[MtSmalls]

Are Iraq and Vietnam EXACTLY the same battle? Of course not. But there are a host of striking similarities:

- Both started with contrived events (Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11)
- In both cases the US Military/Government believed that firepower and military victory were the only issues. In both cases they were completely wrong.
- In both cases there is a substantial portion of the population that didn't want to be "rescued". There is a great bumper sticker being seen more frequently here: Be Nice, or we'll bring Democracy to your country.
- In both cases the Military/Industrial complex had FAR too much influence.
- In both cases the US infantry grunt was woefully unprepared for the type of combat being seen. In Vietnam, it was right up front that the jungle combat was something not prepared for. Armor and airpower accounted for very little, as apposed to Korea, WWII. In the case of Iraq, the soldiers have been woefully mistreated by the Adminstration and their own logistics officers.

The problem in Iraq today is not one of a genocidal dictator or corrupt government that can be replaced either by fiat or by election. Rather it is a deeply rooted religious and societal problem that no amount of military force will be able to contain. Having 100K troops in Iraq or 400K troops won't make a difference. They will still be assalted in twos and fours and tens and die for reachable goal. The Shiites will still hate the Sunnis, and the Kurds will despise and fear them both. There will be decades of backlash from the repressed majority against the minority. The country will continue, despite any 'democratic election' to be run from the mosques rather than from any capital building.

No armed force is going to change any of those things, so why should we ask our soldiers, who have been shafted from day one of this mission, to be picked off, to die in the desert for nothing?

(Thanks BCPVP for allowing me to have a meaningful 500th post)