Fettweis is right. Vietnam didn't end in 1973--we have politicians still fighting it. There exists lots of anger from many conservatives--neo-cons included--over what they consider the lessons of Vietnam. Look at how many of Bush's administration were from that era--Cheney, Rumsfelt, and Powell head the list.

Sent by Julia | 12:01 PM ET | 06-15-2007

I love that the "Veterans Blog" writer calls Fettweis "uninformed," but then doesn't even seem to understand the difference between the Naval War College and the Naval Academy. Not too smart.

Also, simply posting a bunch of quotes is not the same as refuting an argument. Fettweis has clearly considered this issue deeply, Dougherty seems content to regurgitate administration talking points. Too bad Colonel Dougherty couldn't have attended the Naval War College. He might have learned how to not embarrass himself.

Sent by nitpicker | 12:38 PM ET | 06-15-2007

You can already see the bitter arguments taking shape. Did the war fail because of incompetence? Or would it have failed even with enough troops and competent management? Was the press to blame for losing the confidence of the American public? Is the poor planning just the fault of Rumsfeld and Franks? Some neocons will no doubt argue that we gave up too early. There will be very few things that will be agreed upon with the possible exceptions that we needed 1 soldier for every 50 civilians initially and we needed a military better prepared to conduct occupation and counter-insurgency operations.

Sent by Mike Ivy | 12:46 PM ET | 06-15-2007

I can only hope that the effect is not another search for an honorable war (as the original Gulf War was intended to be). We should be satisfied with what we accomplished in WW2, and recognize that war can have no tactics in the modern age and so must be abandoned.

Sent by Jody Sol | 12:51 PM ET | 06-15-2007

war has a way of coming back no matter how many times it is discredited. a lot of the "greatest generation" sentiment expressed in books, movies and other projects a few years ago could be seen as a way of rehabilitating the idea of war in preparation for Gulf War II.

Sent by doulos | 1:00 PM ET | 06-15-2007

We just aren't getting it. Our intervention in Iraq, the western right wing attempt at "nation building" in the Arab's neighborhood will have a much more prolonged and profound impact on all of us then the end result of the Vietnam war. When the Americans pulled out and the South Vietnam domino fell to communism, other than an injured American Psyche that we can do it better, Americans didn't suffer. Vietnamese and Cambodians suffered. America moved on to celebrate it's bicentennial in 1976.

Everyone needs to view this Iraq thing as three dimensional, not two dimensional. After the Vietnam pullout and it's collapse, the impact at home was psychological. Because of our failure at "nation building" in the Arab neighborhood, the instability and violence will spill over to other Arab states and we will see more events like 911 occur here at home. Look at the Middle East. Hamas control in Gaza, civil war in Iraq, street battles again in Beirut and Taliban offenses in Afghanistan, an Islamic fundamentalist Iran building A-Bomb program for use on Israel. There is more instability today in the Middle East then ever before in my lifetime. And who is being blamed for a lot of it? We are. We failed to ensure a peace settlement in Palestine. We haven't destroyed the Taliban. We haven't brought prosperity to Iraq by way of invasion, over though and democratic elections. What we did initially was we brought innovative hope and expectation to an alien culture only to be replaced by it's own inherent frustration and self destruction. What next seems to flourish? Exported terrorism--to where next? Here? Go the U.S. State Department website and check out the chronology of terrorism. They don't even try to update it anymore because the events keep happening more frequently then ever. Chicken Little maybe right this time. Watch out.

Sent by an observer of American foriegn policy | 1:45 PM ET | 06-15-2007

There is a reason and a sound strategy behind the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremburg Principles of International Law. Any attempt to circumvent these standards is fraught with the risks of the kind of criminal acts we've committed in Iraq. The US cannot bully the world into compliance with our demands. Our best strategy is to appeal to the self-interest of other countries as a strong friend and a source of economic well-being. China wishing to join the WTO is a good example.

Our current leaders are neither good strategists, good Americans, or good Christians. They are international financiers, without critical concern for America's well-being. The oil industry is running the US gov't. We're being run into the ground by the buggy-whip lobby.

Oil is obsolete. It can be replaced in two years by renewable non-food crops like flax, and hemp, but no one seems to realize it because so much money is at stake. Every diesel-powered vehicle in our military could run on hemp oil in one year or less. Jet engines are now running on vegetable oil. There is no crisis except the impending death of the oil industry.

Sent by martin weiss | 4:04 PM ET | 06-15-2007

Why does no one get it? I hear so many reasons we are not winning. We CANNOT win. This is a Christian army occupying an Islamic nation. No matter what different tribes my think of each other, it will always come down to the Christian invaders.
If you really think that might can overcome all, read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" again and get a clue.
Be well.

Sent by Mikel | 6:59 PM ET | 06-17-2007