The better consideration to make, as I've said before, is to look at all post-World-War II conflicts in their general context; we have faced numerous wars where the foe wasn't always identified or defined, or where the goals that we were fighting to achieve were vague (contributing to the length and tiring of the public).

In a post almost seven months ago,”Will Afghanistan Be “Obama’s Vietnam”?” I quoted articles suggesting differences and also some similarities between Afghanistan and Vietnam:

For example:

“The first article, by John Barry and Evan Thomas, “Obama’s Vietnam,” delves with laser-like sharpness into both the similarities and differences between the Vietnam War and our struggle in Afghanistan:

Vietnam analogies can be tiresome. To critics, especially those on the left, all American interventions after Vietnam have been potential “quagmires.” But sometimes clichés come true, and, especially lately, it seems that the war in Afghanistan is shaping up in all-too-familiar ways. The parallels are disturbing: the president, eager to show his toughness, vows to do what it takes to “win.” The nation that we are supposedly rescuing is no nation at all but rather a deeply divided, semi-failed state with an incompetent, corrupt government… The enemy is well accustomed to resisting foreign invaders and can escape into convenient refuges across the border. There are constraints on America striking those sanctuaries…

But also:

True, there are important differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam. The Taliban is not as powerful or unified a foe as the Viet Cong. On the other hand, Vietnam did not pose a direct national-security threat; even believers in the “domino theory” did not expect to see the Viet Cong fighting in San Francisco. By contrast, while not Taliban themselves, terrorists who trained in Afghanistan did attack New York and Washington in 2001….”

However, while there may be some similarities, especially as to the tough decisions ahead for Obama and the tough fight ahead for our troops, I stand firm behind what I believe is the one huge difference: the reasons for the Vietnam War and the reasons for our going into Afghanistan: The war of choice vs. the war of necessity

Thanks for your comments.

Actually, the thrust of my post is that, while there are valid comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq, Afghanistan is a different matter: Vietnam and Iraq were in my opinion are wars of choice, while I believe Afghanistan was and is the “necessary war.”

Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

In addition, while some are now claiming Afhanistan to be “Obama's Vietnam,” I totally dispute that and hope it will not become that in any sense of the comparison. Again, sorry I did not make that more clear.

“If by Vietnam you mean an unjustified war, I would say that does not describe Afghanistan. We are going after the Taliban who attacked our country.”

I believe that is exactly what I said:

“While no war is a “good” war, we went into Afghanistan because the dastardly 9/11 attacks were indeed planned, organized, funded, directed and perpetrated by Al Qaeda in and from Afghanistan—not Iraq. It wasn’t a war of choice, as was the Iraq war. The hostilities were thrust upon us and the real terrorism threat was and continues to be in Afghanistan”

Finally, you say:

“If by Vietnam you mean a costly, painful, dragged-out war with a possible unsatisfactory conclusion, then Afghanistan could well be the next Vietnam. If things go badly I can't see history looking kindly on Obama's CIC role no matter how noble his intentions.”

Agreed on the first part, and hoping the second part does not materialize.

Dorian

If by Vietnam you mean an unjustified war, I would say that does not describe Afghanistan. We are going after the Taliban who attacked our country.

If by Vietnam you mean a costly, painful, dragged-out war with a possible unsatisfactory conclusion, then Afghanistan could well be the next Vietnam. If things go badly I can't see history looking kindly on Obama's CIC role no matter how noble his intentions.