In response to Mike Horn’s clever ‘“Swiftboating’ George Bush” illusion Thursday, I appreciate his views and service to his country during the Vietnam War period; I would, however, rather get an up or down response from someone who actually “swiftboated” in Vietnam, not from someone who apparently didn’t spend time in harm’s way.

I will concede that I have also respected many of those young men who chose not to serve in Vietnam, including President Bill Clinton, but I will agree with Horn that Lt. George W. Bush did serve honorably in the Texas Air National Guard.

To Scott Conover, I feel your pain loud and clear, for the loss of your brave son. I see, hear and honor his name every Veterans Day at the Tracy War Memorial.

Forty years ago, I served as a young U.S. Air Force transportation officer with the 14th Aerial Port Squadron in Nha Trang. One of my responsibilities was shipping kids back to the states in body bags attached with U.S. Army KIA labels. My only brother was killed during the Vietnam War, albeit accidentally. But to infer that Clinton (or George Bush) had some responsibility for the Sept. 11 tragedy is ingenuous nonsense.

Why am I dredging up the “ancient” history of Vietnam It is to remind Americans that our foreign policy failed us in Vietnam, just as it is failing us in the Middle East. For 60 years, we have failed to provide an even-handed, fair solution to the Israeli-Palestinian standoff, although presidents Jimmy Carter and Clinton came close.

We have supplied weapons and intelligence to such so-called allies (at the time) as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. (Remember the Iraq-Iran war and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) The present hard-line approach to Cuba is a joke. I could go on.

I suppose the Bush administration’s definition of “winning” this conflict in Iraq is to establish a stable democratic government that can defend itself internally and externally. Trust me, it ain’t gonna happen! There is no “win-tunnel” in Iraq for a light to be at the end of. Or would you like to consider supporting this conflict ad nauseum or until the jihadists go home, at the cost of countless billions of dollars more

No. Let us declare a strategic victory and start redeploying our troops perhaps to peripheral areas and keeping the aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. This is common sense, not a “cut and run” tactic. We can then give the Iraqi army six to nine months to take over and then pull our ground troops out while maintaining no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq.

The jihadists will not follow us home, as some fear. This is similar to the same mentality that there once was for prolonging the Vietnam quagmire — that all Southeast Asia would become communist and that we would have nuclear war with Russia. Isn’t it ironic that we now maintain full diplomatic relations with communist Vietnam and China!

No, the jihadists instead plan to continue their turmoil on their own Middle Eastern soil, especially now that they have been well-trained in Iraq. The fact is they don’t want us to leave because they have maintained the tactical advantage fighting on their own turf!