[SuperScout]

It seems that the historical revisionists are hard at work, stumbling all the way back to the Vietnam War. We didn't win in Vietnam by leaving, we won by destroying the Viet Cong and enough divisions of the North Vietnamese invaders to cause them to wait until 1975 to gain sufficient manpower to re-invade the South. And before you go gnashing your teeth in angst, panty-wadding, or other forms of disbelief, that assessment above was from a North Vietnamese general. Peace without liberties to enjoy them in is hollow and meaningless. A well-run prison is peaceful, but is practically absent of any liberty.

There has never been a military victory where the tactic of "cut and run" was practiced. This tactic may be in the playbook of the French military, but their sterling record of military victories is the shortest read in history. The negotiated settlement in Korea certainly hasn't produced anything even vaguely resembling peace. It is by staying and finishing wars that peace is achieved, as evidenced by the end of WWII, the end of Gulf War I, and oh yes, a little matter here in Texas, the Battle for Texas Independence. We didn't cut and run, we didn't negotiate, we won the dang thing.

And this thread is not about what GWB did or didn't do during the Vietnam War, so go peddle your documents elsewhere. And it certainly isn't about what the Republican leadership did or didn't do during the same period.

It is about the so-called new strategy about the war in Iraq, and so far, there's been a veritable paucity of supporting authorities lining up behind Murtha's proposal. It's not about what Murtha did while in the Marines; his record justifiably deserves praise. While he served admirably and honorably back then, he isn't exercising sound judgment today. If it's the best alternative the Democrats can dream up, they need to return to their Ouija boards for a better solution.