Cal Thomas - Lessons from the Vietnam War for Iran
Regional stability hinges on credible deterrence and strategic partnerships with key allies.
Mainstream coverage of Iran tends to treat America’s choices as a binary: launch a quick strike or surrender to endless war. Cal Thomas is right to bristle at that framing. The real question is whether our leaders can define an end state and tell the public the truth about the costs, instead of selling optimism and improvising later.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
We Americans are an impatient lot. If we must engage in warfare, we would prefer it be wrapped up in weeks, not months, and certainly not years like World War II, Korea and Vietnam. In those wars we had the
Original source:
Read at Crescent-newsHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
Mainstream coverage of Iran tends to treat America’s choices as a binary: launch a quick strike or surrender to endless war. Cal Thomas is right to bristle at that framing. The real question is whether our leaders can define an end state and tell the public the truth about the costs, instead of selling optimism and improvising later.
Vietnam’s lesson is not “never intervene.” It is that unclear objectives and mission creep corrode public trust faster than casualties do. If Iran becomes the next test, the standard has to be national security tied to concrete interests, not vague credibility.
A serious policy also means rule of law at home and reliable deterrence abroad. If force is used, it should be limited, accountable, and aimed at stability, not open-ended nation-building.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.