It's only natural to compare Iraq to Vietnam. I took a history class in college about the History of the Vietnam War(only because I was forced to fulfill a requirement). I got a C in the class because I can't write worth a damn, but I do remember one thing that my professor(I think it was Lieberman who still teaches this course today) said about Vietnam. His assertion was that nearly every president succeeded in what they set out to do in Vietnam. However, the presidents in office did not share the same objectives as the American public. The American public wanted an outright defeat of Communism and the Viet Cong or some liberals wanted a complete withdrawal from Vietnam. But the presidents wanted only two things: 1: to not lose the war and 2: to minimize the number of troops sent to Vietnam. The two objectives are nearly incongruous of course. An attempt to achieve a true victory would have required an extraordinary effort by almost all accounts: another 5-10 years of ground warfare and significantly more troops than had already been lost. A war of that scale would be unpalatable to an already disgruntled American populace.

The other day on NPR, a speaker said that the Bush administration portrays Iraq as the key to the war on terrorism. Much like Vietnam was a key to the war on Communism. Much like Vietnam, I expect it to be a long, drawn out, nearly unwinnable war.