Ok, I hearby announce a moritorium on all comparisons with the Iraq War and Vietnam. Why?
1) The Cold War is over and communism isn't being propogated in Iraq.
2) Aims, goals, situations across the two conflicts are RADICALLY different.
3) Terrain, military strategy, type of insurgency, etc., etc., all make the two drastically different conflicts.
Finally, the most important reason:
4) It makes those advocating the similarity look bloody stupid.
Now, you wish that the US to negociate with terrorists, in light of a LONG-STANDING policy of NOT doing so? Am I hearing you correctly? You want to POLITICALLY validate their cause through negociation?
What in the Hell do we have to say to an organization that wishes to take Iraq back into the 8th Century and wage eternal war on infidels (that's us) and even progressive/moderate Muslims?
Ummmm, no. The only negociation that ANY entity needs to do with Al-Qaeda or those associated with it is with the business-end of a rifle or through the crosshairs of a bomb-sight.
That doesn't mean that we don't need to start positioning ourselves to vacate Iraq; it's long past due the time that their citizens need to start stepping up and shouldering the burden of freedom....
No matter what method you use (barring all US soldiers convert to Islam in the near future), ANY force (US, NATO, UN, etc., etc.) will be looked at as "occupiers" by those friendly and hostile to it due to the amount of time that has passed and the extremely lukewarm progress that has been made. Finally, you have to talk about "which" Iraqis you are referring to. Kurds? Sunnis? Shi'ites? Bedouin minority? Each seem to view our troops and US policy in Iraq in VASTLY different fashions, apart from the "occupier" label.
