"US with their conscripted/draftee army were comprehensively defeated in Vietnam by a far weaker foe."

Yep. But, really, weaker? Militarily, tonnage of bombs, amount of expensive hardware (as judged by the standards of the time, perhaps) - bet they were fighting on their own soil - and remember that NORTH VIETNAM - before external interference and partition, WANTED HELP from ''the free world' and were promised it during WWII, but were betrayed afterwards - so they had the attitude of "f*** 'em all". Don't forget that the French built their big base in the shadow of mountains "that they can never get artillery up there" ...
hahahaha :-)

The 'South' were a bunch of corrupt warlord puppets, who could not motivate their 'official army' ... oh dear, starting to sound more like Iraq...

"The influx of troops required to add "boots on the ground" comes in the form of Iraqi troops."

Which are acknowledged to be no more effective than in Vietnam, not counting infiltration by those dedicated to overthrow...

"not one single military commander on ground has asked for more troops."

Ah - in the beginning, and even BEFORE the invasion, they did, but since the 'political winds' were observed correctly, no sane military commander has since stepped out of line - hence 'no more requests for more troops'.... :-)


"The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo."

Sorry, I musta grown up on a different planet...

"As for the Iraqis, God help them, because they are in deep trouble no matter what happens. "

That's about the best that can be said, unfortunately...