This has been a neocon fantasy for a long time, that we could have won in Vietnam if we had stayed long enough. It shows a complete lack of understanding about how military and political power work together in wartime.

I've seen some of their so-called evidence to support this theory, showing how U.S. and South Vietnamese forces were making headway against the enemy before they were forced to pull the plug. The mistake here is to think that small military progress would affect the root causes of the war, that the people had no confidence in the corrupt puppet government set up by the U.S., and that they wanted the Americans to get lost.

I guess Bush might have a point here. If we hadn't left Vietnam, we would not have the mess in Iraq, since we would still be there, fighting the war he refused to serve in.

Heck, if Bush wants historical references, try this one. If you want a good view of what a long-term occupation looks like, check out Israel. Think about how much more firepower the Israelis have in relation to the Palestinians. Think about how much easier it is to occupy territory that is just across the border and not half way around the world. The Israelis have a much better justification for their occupation than the U.S. does in Iraq. Yet they have been there for 40 years, and still they cannot control it, and in fact are forced to give the territory back.

That's what America has to look forward to if they buy this historical fantasy being peddled by Yale's most famous slacker student. Someone get that man a history book, fast.