Sri Lanka, 1987.

India sent peacekeepers to its neighbour in 1987 but withdrew them in 1989 after losing 1,200 soldiers.

This was to battle the Tamil Tiger rebel group. To this day, the group persists, seeking not to join the nation, but rule autonomously from within. Under Ted Kennedy's definition today, this would be another Vietnam. But I wonder if that definition is based on numbers of deaths or the fact that India cut and ran? Or maybe a combination. What defines a Vietnam, Mr. Kennedy?

Ironically, this week marks a strange convergence of tragic world events - all falling under a common theme of timid leadership and half-hearted efforts to save lives. You could term this the antithesis of Vietnam. Instead of bold, aggressive, politicized war we have half-ass attempts to look good, act Swiss and walk on UN eggshells.

First there are the 9/11 hearings. A fiery attempt to place blame on everyone for not acting to stop bin Laden. Then there is the 10th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide. Under Clinton's term, America and the world let a million people die while failing to act. Finally, the uncertainty in Sri Lanka reminds us of India's capitulation in 1987.

What we have is a couple decades post-Vietnam where the world experiences such a distaste for war and death, that the very act of war - no matter what the cause or need - was impossible in political terms. Call it PC run amok on a global scale.

But then we had 9/11. Bush was in office. Rumsfeld was ready to unleash 'shock and awe' whereby we tried our damnest to limit American casualties to appease fears of another Vietnam, and also struck so technologically advanced and strategically smart that we toppled a nation in 3 weeks. And we've lost just over 600 soldiers since day 1 of the Iraq War. And it's no longer the dirty peace activists claiming Vietnam - it is a major US Senator.

So once again, put things in perspective. Look at the millions of deaths allowed by nations when failing to act was the modus operandi. Now contrast that to the thousands of deaths in this latest struggle to not only protect the US and its allies, but to save a people from radical extreme religious deadly fervor. Was failing to act not worse? How can a President who finally chose to act, be derided as a miserable failure?

Since Bush has been so 'distracted' by Iraq, he has managed to topple the Taliban, keep Osama on the run, force dictator Charles Taylor out of Liberia, restore calm in Haiti after a mere few weeks, expose Libya's WMDs, and more.

It has always been said that the Left hated the fact that the Republicans put an actor in the White House in 1980. To this day, they still can't stand it when a President truly acts.