Why Iraq IS like Vietnam

Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld are all at pains, whenever the above analogy appears, to discount and cite all the statistical reasons why there is no comparison between the two situations. In terms of economics, world-support, local infrastructure, nature of resistance force, they may be right--though I don't trust Rumsfeld's military insights as far as I can spit.

But ultimately and more importantly they are WRONG in terms of Gulf II's domestic impact. If we step away from irrelevant comparisons of Viet Minh/Taliban, Uncle Ho/Imams, et cetera at nauseam, and look at the domestic issues, then the analogy is very real.

Both wars are massively divisive of the electorate, of individual communities, even of individual families.

There is no clear mission.

There is no clear plan for withdrawal.

The electorate are justified in fearing that the war was begun and continues for bad, concealed, and political reasons.

Both presidents are lying constantly about scope, motives, casualties, and cost.

The human cost among civilians is uncounted and much higher than admitted.

It's disastrous for domestic economy: social programs, other military programs.

It's disastrous for recruiting.

Poor kids are fighting the war while many rich kids are against it.

The administrations recycle tired manipulative slogans in attempts to blame those opposing the war. E.g., "Support our Troops." (Yeah: "Support our troops--bring them home!")

The conflict is eroding international support for US policies.

Large corporations are making millions/billions while the foot soldiers go without basic supplies.

The list goes on and on. Here's hoping that those opposing the war can learn to make the anti-argument in domestic, rather than foreign, policy terms.