Support the troops — by bringing them home where they are safe. That’s what we need — a way out. Can we “win”? I don’t know. What does it even *mean* to “win”, anyway? How would we go about doing that, about “winning”?

“Our military leaders were incapable of adjusting to fight in a way that would challenge the tactics of the enemy. US forces were pummeled time, after time.”

- Exaggerated, but might conceivably refer to the pre-1969 phase of the war when Democratic President Lyndon Johnson weighed the military down with absurd directives, personally (mis)directed U.S. air strikes from the White House situation room, and so forth.

Fact: The Tet Offensive of late 1968 / early 1969 was, militarily, a huge defeat for North Vietnam.

Fact: By 1972-1973, South Vietnam and the U.S. had, in fact, won militarily. They had crushed both Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces to the point where they (VC and NV) had to accept a peace treaty in which they abandoned any goal or claim of conquering South Vietnam.

When and why did South Vietnam fall, then?

It was later, in 1975. After a post-Watergate, Democratic Congress passed strict resolutions cutting off every form of aid to South Vietnam and making clear that the U.S. would not lift a finger to defend it, the North Vietnamese said, in effect, “Let’s roll!”

One of my military friends is very politically liberal. When I first described this history of the Vietnam War to him, he could not believe it.

Six months later, he called me and said “You were absolutely right. I did some research and some asking around, and that’s what happened.”

Technically true, but incorrectly put.

It wasn’t that our military was incapable or that our military leaders couldn’t adjust; it was that the war was being fought based on polls and political strategy, not on military tactics or strategy. Our military leaders knew full well what they needed to do to win, but were unable to do it for political reasons.

If you want to buy a gun to defend your home, two things are required — the gun itself and the will to use it. If you lack the latter, the former is absolutely useless. The Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda know that there is no way they can defeat the United States militarily; what they do know is that there is an insane moonbat left who will support even the Taliban and Saddam Hussein if they think doing so is anti-Bush. By exploiting this, they think they can destroy our will to use the gun.

Right. Anybody not swallowing the organic load of the Neosocialists are just silly, stupid, dumb etc.
Whatever helps you live with your ignorance.

Yep. History’s my best subject and that’s why I can say that you’re a poor, misguided fool that will swallow anything dumped into your mouth.
Also, as hard as it is for you to understand, the goal was to give the people of Iraq the ability to determine the government that they want.

BTW, we know that the same Neosocialist spin and their willing accomplices in the “MSM” that we are seeing today that’s pushing for our defeat in Iraq. Same as in Vietnam.

“…liberals are hell bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory just like they did when they spun the Tet Offensive victory into a U.S. failure.”

Do you read / watch history? We failed in Vietnam because our forces were attempting to fight that war based on our terms. Our military leaders were incapable of adjusting to fight in a way that would challenge the tactics of the enemy. US forces were pummeled time, after time. Take a look at the footage of the escape from the US Embassy at the end. It is US arrogance that lost it for us there and is losing it for us in Iraq. Our president stands around “harumphing” like Mel Brooks’ gubentorial cabinet in “Blazing Saddles”. No one in charge will face the real facts of why/how these insurgents are there, let alone admit that we miscalculate on the “waving flowers to our troops issues. Sure, these people were more than happy to see Saddam disappear, but now our leaders are completely aghast that they won’t do things the way we tell them. Also, as hard as it is to understand, there are countries in the world that (for whatever reasons) don’t want democracy. Let’s face it; cultures that are strongly driven by religious dictates are fairly incompatible with the constitutional government that we have here.

Pretty cool blog post! I didn’t know. Thank you for letting us know!

QP / Reader could conceivably be some others as well, but we (or at least I) don’t know anything definite. QP / Reader has offered some suggestions (that I hadn’t raised or thought of) on whomever else he/she/it might be.

Now my main point: in RealClearPolitics today, a Democrat, former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, answers Cindy Sheehan beautifully: http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-9_27_05_EK.html