Is it OK to say "Vietnamization" now?

Lawrence Kaplan has been a war booster from the start, authoring a number of hawkish pieces in The New Republic over the last few years. And although he starts with a swipe at Democrats in his latest, he looks a little deeper at the ballyhooed 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq' and finds something disturbing-- the US could be switching tactics from aone failed Vietnam strategy to another failed Vietnam strategy. Worth a look.

It is not true, as Democrats were quick to claim, that President Bush's speech on Iraq yesterday offered nothing in the way of new ideas. The document that accompanied the president's speech, grandiosely titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," describes a new military strategy to "clear, hold, and build." Rather than sweep through towns and villages only to move on the next day, thereby allowing insurgents to flood back in, U.S. forces will now sweep through and leave Iraqi units behind to "hold" the towns. In his speech, Bush held up the recent offensive in Tal Afar as a model. "Iraqi forces not only cleared the city, they held it," the president said. "And because of the skill and courage of the Iraqi forces, the citizens of Tal Afar were able to vote in October's constitutional referendum."

If the clear-and-hold strategy rings familiar, that's because it is. The concept was a signature of the Vietnam War, when it was employed to mixed effect during the latter years of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. Hence, the good news: U.S. forces will no longer be fighting World War II all over again in Iraq, employing conventional tactics and operations against an unconventional foe. In its decision to revive tactical and operational concepts that were tested and found wanting in Vietnam, however, the administration seems to have missed a few things. First, it's not so clear that what worked in Vietnam will work again in Iraq. Second, we lost the war in Vietnam.