Baghdad Isn't Saigon

Oliver North speaks his mind on Iraq and Vietnam, having been witness to both:

Critics of how President Bush has handled the war in Mesopotamia cynically point to mounting casualties as a way of linking combat in Iraq with what took place nearly four decades ago in Vietnam. There is no doubt that every casualty is a tragedy. Yet, the difference in combat losses between the two wars is staggering. At the peak of the war in Vietnam -- 1968-'69, we were losing more than 35 killed in action daily. In Iraq, the “morbidity rate” is fewer than 2.5 per day.
Then there is the difference in enemies. Our opponents in Vietnam, though certainly capable of extraordinary cruelty, never made videos of their captives being beheaded. Unlike homicidal suicide-terrorists I have seen in Iraq, the NVA soldiers I confronted then -- and those I interviewed in Vietnam just a few weeks ago in the shadow of Hamburger Hill -- all wanted to survive the experience.

Finally, there is the issue of outcome. We lost the war in Vietnam -- not on the battlefield -- but in the corridors of power in our nation's capital. We pulled out and abandoned our South Vietnamese allies and two years later they were overwhelmed. We can still lose this war the same way.

That's the only comparison to the 2 wars that's the same. The Democrats are struggling hard to make defeat a reality, whatever the cost to the country.

In fact, Mark Noonan says The So-Called "Insurgency" is Weakening.