Iraq was destined to be FUBAR, and nothing has happened that would lead anyone honest to believe that's going to change anytime soon. On the other hand, the pissant resistance and terrorists there don't hold a candle to the Viet Cong in either numbers or tactics. There's no doubt in my mind that we will be stuck there in some form for years, but I don't imagine it will kill over 50,000 of our people in the process. Then again, it ain't over till it's over, so I could be wrong on that last statement, but I hope not.

The people we are up against in Iraq, in contrast to the North Vietnamese, have nothing behind them. If, in the future, we discover a group or groups who are actually sponsored by someone tangible, or some country, then we have an opportunity to dispose of that party as well.

The sad aspect of this is that we had all the time in the world to take care of Iraq after we had actually finished with Afghanistan, and after rounding up a broad coalition. The real urgency was zero, which is why going in there with only the Brits, and at huge cost to our international stature, made no sense.

We were in Vietnam because four US presidents (two of each party) lied to the public. We are in Iraq for the same reason. In both cases the wars were about US domestic politics, and had little to do with the country invaded. We have the Pentagon's own report to tell us that this is precisely what happened in Vietnam, and we have our eyes, ears and common sense (for those that actually possess it) to inform us about Iraq.

What galls me is to listen the the Empty Hat tell the world how important Iraq is, and yet commanders on the ground can't get the money they were promised for reconstruction, nor the equipment they need. Apparently we are only willing to support our troops in word, not in deed, and we are left to wonder what happened to all those billions that congress appropriated....

oc