Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau
- September 02, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Comics A-Z Navigation
Doodles by Steve Sack and Craig Macintosh
The Doozies by Tom Gammill
About Doonesbury
G.B. Trudeau’s Doonesbury is currently in its thirty-ninth year, tracking its eighth presidential administration. Trudeau maintains his studio in New York and his Web presence at www.doonesbury.com.
Visit The Sandbox
© 2009 Universal Press Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (35) Jump to Comments Form
ARF2 said, 2 months ago
“We seek no wider war.” —Lyndon Johnson, 17 Feb 1965
Edcole1961 said, 2 months ago
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.
elsnerc said, 2 months ago
@EdCole - you’re refferring to the CIA and the administration of times gone by, right?
Susan001 said, 2 months ago
Jeff Redfern isn’t an asset–just an ass!
pbarnrob said, 2 months ago
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.
Lewreader
said,
2 months ago
Remember, we were “advisers” to our allies, the South Vietnamese. We sure dropped a lot of “advice” on our allies
Ravenswing said, 2 months ago
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.
TheSkulker
said,
2 months ago
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.
wcorvi said, 2 months ago
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.
MisngNOLA
said,
2 months ago
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.
WaitingMan
said,
2 months ago
New lyric for the Fixin’-to-Die Rag:
Don’t ask me I don’t give a “dam”, next stop’s Afghanistan.
BobMcK said, 2 months ago
Let’s just get the hell OUT now!!
Nemesys said, 2 months ago
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.
Fer Lefer said, 2 months ago
Soooo… How many “preventive” wars are the amerikans planning all over the world? I don’t see you at the very convulsive african countries? Why?
Maybe Jeff is going to those places as an ass-et
dualienoted said, 2 months ago
As soon as we’re out of there, the Taliban will give safe haven to al-Qaeda again, and instead of hiding in caves they’ll resume carrying out terrorist attacks. As soon as we’re out, the Taliban will overrun the country and resume the total subjugation of the female half of the country’s population. As soon as we’re out of there, conditions will become such that we’ll have to turn right around and go back in, fighting to regain control of every inch of ground we just gave up.
Afghanistan is not another Vietnam, it’s a quagmire of its very own. The Taliban are not homegrown freedom fighters, despite having been birthed as such. They are a terrorist organization funded by outside sources, primarily al-Qaeda’s Saudi backers, hence their close ties: a terrorist organization hated and feared by the vast majority of the population they seek to dominate.
Just because Afghanistan doesn’t want the current regime, the one the Shrub & Co. shoved down their collective throat, one should not assume they want to be thrown back into the horror of Taliban rule.
Some wars, despite their seemingly endless nature and moral, ethical, and political ambiguities, must be fought. This is one of them. Suck it up, Mr. Trudeau.
ronebofh said, 2 months ago
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.
Potrzebie said, 2 months ago
Does Walden have online degrees? I need a quick, cheap and easy Accounting degree.
sclark55
said,
2 months ago
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.
SeanM said, 2 months ago
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.
OldHipster said, 2 months ago
Stop the WAR!
KILL for PEACE!
OUT of Viet Nam!
Nixon’s the One
Nuke the Gooks!
Yippie! I’m a Hippie!
4deerinmyyard
said,
2 months ago
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.
RinaFarina said, 2 months ago
@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…
Orgelspieler said, 2 months ago
Are you sure that was Santayana? I thought it was Bertrand Russell, but I’m too bleeep lazy to look it up just now.
Orgelspieler said, 2 months ago
bleeep was the same word which refers to what one does when mending socks.
Orgelspieler said, 2 months ago
Just so you know.
ChukLitl
said,
2 months ago
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.
Joe Allen Doty said, 2 months ago
Jeff Redfern attended Walden College (not to be confused with the real Walden University) where one really didn’t have to learn much.
When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, most 4-year institutions of higher learning required that one who take at least a couple of courses in History, one of which was American History.
Isn’t our involvement with “Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan,” aka “Afghanistan War,” like it was with the Vietnam Conflict (it wasn’t a declared war either as far as the US involvement was concerned)?
I am a US Army veteran with a 1-year tour of duty in South Vietnam (Feb 67 -Feb 68).
Joe Allen Doty said, 2 months ago
Rich Americans had money invested in offshore oil interests in the South China Sea off the coast of South Vietnam.
Oil was the main reason that we were in that country in the 1st Place.
William Wilkerson
said,
2 months ago
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
ChukLitl
said,
2 months ago
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.
swhite828 said, 2 months ago
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.
lincolnhyde said, 2 months ago
ChukLitl - I think you’re confusing Santayana with Santa Ana.
ChukLitl
said,
2 months ago
My point stands.
laughaday said, 2 months ago
@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.
Chikuku
said,
2 months ago
The Afghan conflict has stronger dimensions of religion (Wahabi fanaticism) and ethnicity (Pashtoons vs. everybody else) than Vietnam ever did.