was corrupt and tried to avoid causalities while the United States military bombed areas all over the country killing civilian and guerilla alike. Vann knew by bombing these areas more local people would take the side of the Viet Cong. (Sound familiar?)

His approach was to engage the enemy in close combat, because by doing so would not risk any unnecessary deaths of civilians. It made for tough, slow fighting results, but it worked. And more importantly, it let the local peop

Seems Iraq is not a “popular war”. Which basically means that because we are not full-out winning the war by the time the nightly news stops for a commercial break, people think twice about it?

And as of recently, I’ve been seeing many people make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. (Especially from the criminals in D.C. who’re using the unpopular war opinion to further their own political careers)

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska warned that President Bush’s new plan to send in more troops would be “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.”

Well if protecting ourselves from the reaches of Communism (Vietnam), and from the fanatical evil of terrorism and religious fundamentalists (Iraq) means fighting it out in the worst conditions imaginable to protect our civilization so be it.

Our soldiers have a job to do. A job that they signed up for out of their own free will and sense of patriotism. If their commander in chief says “go protect us”, then our elected representatives should not quibble and complain like a bunch of washerwomen arguing over the dirty laundry.

Those troops are being sent over for a reason. And that reason is that we can’t decisively win this war and change those people that are shooting at our soldiers with electronics, smart bombs, or diplomacy.

Man to man, room to room, close quarters combat. That is how we’re going to win the day.

Listen, George W. Bush is not perfect, but to see that he’s doing the right thing now simply takes a look back at the Vietnam War. And one man in particularly…John Paul Vann

Lt Col Vann would return to the United States after serving his time in Korea and would have a typical career until he headed to Vietnam in 1962 as an advisor. Vann came to Vietnam with every intention of winning the war, but soon found nothing but problems. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and tried to avoid causalities while the United States military bombed areas all over the country killing civilian and guerilla alike. Vann knew by bombing these areas more local people would take the side of the Viet Cong. (Sound familiar?)

His approach was to engage the enemy in close combat, because by doing so would not risk any unnecessary deaths of civilians. It made for tough, slow fighting results, but it worked. And more importantly, it let the local peop

to send in more troops would be “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.”

Well if protecting ourselves from the reaches of Communism (Vietnam), and from the fanatical evil of terrorism and religious fundamentalists (Iraq) means fighting it out in the worst conditions imaginable to protect our civilization so be it.

Our soldiers have a job to do. A job that they signed up for out of their own free will and sense of patriotism. If their commander in chief says “go protect us”, then our elected representatives should not quibble and complain like a bunch of washerwomen arguing over the dirty laundry.

Those troops are being sent over for a reason. And that reason is that we can’t decisively win this war and change those people that are shooting at our soldiers with electronics, smart bombs, or diplomacy.

Man to man, room to room, close quarters combat. That is how we’re going to win the day.

Listen, George W. Bush is not perfect, but to see that he’s doing the right thing now simply takes a look back at the Vietnam War. And one man in particularly…John Paul Vann

Lt Col Vann would return to the United States after serving his time in Korea and would have a typical career until he headed to Vietnam in 1962 as an advisor. Vann came to Vietnam with every intention of winning the war, but soon found nothing but problems. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and tried to avoid causalities while the United States military bombed areas all over the country killing civilian and guerilla alike. Vann knew by bombing these areas more local people would take the side of the Viet Cong. (Sound familiar?)

His approach was to engage the enemy in close combat, because by doing so would not risk any unnecessary deaths of civilians. It made for tough, slow fighting results, but it worked. And more importantly, it let the local peop

triotism. If their commander in chief says “go protect us”, then our elected representatives should not quibble and complain like a bunch of washerwomen arguing over the dirty laundry.

Those troops are being sent over for a reason. And that reason is that we can’t decisively win this war and change those people that are shooting at our soldiers with electronics, smart bombs, or diplomacy.

Man to man, room to room, close quarters combat. That is how we’re going to win the day.

Listen, George W. Bush is not perfect, but to see that he’s doing the right thing now simply takes a look back at the Vietnam War. And one man in particularly…John Paul Vann

Lt Col Vann would return to the United States after serving his time in Korea and would have a typical career until he headed to Vietnam in 1962 as an advisor. Vann came to Vietnam with every intention of winning the war, but soon found nothing but problems. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and tried to avoid causalities while the United States military bombed areas all over the country killing civilian and guerilla alike. Vann knew by bombing these areas more local people would take the side of the Viet Cong. (Sound familiar?)

His approach was to engage the enemy in close combat, because by doing so would not risk any unnecessary deaths of civilians. It made for tough, slow fighting results, but it worked. And more importantly, it let the local peop

e day.

Listen, George W. Bush is not perfect, but to see that he’s doing the right thing now simply takes a look back at the Vietnam War. And one man in particularly…John Paul Vann

Lt Col Vann would return to the United States after serving his time in Korea and would have a typical career until he headed to Vietnam in 1962 as an advisor. Vann came to Vietnam with every intention of winning the war, but soon found nothing but problems. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and tried to avoid causalities while the United States military bombed areas all over the country killing civilian and guerilla alike. Vann knew by bombing these areas more local people would take the side of the Viet Cong. (Sound familiar?)

His approach was to engage the enemy in close combat, because by doing so would not risk any unnecessary deaths of civilians. It made for tough, slow fighting results, but it worked. And more importantly, it let the local peop

was corrupt and tried to avoid causalities while the United States military bombed areas all over the country killing civilian and guerilla alike. Vann knew by bombing these areas more local people would take the side of the Viet Cong. (Sound familiar?)

His approach was to engage the enemy in close combat, because by doing so would not risk any unnecessary deaths of civilians. It made for tough, slow fighting results, but it worked. And more importantly, it let the local people see that the war was against the enemy and not them personally, and resulted in rallying local support.

Unfortunately, like most men of action, Vann was critical of those in charge and gave his full, unedited, and truthful opinion to the press. This quickly lead to Vann losing his position, and later leaving the military. But the fight was not over for Vann as he returned as civilian advisor working with both American and Vietnamese personnel and inspiring them with his “lead by example” attitude.

When asked about his tactics Vann said, “This is a political war and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The worst is an airplane. The next worst is artillery. Barring a knife, the best is a rifle - you know who you're killing."

Vann would continue to lead forces to victory even after the United States began to pull out, but was killed in action when his helicopter crashed.

President Nixon awarded him the Medal of Freedom after his death, but sadly, Vann’s name cannot be found on the Vietnam Memorial with the other heroic men and women who died trying win an unpopular (but necessary) war.

This “getting close to make a difference” affects you too I hope you know.

While our soldiers are over in the sandbox doing their duty, they fully expect you to do yours while they are away. And that means preserving the freedom and way of life they left to go protect.

When you see someone being wronged…say something directly to the person doing the “wrong”. When you see the weak being, preyed upon…target the “predator” directly and make him see the error of his ways. We are in a fight so let’s do what we have to to win it.