You correctly point out the many differences between Iraq and Vietnam. But there are other parallels you don't mention, and there are other non-parallels -- one might call then anti-parallels -- that still apply to both. You also say the war could have been won, but would that have generated even more horrendous results?

The biggest mistake in Vietnam, from a purely military standpoint, was increasing our forces incrementally, allowing the enemy forces to adapt their strategies. Even as we increased our forces from 25,000 or so to a high of 550,000, victory became ever more elusive and costly. The American generals learned from that dreadful mistake and it led to the Powell Doctrine: Go to war only with overwhelming force and a clearly defined exit strategy. It was used with great success in the Gulf War of 1990-91, when we threw an overwhelming force of over 500,000 against a poorly led, equipped and trained enemy with no air power and won the ground war in 100 hours, with relatively minor casualties (and many of them through "friendly fire").

That lesson was thrown out the window in the Iraq war. The generals recommended at least 300,000 troops, not to defeat the Iraqi army but maintain the peace after victory. Their civilian superiors ridiculed that idea and believed less than 100,000 would be necessary. A compromise of 150,000 or so was eventually arrived at, and it proved far too few. Not planning an exit strategy, nor or for staying and preparing for an occupation, led to other disastrous mistakes. Like disbanding the Iraqi military and creating an instant insurgency force of 250,000 armed and angry former soldiers able to tap into the thousands of unguarded Iraqi ammunition depots.

But military victory could have eventually been achieved in Vietnam, if only enough lives and treasure had been thrown at it. But proponents of that theory should recall another lesson from history: that of King Pyrrhus of Epirus, who in two battles in 279 and 280 BC against the Romans won with such devastating losses that it gave rise to the term Pyrrhic Victory, or one more such victory and the the war would be lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

Pyrrus' victories actually cost him less men than his Roman enemies. But the Romans were able to replace their soldiers quickly with others who from their very anger gained new force and resolve to go on with the war. Sound familiar?

Vietnam could probably have been won with enough troops, munitions and lives thrown at it, over a long enough period of time. But what would it have gained us? Might not other adversaries, seeing so much of our resources bogged down in Vietnam, been tempted to create mischief elsewhere? To say nothing of the even greater loss of prestige throughout the world. And to hold onto our "success" we'd had to remain there for decades.

But would that have proven to be a Pyrrhic victory, with even greater ultimate costs than from our ignoble defeat?

Vietnam could have been won "easily" though, through the use of nuclear weapons. There were more than a few top generals and admirals pushing for this, and to his credit then Defense Secretary successfully nixed that idea.

And there's the scary parallel, or anti-parallel, with Vietnam. We were able to eventually field 550,000 soldiers in Vietnam. That was because we still had the draft, and were not seriously bogged down elsewhere. One result of the Vietnam fiasco was to disband the draft and rely on a volunteer military force, and we can no longer raise hundreds of thousands of additional troops quickly -- even if we were able to afford the going rate. And unlike Vietnam we are engaged in another medium-sized war, in Afghanistan. That situation has severely deteriorated from an initial great success and now desperately needs more troops. But those troops are not available because they're needed in Iraq.<-i>

Yet the Bushies are ratcheting up the war drums against Iran, and McCain is avidly joining them. But if we are unable to provide sufficient troops for Afhanistan, where will we get them for a war with Iran?

The Bushies may be just saber rattling and playing chicken with Iran. McCain may be doing the same. But even if they are, there's always the danger that the Iranian leaders may decide to make their own preemptive strike.

Whatever the cause, a war with Iran can end in only one way: nuclear weapons. We have nowhere near the capability to even defend our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan against through conventional military operations, let alone invade and conquer the country. Pressure to use nuclear weapons against Iran would soon be overwhelming.

We would "win" the war, but it would be the great grandmother of all Pyrrhic Victories. Among the millions of casualties would be many of our own forces in Iraq and Afghanistan through wind borne radiation poisoning.

And would China, Russia and other nuclear powers sit idly by, as the radiation swept over their lands?

Are the Bushies and McCain not able to see that? Or are they able to and want the war anyway?