanted less and less on its southern frontier. From 1971 and 1972 USA was ready to recognise Chinesee interests in "Indochina," which covered the former French colony of that name. The main battlefield was after that between Soviet and Chinese proxies; the chances of the American ones to survive disappeared because US interest was best served by the policy of not being there. It is the main history of that war. May-be the US historians too will find it some day in their far future.

Penttijuhani , Copenhagen, Denmark

Just glad that all you surrender monkeys were not alive and lucid in the late 1930's and early 40's. We would have surrendered after Pearl Harbor. Sad how so many of the grandchildren of the courageous grew up to be spineless cowards.

Lee Cary, Mayhill, New Mexico, USA

I'd be interested in hearing Robert McNamara's views on this situation in Iraq and George Bush's points around the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq.

Maybe someone should seek him out.

Paul, Sydney, Australia

If Bush is so adamant about revisiting our defeat in Vietnam perhaps he can start by clearing up his own record of avoidance. From one who was there, we lost the war in Vietnam because we tried to enforce our standards and belief on a country led by a corrupt, minority government in South Vietnam. We betrayed Ho Chi Mihn (who for years had been waging a war of independence against the French) promising him a free Vietnam after the Japanese were defeated. We, of course betrayed him, and let the French back in. The VN War was one of independence, just like ours in 1776. They chose communism because of the source of weapons and support. The Vietnamess invaded and stopped the genocide in Cambodia, then left. When I first served there, we had 65,000 troops and the tenfold surge to some 650,000 did nothing to "win" the war. The military leaders even wanted to nuke North Vietnam in order to "win". Americans cannot even accept a tie in soccer match, only a "win" is legit. Sad but true.

Paul J. Pekar, Panicale-Casalini , Italy

It is a God-less America that throws up its hands in surrender to the enemy that simply prints a motto on its coins and greenbucks "IN GOD WE TRUST' that mean nothing at all.

Richfield A. Cudal, West Palm Beach, Florida

If Americans believe this utter fantasy that Bush is spinning, then all is lost. The US is doomed to self-destruct. I am sitting here in a foreign country watching all this with disbelief. I couldn't believe that Bush was elected in the first place. How can people in the US be so gullible as to believe the lies and propaganda that these people are producing? Get these people out of office before it is too late and prosecute those who have done illegal acts. No amnesty for political crimes, especially war profiteering. Start at the top and work down. No amnesty!

Ron Tuttle, Malaga, Spain

In quoting Bui Tin, Ms. Baxter neglected when he was asked "How could the Americans have won the war?" He answered, "Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war."

Asked "What else?" He replied, "We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect."

Another interview of General Nguyen Duc Huy appearing in the October 2005 edition of Vietnam magazine, the question "After the war, Giap told a group of Western reporters that Communist losses in the Tet Offensive were so devastating that if the Americans had kept up that level of military pressure much longer North Vietnam would have been forced to negotiate a peace on American terms. Do you agree?" was asked. General Huy replied, If the American army had fought some more, had continued, I don't know. Maybe. I can't say what would have happened.

Lew Waters, Vancouver, Wa./USA

I am truly looking forward to the day that Radio Baghdad will start playing White Christmas. So America can put this horrible mess behind us.

Harter Jackson , Springfield, Ohio U.S.A

Revisionist history? No, I don’t think so. Americans have always understood that the Vietnam War was lost from within. It was not lost on the field of battle against the enemy. Military annalists, soldiers and commanders that were there know they were never given the freedom to wage total war as we did in WWII. It was a controlled, politicized police action that was doomed for the way in which it was carried out. Bush is right in saying that. It is nothing new.

However, America made the same mistakes in Iraq as we did in Vietnam, so history repeated itself of course. That is the lesson. The President’s enlightenment is too little too late. If he would have understood from the beginning what he is saying now we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Beck, Illinois, USA

Whether the US "wins" or "loses" in Iraq is completely irrelevent, just as it was in Vietnam. What is important is that the US invaded and completely destroyed another country based on the flimsiest of pretexts. The US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in both Vietnam and Iraq. The fact that George Bush is lecturing the American people on the importance of sticking to his plan for destruction and murder is absolutely disgusting. Were there any justice in the world Bush and his entire administration would stand trial in Iraq for the murders he and his henchmen committed.

CTurner, Durham, USA

It is a universal moral principle that peace can not be built on the foundation of lies and deception. It was lies and deception that got us into Vietnam (the Gulf of Tonkin resolution) and it was the lies and deceptions about WMD that got us into Iraq. The simple fact is that the majority of Iraqis do not want us in their country. They do not trust us. The majority of Iraqis want to be in control of their own oil. Something which our own media fails to explain. Why should they trust liars and thieves?

Look what we did to overthrow the democratically elected Mossadeq of Iran in 1953 when he wanted to nationalize the oil fields of Iran. We secretly overthrew him and installed the Shah of Iran who signed a 25 yr. agreement with a consortium of western oil companies in 1954. When the Shah said he would not renew this agreement in 1979, he was driven out of his country in January of 1979. Iraq is about oil and big oil's attempt to secure control of the oil of Iraq.

Thomas, Minneapolis,

Let's try to remember that it was the Vietnamese people who drove us out of their country, not terrorists.

Pedro Cruz, Hackensack, New Jersey

Arguing war with pacifists is a pointless exercise.

Let the adults handle this.

Victor, Suwanee , Georgia

Article author Sarah Baxter uses the word "revisionist," it seems, to refer to an attempt to reevaluate and restate the past based on newly acquired standards. Not in the way that some critics use the term to refer to distorted history.

The Vietnam War was lost in the US. Those of us sent to Vietnam knew the politicans gave up on the war after Tet of '68--an overwhelming defeat for the North Vietnamese and VC. As in Korea, we had the means for victory, but not the will.

(Note to Martha in Wyoming: Most of us who went to Vietnam could care less what Bush did with his military career. iraq is not about Vietnam, Martha. Grow up.)

(Note to all you Bush-haters: What are you going to hate after January 20, 2009?)

Lee Cary, Mayhill, New Mexico, USA

There is absolutely no analogy i can draw with Vietnam. Vietnam was a nationalist war and at the same time a proxy war for the US, the USSR and China. The war in Iraq was mainly dictated by Big Oil.
The US government insists now (in it's 5th attempt to justify the war, anyone remember the WMD? the supposed links to al Quaeda? the urge to topple Saddam? trying to create a democratic [and exemplary] state in the Middle East?) that the war must continue because of all the iraqui people who would die in case their troops withdrew (the "just think of the children" argument). Is there anyone naive enough to believe they give a damn about the people of Iraq?

Sakis, Drama, Greece

Now we hear from the greatest "chicken hawk" of them all , and George W. is among those hawks like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc, etc. who evaded the military draft with lies as reasons to stay out during the Vietnam quagmire .and now they are saying we should have stayed in Vietnam. They are all pathological liars.
I served in Vietnam twice, 1965 and 1971. The GI quote there was :'
"We will bring peace to this land if we have to kill everybody".
and we tried, with napalm, agent orange , chemical warfare, 500 lbs. flame throwers on villages, shooting innocent civilians, and 55,000 American lives. pluse countless wounded physically and mentally.
We did not and could not win in Vietnam because we could not change the will of the people.
It is the same as the American Revolutionary War. The bottom line is that the British could not win in 1776 because we had the will to win and we did. Same in Vietnam and now in Iraq.
We cannot win a religious war. If Bush and Cheney

Charlie, grandy, nc

In my opinion, there is little to recommend staying in Iraq much longer. The current US administration is composed of people who lie to each other, lie to themselves, and unfortunately attempt to continue to lie to the American public.

What differentiates these individuals from the so-called "normal" politicians? An extreme callousness toward human existence (except their own); an insane greed for power, money, and oil; and a viciously distorted outlook which vilifies anyone who disagrees with them.

It's pure thuggery, folks, and Congress isn't helping except for a handful of courageous people such as Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Jim Webb, Chuck Hagel, and a few others. I seriously doubt that anybody who champions Bush's "stay the course" rhetoric would still believe that after spending twenty minutes in a firefight in Iraq.

Finally, this administration's treatment of the soldiers who are fighting for their lives is ignorant, selfish, and completely despicable. Enough said.

Richard Tibbitts, San Diego, CA

When is president Bush daughters going to join the fighting forces in Iraq?

Jane Thomas, Baltimore, Maryland

Vietnam war was launched on a lie.
Iraq war was launched on lies and was as illegal by international law as the Vietnam one.
US citizens have not only elected GWB and his gang who mulled this adventure long before 9/11 but reelected them after it was proven there were no WMDs nor Quaida links.
They deserve what is happening no matter the fake arguments about Vietnam war won on ground and lost in political will. We have known that in Algeria too with the eternal "last 15 minutes" of the five stars generals.
Ms Clinton has approved the stupid war and will pay politically for it all along her presidency.
There may be no doubt that GWB will remain for long and certainly more than 30 years from now the most stupid president of the USA.

frenchreader, Tours, France

Swell of nationalism? I think not. The first thought that entered my mind when I saw the Blade Runneresque crash of the two jets into the World Trade Towers was "CIA". That was my first thought, instinctivly, and knowing very little about false flag operations then beyond the Bay of Pigs. For one thing, I've written in many airplanes, its just not feasible some amateur foreigners can storm the cockpit with butterknives and convince a pilot through death threats to fly him and all his passengers suicide into a tall building causing more deaths. No psycho safety concious airline pilot would do that even threatened with his own death.

The question is, why would so many Americans believe the questionalbly biased malarkie from their politicans and tv. The answer is clear; many Americans just aren't very bright. Not too many can name a country that begins with "U" (United States, Uganda, for example?) and 1 in 5 can't find the US on a globe.

Mark Starr, Augusta,, GA

I'll back the Americans, and their reasons for fighting wars, over the Swiss any day. And I am tired of the Americans getting the blame for everything. The people doing the killing in Iraq right now are cynical bloodthirsty sectarians who I would say have a hell of a lot less concern for the average Iraqi's life than the White House does.

Kathy, Wellington,

All "dominant" American history is either revisionist or simply the propaganda used to support the institutionalized power structure, which is also almost certainly true of any nation or empire's history.

What can be easier than to maintain, as fact, e.g., " the U.S. could have 'won' the Vietnam conflict", something for which there is absolutely method of proving or disproving.

Tim Flynn, Denver,

To you people who get on our PRESIDENT for not going to VIETNAM what does that have to do with HIM trying to protect this Country NOW?
I'am a VIETNAM VET and I,am glad we have this PRESIDENT at this time .

Russell W. Hall, Mt Pleasant, Pa.

Please let Ms. Sarah Baxter (author of this article) know that her opinion should be offered for selective viewing on the comments or editrorial pages of The Times. As a matter of fact, I lived during those times of Viet Nam and the only revisionism I see in this article is the authors opinions, which are false. The people of the United States were lulled into a sense of disillusionment by none other than phony artilces like this one and politicians who thought they knew how to run a war better than the generals in the field. We now see how that plays in the improvement in Iraq. Generals will always be better managers of armies than politicians who are only interested in self-promotion.

Mike Meador, Oklahoma City, OK

Conservatives need to stop comparing fighting terrorists in Iraq or any other place with fightng the Axis in WW2, the Soviet backed No. Vietnamese in Vietnam or any other war fought against nation states whose armies wear uniforms. Terrorists have neither. That's why its called "terrorism". Trying to defeat them militarily is like trying to eat soup with a fork. The Western world, America in particular needs to start looking at the core reasons why terrorism exists. The answer lies more in environmentalism then in ideology.

Tim Mancusi, Santa Rosa, California

The comparisons are a little more hazy. The Vietnamese were arguably fighting to liberate their country. The end of the cold war was also about finishing the unfinished work of 1945, ie Eastern Europe was occupied by the USSR. The Iraquis are arguably fighting to liberate their country. Unless an occupation is carried out brutally - and which democracy will tolerate their army doing that - then the occupation is doomed to failure. The cold war ended Eastern Europes occupation. The war against the Nazis liberated Western Europe. Every squalid colonial war ended the occupation of that new nation. People may yearn to be free, but if they are given the choice between a foreign occupation and a dictatorship by one their own, they opt for the latter.

Partition Iraq and bring our soldiers home. And remember, its up to Iranians to change their regime. Its up to Cubans to change their regime. However well meaning we may be, people dont want foreign occupations. Real or perceived.

David Bell, Larkhall, UK

Bush, and much of the conservative movement in the U.S., has a difficult time accepting the reality that a nation can thrive culturally and economically without the help of the U.S. Vietnam has been slowly recovering since the end of the Vietnam War. Indeed, there have been hardships, but the nation is turning itself into a cultural, economic and political power in South East Asia. What Bush forgets is that this war was a Vietnamese war of independence, not unlike the American Revolution. To deny a nation the opportunity to try to establish itself on its own is rather "un-American."

Perhaps Bush has no desire to sit in a cafe in Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City, drinking tea and admiring the progress the cities have made since the nation recovered from the war. Perhaps he is not interested in the art galleries tucked into the corners of the city which have sprung up in the last few years. Perhaps he thinks it would be better if the U.S. had won, but I doubt that he can explain why.

Doug Irvin, Newark, New Jersey, USA

Another comparison that the USA could make, is with N.Ireland. Eventually after 25 tears both the British Army and the IRA realised that a military victory for either side was unattainable. This experience may well explain why the Britsh Army is soon to depart Iraq. They have seen the writing on the wall, much of it in murals on gable ends in Belfast.

william, Carrickfergus, N.Ireland

What is now being said about Vietnam is a move in desperation by the neocons to keep the war in Iraq going. Publications like the Weekly Standard long ago lost their credibility with most Americans. Only the most feeble-minded dupes believe anything Bill Kristol and his kind have to say. Hopefully, the same force of public opinion that helped end the Vietnam war will prevail with the war in Iraq.

Steve Wells, Graham, NC (USA)

You had to go to Vietnam and fight there to know the damage the press, the T.V. anchors and the politicians did to the war effort. I see today what I saw then defeatest -anti-american propogandist saying just leave everything will then be all right - wrong. is peace so dear or life so sweet as to be bought with chains and slavery - forbid it almighty God - as for me give me Liberty or give me death - Patrick Henry - what happened to liberty was worth living and dying for?

D. R. Baker Vietnam class of 68/69 Edmond OK

D. R. Baker, Edmond, OK

Any nation that invades and occupies another has a responsibility to leave it with the capacity to self govern and sustain a reasonable standard of living and safety for its citizens. Because the US and its allies removed the Iraqi government and dismantled much of the controls that kept rival factions from genocide, we have this responsibility.

I find it preposterous that we use the debate over the merits of invading Iraq as the foundation of a discussion about what to do next. For right or wrong, we’ve already invaded Iraq so leave the question about whether it was right or wrong to the historians and the college classrooms for now.

The US and its allies are in Iraq now and we’d better win no matter what the cost. If we pull out before sustainable peace is established the enemies of nations will simply win future conflicts by eroding our will to fight beyond a few years. This is a dangerous situation if we ever are threatened by something other than than a rouge nation.

Rob Cambra, Conover, US, North Carolina

Everyone should actually read the entire speech from Bush - it's easy to obtain - and it allows you to see the real context of his comments. It will allow you to see how he compares Japan and Germany to South Korea to Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also interesting how he quotes journalists and Senators and the supposedly intelligent newspapers of the day - their comments are almost identical to what you read today - yet Japan, Germany, South Korea are now huge success stories. There is a newfound opportunity for North Korea to come on board and we all know that Vietnam is begging the US for improved trade status - and has received it - and is becoming a democracy.

Martin, Canada,

White is black! Black is white! Good is bad and bad is good! Your uncle can get you any job, as long as you keep to the story. Do not worry about learning or truth, we make our own truth! We have power and therefore can create reality in our own image.

I remember when Lincoln enslaved the people of color, and the men and women of the South rescued them, freed them, and how US soldiers saved the native peoples of America, and how we rushed in to save the Jews in Germany before any could be harmed and how we could not stand for Apartheid in South Africa and rushed in to stop it, and yes, how we were winning the war in Vietnam.

"When you tell a lie, you kill a little piece of the world" - but these are really big pieces, friends. We are, we can be good enough to acknowledge our mistakes, we need not hang our heads in shame if we can learn from them.

Or we can lie to ourselves long enough until we are nothing.

EP, Sunnyvale,

Wow, second comment has a way to really improve relations with Australia. Not that us as Americans need to upset anyone else.
We really need to focus on the agenda of outside supplies getting in. Outside forces aiding their revolution. Vietnam is similar to Iraq, but another country that was on the flip side of the situation. One that the US is currently involved with. We should look at how their invasion was lost and work on that situation. Afghanistan is more similar to Iraq than Vietnam. The US wasn't directly fighting the Soviets, but they still lost. There was no overnight victory, but there wasn't as much blood shed on our side either. The problem with that is that Afghanistan later came back to haunt us 15 years later when we didn't improve the living situation in their country.

I don't think we should pull out, but I think we should learn to better handle the situation. We also need to learn to support the war and act like a country conserving at war.

Michael Baumli, Maryville, U.S.A./MO

This unfortunately is the kind of reporting that everyone fears will b e done at the Wall Street Journal once it has been in the hands of News Corp. for a while. The headline and the text of the article are an attempt to vindicate the latest shameful PR campaign by the Bush Administration to justify the complete disaster that is its invasion and occupation of Iraq. No amount of PR and no amount of citing pliant "historians" will change the reality. I have advocated the impeachment of the President and Vice-President - despite all the obvious negatives of doing so - because otherwise the USA and the rest of the world will have to bear the consequences of its rabidly anti-human, right-wing-ideology-driven actions. Nothing will change for the better with the two of them at the helm.

Wendell Murray, Kennett Square, PA

The author reports that it is revisionist to state that Bush was drawing on a new wave of revisionist history which maintains that America did not lose the war,but the will to win. I was there and that is exactly what happened. Had we at least provided air support after the troop pullouts, the South Vietnamese could have
prevailed. I am no supporter of the Iraq War. We should have put
all of our efforts into Bin Laden , Saddam could have waited. That being said, now that we are there we must see it through and use our military power a forcefully as necessary to obtain victory. If we do not we will become a superpower with no will to see things through and as the old sayings goes, "with friends like us who needs enemys.

J Dunham, Spring Valley Lake, CA

Regarding President Bush’s similarities between Cambodia’s killing fields and the consequences of drawing back in Iraq: There is no way around the fact that the war in south east Asia went against the tide of history. Actions to delay withdrawal only postponed the inevitable and the multiplied scale of our setback.
U.S. disruption of Cambodian life was the major contributing factor in the events that lead to the killing fields. Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge; U.S. worked to depose the popular Prince Norodom Sihanouk and install the incompetent Lon Nol. Then we bombed NVA infiltration routes. Nixon's choice to expand the war into neighboring countries caused upheavals in those societies.
Asia recovered but the vital modern emergence and ‘people power’ political movements are recent.
Bush says we need to continued war against global terrorism a long time. But clear analysis is not clouded by willful emotion or distracted by dogma. What will redeem our reputation in Iraq?

Mack Emsellem, Silver Spring,

Pol Pot killed maybe a million and a half people. We killed about a million Vietnamese. If we just had a few more years we might have been able to beat Pol Pot's number, and today we would enjoy the benefits of a South Vietnam eager to grow capitalism and trade with the US: uh, just like Vietnam today.

What the Revisionist Historians don't see is that there was a reason Americans lost the "will to win." They saw that the result we were trying to achieve was not worth the cost. Just like Iraq.

Ron, Pennsauken, New Jersey

Isaac, this President has done more to harm the cause of the free world than any in living memory. Not only has he stretched the finest military in the world to breaking point, but he has also pursued policies that have left the U.S. with little or no leverage in Iraqi politics other than a threat to run away from impending genocide.
As for the fight against terrorism, his performance has been less than stellar on that count, as well.
You ought to welcome differences in opinion that may help to prevent the justifiably proud U.S.A. from turning into an intolerant and incompetent Ameristan, a mirror of the enemy.

Polemico, Bern, Switzerland,

It is a shame that George Bush and Dick Cheney wiggled and wormed themselves out of their duty to lay down their lives for freedom in Vietnam.

Now these two want to send other men to useless deaths -- not for freedom -- but just because they have the power to.

Keith Terrence, Winnipeg, Canada

We are there - that is reality. Win and come home. Period. Our soldiers aren't quitters and they can win, with or without all of the negatives they hear and read. Just think about how many will die if we leave. Will that make all you "war experts" feel better? Most likely most of the people making these statements about what we should do in Iraq and Afghanistan, themselves never served or volunteered,. Until you serve, reserve your judgments and perhaps even keep it to yourselves..

Ben Grissinger, Petersburg, PA

With massive, state-of-the-art-equipped armed forces, France could not keep its colonies of Algeria and Indochina, the US could not keep control over Vietnam, Britain could not hold India, the Soviet Union was forced to retreat from Afghanistan.

What Western leaders fail to see -- a fatal and arrogant blindness -- is that Asians and Africans want first to throw off foreign domination, and then they want our authentic Western treasures: Self-rule, self-determination, democracy.

Throughout the Vietnam War, General Giap, commander of North Vietnam's Army, kept his hero's picture on his office wall. His hero led a rebel force of poorly equipped illiterate farmers, and eventually defeated the world's most powerful army and navy, and won his country's freedom. Giap's hero was George Washington.

Bob Merkin, Northampton MA, USA

It's the same propaganda that has been tried before to particular success. We are the most polled, studied, and controlled society that has ever existed.

It's irrelevant what the truth is because no one will report it, just continue to repeat conventional doctrine.

If we don't organize, we are left to the whims of those in charge.

Nathan, Tempe, AZ

The U.S. could not have "won" the Vietnam war because the supposed "win" did not exist. Vietnam's form of government was assumed to have an importance to the United States it simply did not have.

Likewise, the war in Iraq cannot be "won." It's government was never part of a unified "axis of evil" that needed to be destroyed. And any currently plausible interpretation of what it means to "win" in Iraq is trivial compared to the billions spent and the thousands of lives lost.

The question the United States now needs to face is how to minimize the adverse effects of an unnecessary and poorly planned adventure.

Don, San Francisco, California

Ok, so we could have bombed the N Vietnamese columns. So if we stayed, they would have went right back to moving their supplies on the Ho Chi Mihn trail.

This writer comes up with a strategy, but the N Vietnamese would have countered with their own, and we could have spent another 10 years there.

Foolish research. He fails to mention the state of the US Army at the time, our morale was low, drugs were rampant, officers had been fragged. These problems continued later into the 70's even after the war ended.

Charles P., Yorktown, NY

Why was the USA in Vietnam? Oil derricks in the Gulf of Tonkin. How do I know this to be true? In 1975 a family friend of General Westmoreland and I sent him a letter asking why the USA was in Vietnam. His reply was a map of the Gulf of Tonkin including the oil derricks, circled in red!

Amasiam, Zhangzhou, Fujian, China

Even if America had won in Vietnam, what would be the difference? They won in South Korea: look how Ameicans are viewed in the South (none too nice). Look at the schizophrenic regime that was installed as a result in the north.

Look at Vietnam today - not hostile at all to the US. Much like Thailland today. Relaxed / chilled.

Not saying South Korea was a loss, just saying that we never know how things will play out. We can say if if if forever but basically we're iffing in the wind.

Tom, Sydney, Australia

You’re an idiot. Vietnam lost 2-4million people and fought 25 years to choose their own government. No amount of killing and subjection of any country works. All invaders have lost eventually.

Guy, Boise, ID

That Bush can invoke the Vietnam War in some deranged desperate attempt to persuade Americans of what ? ? . . . that our
war in Vietnam could be won by indiscriminate bombing and a superior proportion of Viet Cong killed to Americans is . . preposterous. The war then was lost in 1963. Read Neil Sheehan's "Bright Shining Lie," about the war. The similarities to the Iraq war are that we have lost the hearts and minds of the people. Period. Take out the occupying force!!

Evan Bollinger, Leverett, , MA

I am an old dude who was in the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam war. A movement I joined AFTER coming back from Viet Nam. Like many others, I was relieved when it was all over. And, also like many others, I was horrified when the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia and began a whole new Holocaust. Who could have foreseen this consequence of our leaving Viet Nam? Many years later my youngest daughter married a Cambodian refugee who is a U.S. Army Ranger veteran of Afganistan and Iraq. I have sat with his parents and heard the horror stories about the death camps they were in. Almost all of the family of my son-in-law's mother were murdered in the camps. To this day she cannot talk about the subject without breaking into tears.

I don't like the Iraq War any more than most of you. But the example of what happened in Cambodia should give us pause about another precipitate withdrawal that leaves a power vacuum and opens the possibility of another Holocaust.

J.W., Sierra Vista, AZ

You had to go to Vietnam and fight there to know the damage the press, the T.V. anchors and the politicians did to the war effort. I see today what I saw then defeatest -anti-american propogandist saying just leave everything will then be all right - wrong. is peace so dear or life so sweet as to be bought with chains and slavery - forbid it almighty God - as for me give me Liberty or give me death - Patrick Henry - what happened to liberty was worth living and dying for?

D. R. Baker Vietnam class of 68/69 Edmond OK

D. R. Baker, Edmond, OK

It really annoys me when people try to use post-September 11th sentiment to justify the war in Iraq. The group responsible for September 11th was Al Qaeda. Sidame did NOT in any way support or even harbor Al Qaeda. Believe it or not, his regime and Al Qaeda never saw eye-to-eye because his regime was completely secular.
We were doing perfectly fine when we attacked Afghanistan, because it was the Taliban that harbored Al Qaeda. By attacking Iraq, all we've done is create more enemies.

Henry Taksier, Miami, Florida

You're all mislead. We need to abolish both Democrats and Republicans. They all lie to us. Let's get people in office that won't at least lie to us and mislead us.

If you don't believe me, then write to your local congressman and see how far you get (both Democrat and Republican).

C'mon, don't let these politicians keep chumping while they tax us to the poorhouse.

Born-n-Bred All-American Jake, Cleveland, Ohio

Polemico, why are you aiding terrorists? Do you send them guns and money, or do you just stop at just propaganda?

Isaac, Milwaukee, United States

Is this the same Bush who avoided going to Vietnam himself??!!

I am more surprised by the fact that few commentators have raised this issue.

Maybe if Bush had gone to Vietnam, we may have spared the current problems that we face.

Martha, Wyoming, US

It is tragic that America listened to one bunch of fuzzy brained, ivory tower types to get into a mess and now its well on its way to listening to another bunch of fuzzy brained idiot savants who can't deal with reality, past, present or future to keep wading deeper into a manure pit.

Suhail Manzoor, Amsterda, The Netherlands

How many people have to die for Bush's vanity? For the Messianic delusions of the Neocons? For the Rapture nonsense of the Religious Right?

Lester Ness, Kunming, China

"America did not lose the war, but the will to win."

That's the truth...as I remember living it, not "revisionist" history. I served in Vietnam where I saw us win every fight. Had we been allowed to roll over North Vietnam then Millions of lives would have been saved. But public opinion driven politicians broke our commitments to South Vietnam and it sank like a stone.

OldSgt, West Point,

Both Bush and Blair at the time didn't brush up on their history. Blair should have known that after the debacle in Iraq during World War I, you leave "well" alone; But to the credit of the British, their tenure in Iraq has been much less fraught than that of the Americans. Any reading of the history of the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) would have taught both leaders that simply taking the capital does not mean you have won the war. And look at the disastrous policies Lord Kitchener implemented in South Africa, the consequences of which are still with us today.

Wilhelm , Cape Town, South Africa

I am a stockholder in 13 companies that mainly produce armaments, and I am in favor of the war in Iraq and general expansion in the Mideast that will allow for bellic inventory overturn.

fburns bn, skathlan, MI

Bush once again counts on Americans ignorance of history in an attempt to push his failed policies.

For one, probably 1 in 100 Americans are aware of the fact that Pol Pot and his Kmher Rouge were strengthened by US bombing.

We can't persist very long as a democracy if the average person is swayed by such naked distortions. Of course, if you believe against overwhelming evidencem that the earth is only 6000 years old, then you're capable of buying anything. Bush and the GOP have counted on this sort of childish and pathetic world view in order to win elections.

Bush should go down in history as a scoundrel, but perhaps he's counting on his history being mis-characterized in his favor some day.

Robert Bers, Fremont, CA

The "Peter Pan" line of reasoning: "If we all clap louder then everything will work out just swell. So what if it means tens of thousands of more dead. CLAP LOUDER so you can't hear them!"

Ray Beauvais, Portland, Oregon, USA

You are the revisionist.

America won the Viet Nam war. Do you not remember that there was a signed peace.

The Democrats started the Viet Nam war and then did not have the guts to continue to provide financial lsupport for the South Vietnamese after the South Vietnamese took over defense of their country. Hundreds of Russian Tanks attacked and overwhelmed valient undersupported South Vietnamese troops. The communists did not stop their support.

Because of their sell out of freedom the Democrat party caused the death of millions of freedom loving people in South Viet Nam and Cambodia died. The proof is in the killing fields that sprang up all over Southeast Asia.

Try and revise that will you! The Democrats should appologise to the world for their spineless behavior.

I think that Democrats will likely cease to be a political party if they now cause the loss of freedom for the Iraqi people by pulling the rug out on them too.

Dick, MI,

James Q Wilson is quoted “Whenever a foreign enemy challenges us, he will know that his objective will be to win the battle . . . among the people who determine what we read and watch."
So is he admitting that there are people making these determinations. That the embedded propaganda journalism of the current Iraqi excursion is properly managed for a righteous outcome. Or does he harken back to Naval commander Stephen Decatur's "my country right or wrong". And by extention his chosen ones properly manage the media and history to make it so.

jaffa, Hobart, Tasmania

Don't get into this debate people, it's a distraction. Ask yourselves "who profitted from this war?" Follow the money trail. Religion, nations, democracy, terrorism. They're all distractions to justify the war for those who profited from the war. Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex in the 1950s' and it remains true today. Follow the money trail. Who made the money? They are the ones who want the war.

Michael Do, Redondo Beach, USA, CA

I'm so tired of all these arguments. This war is about gaining control of the 3rd largest oil reserve on the planet, nothing else. Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi people, every month they lose more people than we lost on 9-11 and we're supposed to believe that he cares what would happen if we pulled out. The only reason they want so badly to get a stable government set up there is to get control of the oil. I want to know why everyone on both sides of the argument seems to overlook this in their debates about the war.

Jason, Santa Fe, NM

I think that we gave the N Veitmaness a win threw our press that only gave bad store of american wrongs but never printed or report the other side wrongs. The News, congress and liberals are what lost vietman and will be the cause of us losing in iraq. We will soon draw lines on maps and tell our troups not to cross them while the other army can go there to recover and rearm. If we leave Iraq as we did vietman the same things will happen with the same results. If we leave Iraq and conditions get to the point where we need to go to war I think we need to leave the ementy advance to alantic Ga. , Vagus Nv. or New York city before we decide to get in the war. Also when we are attacted as we were in new york we should look the other way as we did when our emense and bases were attact before. Have anyone taken notice to our treatment by Russia and China since the Demo. Won. I have.

John L. Eicehenlaub, Milton, Pa.

As someone that lived through Vietnam and the Cambodian debacle, I can tell you that it was a quagmire, plain and simple. And to re-write it as anything else would be foolish and ignorant.

But our President seems to thrive on the foolish and ignorant. This war differs from Vietnam quite a bit; The Vietnam war had a draft, everyone had to go (except GW and his wealthy, well connected friends). Vietnam was about containing an ideology, Iraq is about control of a finite natural resource (oil). Vietnam was founded on lies (like Iraq). Vietnam was used for further covert operations (like Iraq).

Thus some similarities and some glaring differences. Iraq has been attempted as a take over prospect 5 times, Vietnam 7 times (by Western Countries).

Both are silly and wasteful quagmires. That's enough of a similarity for me. I don't want my American Lives and my tax dollars continuing to buttress up OPECs oil prices. That's what this is really about.

Marc, Hartford, CT

Hello Mark,

The comparisons of Vietnam and Iraq are so off the mark that they would be funny if they weren't incredibly misguided. In Vietnam it was purportedly communism against democracy. In WW II we knew who the Nazis were--and you left out the Japanese, by the way. In Iraq it is the Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kurds, and in your comment Hugo Chavez is the enemy too. Is it the US against the rest of the world, then? How about if we just nuke the world and then we can go and inspect all of our highway bridges.

Or...how about if we pull back and concentrate our efforts where they really matter--fighting terrorists who try to take our domestic gardening and housecleaning jobs--and cross our unguarded borders unchecked?

South Florida Jack, Miami Beach, FL

Tell me: does not 700,000 Iraqi deaths, millions of wounded, the destruction of the country's infrastructure, and the already countless displaced--not to mention the contamination of the region with depleted uranium--count as a "humanitarian disaster" on a grand scale?

Sean, Berkeley, CA

The Islamists love such debates as we have had since 9/11. I doubt we would have beaten Germany and Japan if FDR and Churchill had the same fine backing as George W and Tony Blaire have had. Ahmed is counting on the give up dogs winning. Check you necks...

Fred Harwell, Houston, Texas

It is shameful to see how many Americans suffer from selective amnesia. Would America be engaged in this war if it weren't for the attacks on Sept. 11th? So many forget the swell of nationalism and unity that overtook this country as a result. I don't forget. What is particularly burned in my memory (besides the attacks themselves) is the words of President Bush. He stated, " We will no longer differentiate between terrorists and THOSE WHO HARBOR THEM". We should remove the "U" from USA because it no longer is. The president's comparison to Vietnam is slowly becoming more valid as we continue to witness the unity disappear.

Jim Jones, Tampa, Florida USA

Instead of focusing on what would happen if the US & UK leave Iraq (and then Afghanistan) as we did in Vietnam, we should worry about our own homelands when the worldwide terrorists interpret the withdrawal as further evidence of "Infidel weakness" and attack us everywhere possible including the oil fields of all Mideastern countries, our ports, airports, subways and elsewhere. It's not a matter of liking Bush/Blair or not, it's a matter of survival as real as fighting the Nazis was. I hope the next set of leaders of the US, UK France and elsewhere can convince us to sacrifice for the good of all free thinking human beings and our children's generation. If you think it is just Iraq, see for example what Hugo Chavez is up to in Venezuela, but the media is not focused there, or other places where democracy is losing ground. Mark Rubin, Tempe, AZ

Mark Rubin, Tempe, AZ

re: to "Bui Tin, who received the South Vietnamese army’s unconditional surrender in 1975, recalled that visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda, church ministers and other antiwar protesters 'gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses . . . through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilise a will to win'”, add this thought:
"But perhaps, by not squandering years more of blood and treasure in Viet Nam, the US eventually 'won' the Cold War."

I am weary of these arguments that by behaving as a free people in a democracy, the American people inspire their enemies. Too bad. They also inspire people around the globe living under dictatorships, people who are tortured, jailed, 'disappeared' or executed because they are dissenters. What message does it send them or "those who hate our freedom" to hear US leaders calling their own dissenters traitors?

Today, it seems, we've lost the national will to protect the rights won in our Revolution.

james larkin, weymouth, MA

I remember US newspaper headlines proudly claiming we killed one million Vietnamese. U.S. bombs pulverized large parts of Cambodia, killing an uncounted number of civilians. No one knows how many Iraqis have died since the U.S. invasion, but the best data suggests over a half a million, mostly by gunfire and bombs. Approximately two million Iraqis have already fled the country.

The agonies of millions of Iraqis and Vietnamese can be laid at the feet of American firepower. Not a legacy I'm very proud of, I can tell you that.

Al Globus, Capitola, CA

Having studied at the feet of one of the anti-Bush historians mentioned in this story, I can say that the biases of their youth continue to cloud judgments of then-young historians whose careers were built on their anti-Vietnam War fervor.

Athos, Fère, France

So this is becoming a war to save lives? In that case:
Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Let's hope he gets to practice his loving on Iran, too.

Polemico, Bern, Switzerland,