Indeed. In fact, shortly before his death, Robert McNamara apologized for his (very large) part in the failure of the Vietnam War (as I'm sure you well know). Arrogance on his part and LBJ's (another fine Texan...NOT!) put damn near 60,000 young men in the ground. Sure, he apologized, and said that he knew the war was "wrong" as early as '65 ("we were sinking in quicksand" were his thoughts at the time, or so he says in his '95 interview with Dianne Sawyer). Nixon, for all his other nastiness, at least had the cajones to get us out--even if it did take until '73 (or '75, depending on your point-of-view). And yes, Hanoi Jane has unredeemed blood on her hands still, along with a bunch of "entertainers". Same crap's still going on today out of the Hollywood elite, but would you expect anything different? Stll, Ken, the point is that we're losing men in drips and draps and the Administration had no game plan past the ouster of Baghdad. In WWII, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were making post-war plans in '42! The Marshall and MacArthur Plans were set up and ready to go long before the bombs stopped. In Vietnam, all we had was some vague idea that if we didn't stop Uncle Ho from taking over the South, all of Indo-China would fall to the Reds like dominoes. Look at the guys we had "running" South Vietnam--Diem, a raving megalomaniac, was probably the best of the bunch! I think current American foriegn policy tends to be a lot like American culture: We don't like the "long haul". We're into instant gratification, whether it's making war or buying a car. All the media, and probably the administration, can think about is how the Iraqi deal is going to play out in next year's election. Our economic policies are focused on getting the economy in shape for the next quarter--not the next quarter century. General Giap, military commander of North Vietnam, knew that he could not beat the Americans in a conventional sense, but he knew that if he could just keep us off-balance long enough, we'd get bored and go home. I think Sadaam and Bin Laden know the same thing: If they can keep us just a few inches from outright victory, it won't be long before the American people will get tired and demand our troops return home. You point to the second World War. Can you imagine what sort of uproar we'd have today if we were faced with a two-front war where the casualty figures were going to be, at least, in the hundreds of thousands? The media is already fanning the flames of soldiers' and their families' discontent by reporting that they should've been home by now, and (perish the thought) they could be "in country" for as long as a year! -----Original Message----- From: ken barber [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 3:02 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: History redux; was RE: Quiz About 9/11 again your history is fine as far as it goes, but go back to the big one too. what made nam turn out like it was probably was the lack of a desire to win that was there in ww2 for the politicos. just a bit about nam, should not have been there, but, we were and i'd still hang the people who aided the enemy, i will name names starting with the pretty neck of hanoi jane being streched. i have neither forgot nor forgiven.