There has been a lot of informed opinion lately suggesting that the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan has already become a "new Vietnam."
That's a debatable point. For all the similarities of fighting elusive insurgents and trying to prop up a corrupt puppet regime, there are considerable differences as well. The first question, though, is really: What do people mean by this comparison?
"Vietnam" has become synonymous with a military quagmire and political defeat despite the application of overwhelming force. In a word: failure. So when the left talks of the "new Vietnam," it's a code word for futility, a blanket caution against any imperialistic military action. Similarly, the right's reaction is a knee-jerk dismissal, a blind belief that lightning won't strike twice.