Maybe in terms of stirring up the conflicts between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims already going on in the Middle East for many centuries, you may have a point. But in terms of US casualties, the Iraq war pales in comparison to the number of GI's lost in Vietnam and it didn't get us anywhere in the end. After our twenty year involvement, we didn't win. We had to pull out. And we had over 58,000 casualties. Iraq, on the other hand, last only 8 years and cost us just over 3,500 precious lives.
I know you can't compare the two wars as apples and apples, because all conflicts are unique unto themselves. But I believe Vietnam will go down in history as a far bigger blunder in our foreign policy than the Iraq War just based on the numbers of casualties we had versus the final outcome.
There is something in what you say, HotHunt. But consider this. Communism did not spread throughout Southeast Asia after Saigon fell. There was no domino effect.
The loss of lives there was tragic, extremely tragic. But there was no regional political upheaval after Saigon fell.
Contrast this with today. The Iraqi War took the focus off the war that had to be fought and won, the one in Afghanistan. And one result of that is radical islam is on the march, in the Middle East, in eastern Africa, in north Africa, in Indonesia. The radicals are emboldened by Bush II's failures. The radicals see themselves as owning the future. And Iraq caused the West to be war-weary. There is no real stomach to take the radicals on.
That's why I see Iraq as a bigger blunder than Vietnam.