Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for September 02, 2009

“We seek no wider war.” —Lyndon Johnson, 17 Feb 1965

The main difference is that Vietnam was fought entirely for ideological reasons, and Afghanistan is being fought because they gave Bin Laden and his co-vermin safe-conduct as well as the ability to operate.

@EdCole - you’re refferring to the CIA and the administration of times gone by, right?

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. –George Santayana

Those who never learned anything of the history get to repeat it flat-footed.

Remember, we were “advisers” to our allies, the South Vietnamese. We sure dropped a lot of “advice” on our allies

Well, sure, Ed Cole, you’re right. We’re in Afghanistan for the right reasons, this time.

And it isn’t going to matter worth a damn. While Dubya went after the oil in Iraq and a secularist dictator who al-Qaeda hated WORSE than Americans, Afghanistan was left to rot on the vine. That a lot more Americans than with Nam figure Afghanistan is a just war doesn’t change that the place is falling to pieces and that we’re not about to pay the price to change that.

Edcole1961 said The main difference is that Vietnam was fought entirely for ideological reasons

Not true: The Vietnam war was waged for the same reason that Iraq was invaded- OIL! And in both cases, the public ideological reasons were just a cover for the hidden agenda. The only difference is that while the oil in the mid-east is real, the oil in Vietnam has turned out to be as elusive as the WMDs in Iraq.

Those who think this is any different than Viet Nam are eating up the same slop we were served forty years ago.

Unless you want to argue that Afghanistan starts with an ‘A’ while Viet Nam starts with a ‘V’. Yea, totally different.

Well, why shouldn’t we be fighting in Afghanistan? The Soviets did it a few decades ago, and we’re turning into the Soviet States of America.

New lyric for the Fixin’-to-Die Rag: Don’t ask me I don’t give a “dam”, next stop’s Afghanistan.

Well, our purpose in Vietnam was to be chemotherapy - the war was toxic to everyone involved, and the tumor still lives, but it was stopped from spreading to the entire East. Was the Vietnam War successful? No, and yes. In my opinion, mostly yes.

Our purpose in Afghanistan is that of a prophylactic, keeping the little buggers contained and occupied so that they don’t spread around and inpregnate other countries. The problem is that once you take off the prophylactic, you’re going to have to prepare for future nasty little abortions. So far, the strategy there (and in Iraq) mostly has worked, but ask me again in 20 years.

You clowns are awfully cavalier with the word “we”. The US isn’t some sort of world regime fixer. When the US sends troops to “fix” what they think is broken, Americans die. Whatever we get out of it is never going to be good enough. US interventionism throughout history is an episodic car crash.

Does Walden have online degrees? I need a quick, cheap and easy Accounting degree.

Twisted history. The enemy now wonders why we were so inept, and left, right when we could’ve won.

We backed out for political reasons, to our shame. We could have and should have won; if we had, at least half of Vietnam would be free today, and we wouldn’t look like fools (which we now do again, gearing up to prosecute CIA employees).

Even if I disagree with entering a war, once we’re in, we’re in to win, and not chicken out, or the rest of the world won’t take us seriously. I suspect Obama now will cave to politics and not fight as agressively as he should. Eventually many will look at how badly things are going and say that we never should have gone in in the first place. But actually the lesson to learn is that we should never leave military operations in the hands of the left.

We got into Afghanistan because of the Taliban; we did the right thing. Yes it’ll be hard to win, but we have to, and we shouldn’t, as one man in the 60’s put it, do “any pussyfooting around”.

Now, should we have entered the war in Vietnam? ‘Nother subject. But we should have won, plain and simple.

Actually, the US abandoned Afghanistan a few years ago - the fight to keep the Taliban from oozing back into power was left to other nations, and the US is only now, with a new administration, rediscovering the country and its problems. Meanwhile, the Taliban has retaken portions of the country.

Miss Skeeter, I am very glad to hear from someone like you. That was a thoughtful and interesting post. (Near the bottom of last night’s comments, folks.) I’ve long thought that the way history is taught is a tragedy. It’s the most fascinating and pertinent subject there could be – it is our story, after all! – and yet most kids think it’s terminally boring. I was the same way. I learned most of the history I know after I graduated. You just keep reading. Teach yourself.

@fesalazarsoto; when you ask about african countries, two questions come to my mind:

do they have any oil? I beg pardon, but I don’t know the answer to this. But I guess they don’t, or we would be swarming all over them.

what is the colour of their skins? This is relevant. Deep down, I think, many many people still don’t think that people with black skin are really human. So why bother about them?

I never remember the details, but weren’t hundreds of thousands of people massacred recently and the West did nothing? Darfur, was it? Mogadishu? I bet if their skins were, say, a beautiful robin’s-egg blue they’d get attention!

Sigh…

Are you sure that was Santayana? I thought it was Bertrand Russell, but I’m too bleeep lazy to look it up just now.

bleeep was the same word which refers to what one does when mending socks.

Just so you know.

We supported a lot of dictators just because the were anti-communist. Now, we support dictators who are anti-jihad. The original GW (he’s on the 1$) warned against foreign entanglements.

I can answer the question posed by GT - Viet Nam was a JUNGLE disaster and A’stan is a DESERT disaster.

BTW - to get informed about A’stan and WHY we shouldn’t be there look into “Embedded in Afghanistan” and “Afghanistan; The Soviet Experience”, both at Journeyman PIctures [journeyman.tv, i think]

I do not work for nor represent Journeyman Films as anything other than an excellent source for the type of filmic [is that a word?] information you aren’t likely to see on the US Media Stage any time soon… bad for business.

Peaxe, WW

Yes, it was Santayana. He fought a war to prevent immigrants from taking over the land I call home. Before the war it was Northern Mexico. After, it was the American Southwest. They discriminated against our immigrants, you couldn’t own land, or even get married, unless you were a Spanish speaking Catholic. Immigrants to Texas, from Tennessee & Kentucky, revolted & declared independence. Current anti-immigrant loudmouths should note his words.

Okay, but what is the way to win Afghanistan? More military force? Fine, except if we keep killing large parts of the civilian population in a culture that believes in revenge we just keep extending the war. In order to win the people have to be with us, or you will never pacify the country. They have nowhere to go, we are the ones with the long lines of communication (same reason the British were doomed to lose the 1776 war in the end). They can wait us out.

ChukLitl - I think you’re confusing Santayana with Santa Ana.

My point stands.

@ChukLitl: Yes, your point stands; but if you wear a hat, it might not show. Anyone who doesn’t know the difference between the Spanish philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952) and the Mexican political and military leader Antonio López de Santa Anna (1794-1876) should do a lot more reading and a lot less writing. Such ignorance makes anything you say questionable.