This time, let's finish the job.

In Iraq as in Vietnam, the government gave the American people an unrealistic estimate of how hard the war would be. Both times it was an honest but costly mistake, which could probably have been avoided.

This is in fact a total lie. Vietnam we got involved in as part of the idea to contain Communism, and on that level was understandable. Iraq is a war that was started because the White House wanted a war. The analogies to Vietnam are completely wrong there.

They continue to be wrong in virtually every other respect. In Vietnam we had about four times as many troops. It was fought village to village with no clear lines of sight because of the jungle. The other side was supplied by other countries. None of that is the case to any great extent in Iraq. The other side *might* be getting *some* of their IEDs from Iran, but at that point they aren't IEDs anymore, that I in IED is for improvised.

Vietnam failed because we were fighting on the wrong side. The South was criminally corrupt in every way while the North was a country created by a hero of WWII (and if you think otherwise of Ho Chi Minh, you have critically underestimated what was going on in Vietnam, that is also not to say that the north wasn't bad, but bad led by a puppet and bad led by a war hero, you do the math). It was a war we could have double or even tripled our forces in and STILL not won, because the people didn't want us there, any more than they wanted the French there before us.

On THAT level, we're looking at the same thing. The Iraqis want us to get the hell out. Instead, Halliburton is building "enduring bases" in the Iraqi desert. This administration has no plans to leave Iraq, EVER.

This comparison is a load of crap because it's not looking at the reasons we got involved, nor what we're actually facing. A country where virtually every man woman and child would like nothing better than for us to pack up our toys and get the hell out of their country.