Cobray,
But you're probably so anti-war in Iraq that telling you that its going very well and is nothing like Vietnam will mean nothing to you.
If you go back and review my other posts on the subject, you will see that I am not anti-war except in the sense that it was foolish to start it. But now that we're in it I am pro-victory. I do not advocate pulling out. In fact, I actually advocate doubling the troop strength there. And not for any abstract reasons like honoring the efforts of our fallen soldiers or bringing freedom to oppressed people either. I want to win this war because losing it will have dire consequences for our own national security down the road.
This situation bears a striking resemblance to Vietnam in all the most important aspects.
-We are fighting a foreign-supported insurgency in the attempt to build a democracy.
-We can't tell the sheep from the goats.
-The opposition resorts to terrorist tactics.
-The local populace has a high antipathy towards us, largely because of our own behavior, but also because of other social factors.
-Our leaders in Washington directly interfere with the war effort for political reasons while becoming more and more insulated from reality.
Iraq essentially *is* Vietnam from a strategic standpoint. Yes, there are differences in scope (Vietnam was bigger in every aspect) and consequence (failing in Iraq will create a direct threat to us), but pretty much the same in terms of how it must be fought.
We learned (well...
some of us learned) some very important lessons there that, if heeded, would improve our war effort greatly.
One of those lessons is that we cannot win this war by body count. Another is that the war must be run from the pentagon instead of the white house. The most important IMO is that counterinsurgency is about winning hearts and minds, not killing bad guys.
[edit] But I do like your take on "waiting them out". So long as the terrorists alienate the population faster than we do...[/edit]