text: do you know that we never lost one engagement in vietnam? we gave up and left.  terrorists are banking on this again.  it looks like the democrats are going to follow in the vietnam footsteps.  they understand that the entire war on terror is a propaganda one. this war is for real!  dr. vernon chong, major general, usaf, retired  to get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes wwii).  the deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.  first, let's examine a few basics:  1. when did the threat to us start?  many will say september 11, 2001.  the answer as far as the united states is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to september 2001, with the following attacks on us:  * iran embassy hostages, 1979; * beirut , lebanon embassy 1983; * beirut , lebanon marine barracks 1983; * lockerbie , scotland pan-am flight to new york 1988; * first new york world trade center attack 1993; * dhahran , saudi arabia khobar towers military complex 1996; * nairobi , kenya us embassy 1998; * dares salaam , tanzania us embassy 1998; * aden , yemen uss cole 2000; * new york world trade center 2001; * pentagon 2001.  (note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).   2. why were we attacked?  envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. the attacks happened during the administrations of presidents carter, reagan, bush 1, clinton and bush 2. we cannot fault either the republicans or democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, president ford.  3. who were the attackers? in each case, the attacks on the us were carried out by muslims.  4. what is the muslim population of the world?  25%.  5. isn't the muslim religion peaceful?   hopefully, but that is really not material. there is no doubt that the predominately christian population of germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of hitler (who was also christian), that made no difference. you either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. there were 5 to 6 million christians killed by the nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 polish priests).  (see "http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm...  thus, almost the same number of christians were killed by the nazis, as the six million holocaust jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the jewish atrocities. although hitler kept the world focused on the jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the jews or of taking over the world - german, christian or any others.  same with the muslim terrorists. they focus the world on the us , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the spanish, french or anyone else. the point here is that just like the peaceful germans were of no protection to anyone from the nazis, no matter how many peaceful muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." i don't blame the peaceful muslims. what would you do if the choice was shut up or die?  6. so who are we at war with?  there is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the muslim terrorists. trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. there is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.   so with that background, now to the two major questions:  1. can we lose this war?  2. what does losing really mean?  if we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:  we can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - what does losing mean?  it would appear that a great m