Sen. John McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful in 2008, mentioned earlier this week he feared a Vietnam-style "Tet Offensive" in Iraq would send U.S. casualties soaring, resulting in further demoralization of the American public.
Advertisement - story continues below
There's no question the terrorist enemy would love nothing better. Just as in Vietnam, the enemy in Iraq has no hopes of victory on the battlefield. Its only chance to defeat U.S. forces is through a propaganda blitz in the U.S. media.
TRENDING: Is this what you voted for, America?
That's all Tet ever was in Vietnam, despite how revisionist historians continue to try to paint it today.
Advertisement - story continues below
Take, for example, the Associated Press account of McCain's comments.
McCain says: "By the way, a lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, 'Tet Offensive.' You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did."
Nothing wrong with that statement. It's accurate. McCain recognizes what Tet was and how a similar operation could be effective again today.
Advertisement - story continues below
But here is how the AP, the largest news-gathering organization in the world with some 30,000 employees, mangles the definition of Tet:
"Tet, a massive invasion in 1968 of South Vietnam by Communist North Vietnamese, inflicted enormous losses on U.S. and South Vietnamese troops and is regarded as a point where public sentiment turned sharply against the war."
Advertisement - story continues below
Notice the emphasis on "enormous losses" by the good guys.
What were those enormous losses? After nearly 40 years, can't we be a little more specific? And what was the cost to the enemy? There is no mention.
Advertisement - story continues below
By Iraq standards, the U.S. losses were indeed "enormous." Some 1,536 U.S. troopers were killed in the weeks-long campaign. South Vietnamese troops lost an additional 2,788 troops. But compare those numbers with enemy losses!
According to the best statistics now available, some 45,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were killed in what was planned as a last-ditch, roll-of-the-dice effort to persuade Americans they could never win the war. Another 6,991 enemy soldiers were captured in the offensive.
Advertisement - story continues below
In other words, no matter how you slice it, Tet was an unmitigated battlefield disaster for the enemy in Vietnam. But it proved to be an unmitigated media disaster for the U.S. at home.
That can only happen again if U.S. leaders allow it to happen. The Tet Offensive was the end for President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who never explained adequately to the American people why we had a stake in Vietnam, what we were fighting for and why we could not accept defeat. Elected in a landslide in 1964, he chose not to seek re-election four years later.
Advertisement - story continues below
President Bush has the same problem in Iraq.
While we lost 58,000 troops in Vietnam, the enemy lost more than 1 million. That means for every U.S. soldier killed, the enemy lost 20. It's hard to figure out even today how such numbers spelled defeat for the U.S.
In Iraq, we've lost only 3,000 U.S. troops. Nobody is attempting to keep track of enemy deaths. But in one seven-month period in 2005, the U.S. military estimated 50,000 terrorists or insurgents had been killed or captured. It's quite likely, then, that U.S. troops are inflicting more than 20 times the damage on the enemy as they are receiving.
No matter how you slice it, U.S. troops are kicking posterior and taking names.
Yet, politicians back home are ready to throw in the towel and declare defeat with dishonor – just as they did in Vietnam.
Fundamentally this is a problem of leadership.
Americans are willing to sacrifice if they understand the stakes. Americans are willing to endure the burdens of war if they understand victory is the goal. Americans are willing to fight if they can make the world a better place for their children and grandchildren.
Four years after the start of this war, I'm still waiting for the inspirational leadership, the fireside chats, the call to duty, the rally to arms.
And 40 years later, I'm still waiting for my colleagues in the press to tell the truth about Vietnam.
Related special offer: