Submitted by Scott Baker, Aug 23, 2007 15:47

Vietnam was lost because we were an occupying force attempting to impose our political system and will on a people that in the majority did not want, or at least could not militarilly enable it. Then, as now, America as occupier cannot impose its system on another country, no matter how hard we try - save for total nuclear annihilation, or destroying a country in order to save it. Instead of being "way ahead of his critics" the President isn't even able to focus on the day to day reality, let alone how this must play out. The only "success" of the surge right now is either in temporarilly quashing the dozens of groups fighting each other - an untenable situation considering our nearly exhausted military - or in enabling neighborhood militias to do what they've been itching to do all along - root out and destroy Al Qeada on their own. That the country-formerly-known-as-Iraq will bloodily divide into 3 semi-autonomous regions is inevitable, since we made the catastrophic mistake of disbanding the Iraqi army early on, and turning them into "insurgents." Remember, the first insurgent attack came one day after Paul Bremmer disbanded the Iraqi army.

There is some good news in the Vietnam parallel if one is willing to take the very long view of history. Vietnam is today, at peace with us and its neighbors, a trading partner nearly on par with China, in activity if not in size, and growing at 10% or more a year. Too bad we can't say the same. Births of nations are messy, bloody affairs. Ours was no different, especially including our own civil war. Perhaps its worth thinking about our civil war and reflecting how we would have liked it if France or England had come over to "help" us then. Doubtless the outcome of our civil war would have been very different, and much worse in my opinion, than it turned out under the Great Abraham Lincoln.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.