Worse than Vietnam

At least no one in this picture is being forced to undergo a full body scan.

There was a book by former Nixon aide John Dean in the 2000s that argued that George W. Bush's abuses were "Worse than Watergate," which they probably were.

Comes now Robert Wright to argue that the Obama/Bush policies in Afghanistan are "Worse Than Vietnam," which they probably are:

And how many anti-American jihadists has the war created on the battlefield itself? There’s no telling, but recent headlines suggest this admittedly impressionistic conclusion: We’re creating them faster than we’re killing them. And some of these enemies, unlike the Vietcong, could wind up killing Americans after the war is over — in South Asia, in the Middle East, in Europe, in America.

Hawks sometimes try to turn this logic to their advantage: It’s precisely because our enemies could remain dangerous after the war that we have to deny them a “platform” — an Afghanistan that’s partly or wholly under Taliban control; Communists weren’t going to use Vietnam as a base from which to attack America, but we saw on 9/11 that Afghanistan can be used that way.

While Vietnam was not a victory for the United States, at least it didn't lead to the terrorists-have-won fiasco now unfolding at the nation's airports, which are a straight line from the Patriot Act, domestic spying and other abuses on the homefront on which the conservatives who are going bananas over body scans and patdowns were most notably silent thoughout the 2000s. (And for those like Glenn Beck who claim that liberals support the body scans and pat-downs, they must be reading different liberals from the ones I read, who seem to be just as outraged.)