Great observation, billybudd.
Ah actually NO. Tone way down the Bush hate and try to actually learn something here instead of mindlessly parroting the anti-Bush propaganda you been programed to spew. The difference all the Hysteric "Iraq is Vietnam" people keep missing. Vietnam was basically a fight between conventional forces with know base areas and supply lines in a limited geographic area. In the War on Terror, we are facing covert foes spread across a wide geographic areas with covert sources of supply. Since we lack the ability to send forces every where the terrorists hide, and because we cannot defend every target the terrorists may hit, we need to draw the Terrorists out of hiding into our kill zone. Iraq is that kill zone. We prepped a battle field the terrorists HAVE to fight on for political reasons (the "holy soil" of Arabia). We force the terrorists to fight OUR strength (Conventional Military force) with their WEAKEST asset (Conventional military strength) on a geographically neutral area (Iraq as opposed to favorable terrorist battlefields like Afghanistan) on a battlefield where we would have the support of indigenous forces (the vast bulk of the very nationalistic Iraqi tribes). I know you all have been horribly scared by Vietnam but Iraq is in NO WAY similar to Vietnam. You see Syria as one big Ho Chi Min trail, that is not what it is. The better analogy is the processing chute of a slaughter house. See, in a slaughter house cattle from a wide area are concentrated for processing. They move down the processing chute until they are killed and processed. Syria is the slaughterhouse processing chute, Iraq is the terrorists slaughterhouse. We WANT them to come to Iraq and get massacred rather then hide out around the world planning the next 9-11!