But did the US really lose the Vietnam War?
Jordan replies:
And of course this will be the reason why the US will "win" in Iraq...
===========
Using Chomsky's definition of "win" in the Vietnam case -- that is, the accomplishment of most strategic and policy objectives even after failure to achieve the "maximal" objective of complete control -- and applying it to Iraq, we can project a far better than fifty percent chance that the US has lost or will lose in this instance.
Although the precise details of the Bush admin's goals remain, in some quarters, a topic of flame broiling debate (perhaps even within the corridors of the White House and the Pentagon) we can infer from the available evidence -- speeches, position papers, PNAC stuff, actual, on the ground behaviors, etc -- that the establishment of bases, control of Iraqi politics and economics and the creation of a gigantic pivot point for ME regional "power projection" were surely on the list.
But there are exquisite complications.
Current moves of even former shadow puppets such as Allawi and Talabani towards Iran, the pressing demands of the Kurds for things that do not necessarily serve Washington's interests or integrate with its goals, the rise of al Sistani and Shia power, the rise of al Sadr and the Shia poor, the deadly, ruthless efficiency of the Sunni insurgency, the immense, globally observed object lesson of US incompetence in neutralizing a lesser equipped force, the persistent failure to reliably establish power, medical and other services -- among other factors -- do not appear to add up to a strategic win of any sort.
It doesn't seem to me, from a review of available information to-date, that this time, Washington will be able to enjoy a strategic victory even as its military only accomplishes, at best, a "control the ground we stand on" stalemate.
I think both the "maximal" and the ancilliary objectives are melting away, like ice in an oven, right before Washington's eyes.
.d.