Almost since the day our troops set foot in Afghanistan, we have had to suffer the Left’s slings and arrows that our forces are mired in a “quagmire” (there’s buzz word #1) not seen since the days of Vietnam (buzz word #2). In fact, if I recall, we hadn’t been on the ground more than a few days when the first quagmire and Vietnam missiles started falling on the American public courtesy of the antique media.

When the focus shifted and the “bigger” war became Iraq, the references shifted. Afghanistan became the “good war”, at least until the Left had no other war to carp about. Then I’m sure it would revert to Vietnam. For the moment, though and to this day we have had to endure pontifications by Democrat Senators, Representatives and the bulk of the Democrat apparatchik known as the mainstream media. You’d be hard pressed to find a full week’s worth of news where some major figure wasn’t quoted using one of the buzz words.

Sectarian strife and civil war have been added to the lexicon to alleviate the wear and tear on the q key for most media pundits, as well as the “Bush Lied, blah blah insert my ridiculous leftist slogan here” memes. Still, everything comes back to Vietnam. I’ve often heard, and I agree with by the way, that the Left clings to Vietnam because it was their one great victory, their shining moment where they humiliated the U.S. and saw the victory of one of their favorite communist powers.

Almost universally, they ignore the aftermath, that same aftermath that the right predicted at the time, of their triumph. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were killed or “reeducated”. Thousands more fled and became refugees; the famous boat people we are now once again hearing of. Uncounted thousands died in Laos as communists came to rule the roost in that nation. Both paled in comparison to the 1-3 million dead Cambodians courtesy of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. The domino theory had proven correct, and the dominos crushed a few million under them as they fell.

None of this seems to have actually happened, though, if you listen to the likes of John Kerry. He has been attributed as saying the Domino Theory was false and that the locals suffered no ill effects by America leaving. This apparently is the standard by which leftist historians now portray this period to the masses, so perhaps John’s just showing how learned and “with it” he is.

Most have made sure to reeducate us lately because of the president’s speech given to a VFW that compares Iraq to Vietnam, only this time from the side conservative and right-leaning historians have tried to preach. He stated that to leave Iraq would cause the same type of carnage and loss of U.S. prestige that we suffered after we left Vietnam.

Liberal historians were outraged; most notably by anyone who presumed to educated people on the lessons of history over them. They were also outraged because he’s challenging their great “truth”, their good facts that tell history the way they think it should be told. In the Left’s view of history, everything within the last five hundred years is America’s fault and the atrocities and tyrannical happenings of the world since are merely a response to our Imperialistic and capitalistic aggression (read Howard Zinn if you think I’m exaggerating). The only lessons liberals wanted us to believe from Vietnam were those that were stamped and approved by their establishment. Tell me if you heard this in high school. The U.S. wrongly propped up a series of puppet South Vietnamese regimes while the patriotic Viet Cong aided by friendly Ho Chi Minh and the North Vietnamese resisted the Imperial aggression of the American occupiers. Take a look at these substantive quotes from “noted historians” that all swing left from the antique news reports following the speech.

Stanley Karnow, a Vietnam historian said “He's invoking Vietnam for political purposes. What he says about Vietnam is not entirely true.”

Very substantive retort from the great historian, but it doesn’t really tell us much.

Douglas Brinkley, the left’s favorite go-to historian said “You're not going to be able to sell the lessons of Vietnam being we should have stayed a decade longer.”

That wasn’t what Bush or frankly any historian who has looked at Vietnam realistically is advocating. The Democrat-controlled Congress, emboldened by Nixon’s resignation, cut off funds to Vietnam and cut off our military air support, which we had pledged when we pulled out ground troops. The South Vietnamese begged for this support even as they valiantly fought the North Vietnamese who invaded in 1975. The Democrats let South Vietnam die and the blood of all those innocents are on their hands. Now they want to do it again in Iraq, but that’s one thing you won’t see the likes of Douglas Brinkley addressing.

People like Brinkley certainly don’t address the realities of what happened there. The whole part about the U.S. defending an ally against an invasion by an aggressive communist neighbor, even fighting Russian pilots over the skies of North Vietnam, is completely left out. The fact that our predictions of disaster if we left also came true is the last thing the Left wants the average American to remember.

These happenings would very much echo into the future if we were to leave Iraq. Iran and Syria, possibly even the Saudis or Turks, will descend on a torn and divided Iraq. Refugees will flee in every direction (including here). Our ability to engage in Afghanistan will be called into question next and it will be significantly harder without a large presence in Iraq. The groups attacking the U.S. (especially Al-Qaeda) have already said that the war is in Iraq and that all loyal jihadis must come there to fight the infidel Americans. Where do you think they’ll want to come after they feel they’ve kicked us out of Iraq, after we’ve proven bin Laden’s prediction of us being a “weak horse” to be true? They’ll come here and they’ll kill us in droves. Perhaps that’s the only element that’s not a match for the legacy of Vietnam (although one could argue that communism in our hemisphere grew considerably after that; think Nicaragua, Grenada and El Salvador).

Here's a lesson worth extrapolating from the history of Vietnam. If you could go back and ask a majority of South Vietnamese if they liked the presence of the American Army, most would likely admit that they did not. If you then asked did they think the Americans should leave and withdraw support, thus allowing the North Vietnamese and remanant Viet Cong to kill anyone who might possibly disagree with them and convert the country into an unwilling collective, most would likely have said "No, please stay. Don't like you too much, but I like the idea of being dead even less."

That's more or less where the Iraqis are. They don't like being occupied. Who could possibly like a foreign army on their soil? I know we wouldn't. Do they want to be left to the mercy of sectarian militias, a vengeful and resurgent Al-Qaeda, and the depravities and ravages of their hostile neighbors instead? Every time we've asked, they say "No, please stay". They also like the idea of being dead even less. It's sort of a universal constant among run-of-the-mill humanity.

This is one of those golden opportunities to learn the truth about your American history. Study it for yourself and these facts will leap out at you. When you don’t view it through a Marx-colored lens, history can teach you some truly amazing things.