Looking in the Mirror: Iraq versus Vietnam

My last big Iraq/Vietnam comparison reality check was quite some time ago and was far more dismissive of and snarky at anyone who seriously equivocated the two. Roughly a year and a half later even some of our Congressmen are no longer comparing them, but outright stating they are no different.

Considering this absurdity I'm afraid that there is little I can do to save them. These are educated men. If they don't know the differences, even after having lived through both eras, they are either truly lost in the propaganda of their own agenda or just outright lying for political points. I'm sure you can guess what I'd wager.

But once again, for the non-BDS-afflicted, I offer my comparison of the two which will be far more helpful to the open minded than the zombie-like minions who will follow a politician's propaganda to the edge of insanity.

Vietnam	Iraq
Fighting against independence movements.	Fighting with and for an independent government.
Supporting nondemocratic institutions and opposing democratic reforms.	Establishing democratic institutions and allowing self-government.
Objective was to prevent the spread of communism, i.e. hold the line, even if that meant propping up a despot and keeping the nation divided.	Objective was to end the oppressive rule of a despot, enforce the ceasefire agreement, ensure the security of the US and our allies, and allow the Iraqi people to establish a unified self-government.
Objective completed was holding the line successfully during the period of strong troop presence, but the line fell relatively soon after that presence was gone.	Objectives completed include removing the oppressive regime, enforcing the ceasefire agreement to its end, verifying that Iraq had disarmed and was unable to use or provide WMDs to subnational groups against the US and our allies, and maintaining security while the Iraqi people have established self-government. But the current government has yet to establish a security structure that could reasonably ensure its own security yet so US forces still remain in pursuit of this end.
Financial cost of the war was overwhelming, but not crippling.	Financial cost of the war was also overwhelming, but not crippling.
Human cost of the war ranged into the millions for civilians.	Human cost is estimated from tens to hundreds of thousands for civilians depending on direct versus indirect causality estimates. The higher estimate mirrors figures for civilian deaths indirectly related to the period of sanctions during the 1990's.
Human cost of the war also included 58,000 US military deaths, the worst of any major US conflict since World War II.	Human cost of the war also included 4,000 US military deaths. This figure is actually lower than military deaths during many periods of peacetime of the same duration of time, for instance 6,000 military deaths due to military accidents alone during the early 1980's.
Regular military forces of the enemy are never fully defeated.	Regular military forces of the enemy are soundly defeated.
Operational control over enemy territory is never accomplished.	Operational control over the entire enemy territory is accomplished.
Involved asymmetrical warfare.	Also involved asymmetrical warfare.
Heavy US combat involvement from 1964 to 1973.	Heavy US combat involvement in early 1991 and then again from 2003 to present.
Draft based military strategy.	Volunteer army based strategy.
US military training programs intended to move towards US withdrawal and the military and security forces of South Vietnam to continue security operations and defend itself from a yet undefeated enemy military. This ultimately failed with the large scale military invasion by the North.	US military training programs intended to move towards US withdrawal and the military and security forces of Iraq to continue security operations. Regular military forces of the enemy have been defeated, the comparison ends with the training programs.
US demonized by radical war opponents and the enemy as imperialist and corrupt. Massive protest movement develops and up to massive scale protests to the war occur.	US demonized by radical war opponents and the enemy as imperialist and corrupt. Large protest movement develops and up to large scale protests to the war occur.
Popular beliefs in the cause of the war are discounted as inaccurate or lies (Gulf of Tonkin). Full rationale of the war, primarily the domino theory of communism and fighting the spread of that communism is generally disregarded as irrelevant in spite of the eventual fall of the whole of Vietnam to communist forces and the spread of communist to neighboring Cambodia.	Popular beliefs in the cause of the war are discounted as inaccurate or lies (that Iraq had WMD). Full rationale of the war, primarily the enforcement of the ceasefire agreement and the inherent danger of rogue nations in the world of modern international terrorism is generally disregarded as irrelevant in spite of the obvious violations of the ceasefire agreement being the primary cause of poor intelligence on Iraq's WMD capability and the other known examples of rogue nations creating great concerns during the "War on Terror" foreign policy intended to reduce the support and effectiveness of international terrorism.
Military successes are dismissed (e.g. the successful repulsion of the Tet Offensive)	Military successes are dismissed (e.g. victory over the regular military forces, security maintained enough to allow democratic elections and the establishment of self-government, multiple successful large scale operations, relatively speaking, extremely low casualty rates for a conflict of this intensity and the lowest number of casualties of any war of similar operational scope in the last century.
A military quagmire with no end in sight for asymmetrical warfare or full scale warfare.	Reduced to a long term security operation, but without full scale warfare.
Vietnam is Vietnam	Iraq is Iraq, and not much at all like Vietnam

Although I'm sure the comparisons will never end it'd be nice to see the blatantly incorrect equivocating of the two cease with some honest assessments of what is actually similar and what is obviously contrasting in the two situations. Such analysis could be far more helpful to the discussion and debate on the subject just as similarities to the Spanish-American War and the resulting Philippine War has some noteworthy similarities that could add to the discussion, they are still not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination.

Sadly the same people who propose they are somehow equivalent are typically the same people who castigate supporters of the Iraq invasion for the worst case scenarios and alleged exaggerations put forth by the Bush Administration to gain popular support for it.

Would it not be hypocrisy to so harshly berate your opponent's alleged methods to gain support while utilizing exactly the same tactics for the same purpose? Perhaps there is a subconscious reason for their spite: When they see Bush on the television set, that reflection off the glass, is them.