From William Blum's article:
"Comparisons between the current Iraq quagmire and the infamous Vietnam quagmire are being raised more and more these days. But one vital difference is never pointed out; namely, that in Vietnam the US had a temporary objective, while in Iraq it's permanent. In Vietnam, the object was to destroy the possibility of a state arising there that could serve as an example of an alternative to the capitalist development model for other Asian countries. Ideally, this could be achieved by instituting a pro-American government. Although this proved beyond Washington's means, once Vietnam had been bombed, napalmed and Agent-Oranged into a basket case, which would not inspire anyone, the US was free to leave, with mission accomplished. In Iraq, the object is to colonize the place for a host of ongoing imperial needs, so there's no plan to leave in the foreseeable future. "
Given Blum's analysis, one has to wonder what kind of public protest it will take to bring down the regime's desire to maintain a permanent presence in what it, itself, is making into a permanent war zone. In what quantity do the troops have to be dying before the realities of policy become apparent to America beneath the media- generated haze of disinformation? And to what intensity does public outrage have to arise before it amounts to something? If the Demopublicans will be indefinitely unwilling to leave Iraq, and if the American presence makes things worse daily, then these are the questions we need to be asking.