Well, howdy there, internet people it spell again.

So today, we're going to talk about Trump saying he'd win Vietnam.

Trump made a claim that it simultaneously confused the country,

turned the president into the subject of worldwide ridicule, and made people doubt

his understanding of history in general, Vietnam specifically, and even his understanding of the

current mess he embroiled the U.S. in. Trump, while on CNBC, squawk box, said, quote,

I just looked at a little chart.

World War I, four years and three months.

World War II, six years.

Korean War, three years.

Vietnam, 19 years.

Iraq, eight years. I'm eight years. I'm five months. I would have won Vietnam very quickly. I would have if I were president. First, just because I know the history majors are having an

absolute fit. U.S. involvement in World War I lasted

about 19 months, not four years. U.S. involvement in World War II lasted less than four years,

not six. He got other stuff wrong, too, to include the length of direct U.S. fighting in Vietnam.

But those two are important, because understanding the timelines might help Trump and those who believe his ahistorical claims about Europe and NATO,

realized that while Europe was actively fighting U.S. opposition during

the world wars, the U.S. was sticking our heads in the sand.

We were pretending like it didn't matter to us, and deploying a foreign policy similar to

Trump's. Mocking Trump's ignorance of history and the fact that he's

claiming he could have won a war, that he received multiple deferments to avoid, and then later

compared to his struggles to avoid social diseases, is entertaining. but it's low-hanging fruit.

...