I would like to address Matt Valkovic's column ("Liberals need to end comparisons of Vietnam to Iraq" Thurs., Dec. 9). Valkovic makes the statement that "it definitely says a lot about the conflict when you spend an entire semester studying it and still can't come to a consensus on the main reason for American involvement." The original "reason" the United States went into the Iraq war, was to remove Saddam Hussein due to the "threat" that he had weapons of mass destruction. It is now known that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and this might have been known before the United States went into war. Do we really know the true reason? I don't think we do. This seems a lot like Valkovic's point on Vietnam. Valkovic says, "We actually achieved the strategic military victory...in three weeks." More soldiers are being killed every month. Insurgents are causing more chaos and many of the insurgents who fled Fallujah, moved to different cities and are starting to return. While the administration is adamant that elections are on schedule, officials think this is becoming unlikely, due to the lack of security personnel needed. I cannot say that I know more about Vietnam than Valkovic, but it seems he is missing facts about Iraq. I agree the United States has made progress in Iraq. While the two are not the same, we can use Vietnam to learn from mistakes.