Color me surprised.
From Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, comes an article entitled ‘Bush’s Vietnam?’:
For the past 30 years, left-right debate over AmericaÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s wars has traveled a well-worn rut. The Left says whatever war is in question is ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œanother Vietnam,ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? while the Right denies it. After three decades of being serially wrong, in the Iraq war liberals might be making their first-ever correct diagnosis.
In Iraq, as in Vietnam, we face a vicious insurgency that has worn down the will of the American public. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, we have failed to cut off the enemy from re-supply. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, we have had ever-shifting military strategies. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, we have had trouble building effective, clean governmental institutions in the soil of an alien culture. Most importantly, in Iraq, as in Vietnam, we face the prospect of defeat.
The consequences of that defeat would be remarkably similar to those in the wake of Vietnam. The prestige of the U.S. government would sink around the world, emboldening our enemies and creating a period of American doubt and retreat. A humanitarian catastrophe would likely befall Iraq, just as it did Vietnam. The only significant difference is that in Iraq, radical Islamists harbor ambitions to come to our shores and kill Americans, whereas the Viet Cong never wanted to follow us home.
Wow. Definitely take a look at the whole thing. Sure, the article doesn’t waste an oppportunity to slam the Dems and take potshots at Ned Lamont, but still…it is a noteworthy development in this world of “Cut and Run!” and “Bush Lied!”