Seems pretty different to me.
1. Vietnam was lush jungle and mountain terrain, harboring extensive tunnel systems to move, store, house, and replenish supplies and troops. It was maddening to us. Iraq's topography can't support that kind of defense and supply route, and isn't really relevant, because there's no massive influx of troops or supplies.
2. North Vietnam was largely a client state of China. We didn't want to start a world war, so we didn't aggressively go after North Vietnam. Saddam doesn't have a Sugar Daddy like North Vietnam did, although France and a couple other of our former buddies might warrant a close look.
3. Just a thought: If we can lure the terrorists from all over the globe to fight Jihad in Iraq, WONDERFUL! Would you rather battle them in the streets of New York, San Francisco, Baltimore, L.A., Boston, Chicago, Buffalo, Detroit, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas, Portland, Columbus, New Orleans, or Milwaukee? (Multiple choice so you can pick one, if you like). |
