In a letter in your Dec. 3-4 edition, Gary Bell of Corinth equates opposition to the war in Iraq with undermining the war effort. He claims the anti-war movement was responsible for our defeat in Vietnam and could result in our defeat in Iraq.

As a veteran of Vietnam and a student of its history, I take issue with his conclusions. When the anti-war movement began to gain traction in the mid-’60s, Ho Chi Minh’s forces had already been fighting the French and then the United States for more than 20 years. He was not about to quit, even had U.S. public opinion remained firmly behind the war. With 525,000 troops we had managed to achieve only a stalemate in the south.

To break the stalemate would have required a doubling or tripling of our forces and casualties to support an invasion and occupation of the north. Even then there was no guarantee of success; the French had occupied the north after World War II and been fought to a stalemate by the North Vietnamese.

Further, had we occupied the north, we would certainly have faced an insurgency even more lethal than the one we now face in Iraq. There were limits to military power then as there are today.

Certainly the protests of the ’60s brought the troops home sooner than many wanted but for those who despise the anti-war protesters of the ’60s, I suggest a trip to the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. Imagine it two, three or four times as long and ask yourself whether dissent does not serve an important and legitimate purpose in a democracy.

John Churchill

Calais