Brilliant, John. They have an entire adulthood invested in how America led the world astray in Vietnam and how their intervention saved the day (at least for us)–forget about the poor Asians who suffered heavily. Now, for us to defeat an insurgency and help establish a democracy at the crossroads of the middle east (by military means, no less) would represent a lifetime reality check for the anti-war left. I think they see it coming.

"A lifetime reality check". I like that!

The one thing that came out of Washington big mouths after Vietnam was "WE learned our lessons."
There were three lessons from Vietnam:
1) Politicians should stay out of Military matters.
2) Allow the military to complete the job.
3) The press is not your friend, and can be worse than the enemy.
Let me explain:
1) The Democrats (Johnson) tried in the early years to micro-manage the Vietnam War. Ever since the Cuban Missile Crisis (even though Kennedy is considered a hero, it was actually a crisis of his own making {The Bay of Pigs}), the politicians believed that they can make better informed decisions than the soldiers on the field. They decided the targets, who would carry out the mission, weapons and loadouts used, even the time of the attack. Locations such as Hanoi and Haiphong were put off limits for political concerns. Of course the North Vietnamese used these locations to store thier weapons. But the intellegence used for the mission planning was days old and by the time of the attack, the target had moved. This micro-management cost American lives and helped extend the war. When Nixon removed the micro-managing limitations on the military during the Linebacker campaigns, negociations stalled by the North Vietnamese picked-up immediately. It is well believed that if the politicians didn't get involved in military matters, the war would have been shorter, there would have been fewer American casualties, and the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong would have lost the war. So far, the micro-managing hasn't returned, although some people think that they are smarter than the troops on the ground.
2) The Linebacker campaigns, if continued, probably would have destroyed the North Vietnamese ability to invade the south after the US pullout. Unfortunately, negociations with China, anti-war protesting due to bad press reporting, individuals making outlandish claims about US forces, without any proof, for political gain (Kerry), and political instability at home, had the US looking for an immediate way out. This prevented the military from completing the job. The Democrats are attempting to keep the Military from completing the job by trying to put a timeline on progress. The terrorists are not going to continue to fight until American troops leave and then stop. In fact, if they know when the US will leave, they will wait it out until the troops leave, and then begin an offensive to destroy the Iraqi government. It is bad enough we weren't allowed to complete the job properly in 1991, but some folks in Congress want us to make the same mistake twice.
3) The press is not interested in the truth. If you believe the press is truthful with the public about everything, please get your head examined. They are interested in two things, selling the news and winning awards. Both virtually require the press to imbellish the facts or even make things up. Don't believe it, how about CBS and the National Guard documents scandal, Newsweek's false claims about US troops destroying copies of the Koran (how do you just toss a large book in the toilet and flush it down withouy tearing it up into small pieces, something that takes a lot of time to do?), the Jason Blair scandal or the 24 hour news channels reporting of Hurricane Katrina (you know, hundreds of dead bodies in the Superdome, bathrooms being turned into rape chambers, people being murdered, shooting at helicopters).
Is anybody really sure of the reporting coming from Iraq. I have heard reports of reporters who are supposed to in the field reporting on the progress, hiding in thier hotel rooms and inventing stories or paying Iraqis to say negative things about the troops. These reports coming from other reporters and troops in the field (one case that I remember came from a reporter who was sent to a Texas National Guard unit earlier during the war. The commanding officer told him that he was the first reporter that they have seen in months, even though another reporter was writing that he was reporting from the very same unit a couple of days earlier). It was the Press' "not getting the facts correct" that turned public opinion against the US during Vietnam. The main example, the Tet Offensive. The truth behind Tet was that it was the Viet Cong's last gasp at a military victory. The massive number of strikes thinned out the ranks, and most of the attacks failed with massive losses. But the Press' reporting made it look like it was a major victory. Don't believe it, Giap even said it himself. He admitted that the Viet Cong was destroyed militarily after Tet. But bad press reporting made it a political victory and convinced him to carry on. The exact same thing is happening in Iraq.
Iraq will be another Vietnam if those lessons that "we learned" are frogoten again.