When John Kerry was a young man he joined the Navy rather than avoid military service like many of his contemporaries. Not satisfied with serving aboard a Navy ship in the relatively safe Gulf of Tonkin, he volunteered for duty aboard a Swift boat. Serving aboard a Swift boat was one of the more dangerous assignments in the Vietnam War.

Why did Mr. Kerry volunteer for military service and assignment to Vietnam? Maybe, like myself, and other Americans he felt it was an honor and his duty to serve in the defense of one’s country. Perhaps, like myself, and other young men, he wanted to prove something to himself and measure his courage in combat. The enthusiasm and idealism that draws young men into war soon becomes contrasted with the reality of war. For John Kerry the contrast led to disillusionment and then to active protestation of the Vietnam War.

Today, John Kerry is running for President of the United States. That same enthusiasm and idealism that drew John Kerry to serve his country in Vietnam, has reappeared in his running for President. For in his acceptance speech and in his campaign ads he states that “I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President.” Could history be repeating itself in other ways?

When Richard Nixon ran for President, he said he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam (presumably by winning it). He ended the bombing halt and even used B-52s to carpet bomb the north. He mined and blockaded Haiphong harbor but that also had little effect. He even secretly invaded and bombed Cambodia that provided sanctuary to the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese but that did not change the course of the war.

Finally, with few military options left short of total destruction of the countryside, Nixon said that we would support and train the South Vietnamese army who would then replace the Americans and defend their country. Sound familiar? Think of our strategy in Iraq today. That strategy failed in Vietnam and has little chance of success in Iraq. How do you expect Iraqis or Vietnamese to fight against their countrymen for a foreign army occupying their soil? Didn’t Americans face the same choice during the Revolutionary War?

I spent my entire military career during the Cold War in the containment of communism. I felt it was the proper strategy but I was wrong about Vietnam. I, along with others, believed that if South Vietnam fell to the communists, all of Southeast Asia would be next. That didn’t happen. Ho Chi Minh was a dynamic leader of his people and like President Lincoln, he united a divided country. While Lincoln freed the slaves, Ho Chi Minh ridded his country of a foreign army.

Containment was working in Iraq. Iraq was not a threat to any of its neighbors and certainly not to the United States. Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia all opposed our aggression against Iraq. No-fly zones covered sixty percent of the country and every time Saddam wiggled he was met with bombs against his radar sites or a volley of cruise missiles against strategic targets in Baghdad. There was no connection between Iraq and the events of 9-11 nor were there any links to al Qaeda. Instead of suppressing the fires of terrorism, we have fanned the flames into a conflagration.

I have mixed feelings about my service in Vietnam. I take solace in the fact that I served faithfully and honorably in spite of the errors made by the civilian leadership of this country. I suspect that those who have served in Iraq, and continue to serve, also have mixed feelings. But they can take solace in the fact and say to themselves “I have done my duty. I served faithfully and honorably in spite of the grievous errors in judgement made by my civilian leadership.”

No matter who wins the election for President, there is no viable exit strategy for Iraq. In the battle for Fallajuh, the Marines with the help of the Air Force and Army could have leveled every building in the city and left it in total devastation. But, the world and many Americans would have turned even more against our use of military force. Like Nixon learned in Vietnam and our military leaders are expressing today, we can win every battle but still can not win the war with our military. Even President Bush has said that the Iraqis must assume more responsibility for their country. There is more meaning it that statement than even President Bush may realize. When the Marines pulled back from Fallajuh, we granted the citizens of that city more sovereignty than the leaders of Iraq in Baghdad.

John Kerry has stated that he will gain more support from the nations of the world. Given the fact that Bush’s behavior has alienated most nations that is true. I don’t think it will be a significant factor since most countries will say that you started the war alone, now finish it alone, and will offer little other than token support. The deciding factor for me in this election is should President Bush (along with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) be rewarded for their mismanagement of the war. There must be accountability.

If John Kerry is elected President it will be a very difficult time for him. Because of his service in Vietnam, the Iraq war will have a more personal effect on his emotions. In his acceptance speech he stated “Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way…." I have never heard President Bush make similar statements.

Will John Kerry become disillusioned when his efforts to bring an end to the Iraqi conflict are met with little success? Will the situation eventually evolve until we find a young Marine or Army Captain testifying before a Congressional committee and repeating the same words John Kerry did 33 years ago under similar circumstances by posing the question “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Déjà vu, John Kerry, Déjà vu.