That’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.

BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).

My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.

I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.

Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.