For anyone who cares to revisit the subject, an interesting discussion of both sides of the Vietnam issue can be found here:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...39/ai_17473108
The paper reproduced on this site gives an analysis of the both the "hawk" and "dove" viewpoints. Here's a snip which agrees with Lookout's post above:
"The Vietnam War was likely winnable within a reasonable definition of victory, but the military strategy adopted by the United States in late 1964, and doggedly pursued until 1968, was counterproductive to America's own war aims. Hawks are wrong to blame the antiwar movement or the press for losing the war. Civilian and especially military leaders at high levels of the U.S. government lost the war. Their failure in battle is what gradually stoked antiwar sentiments at home, not the other way around."