Normally, I wouldn't link to anything Paul Krugman writes, but I have to say he's going outside the box by claiming that Iraq is not only similar to Vietnam, but in many ways WORSE!

Of course in order to do that he has to cherry pick some of the best and worst actions of the Johnson and Nixon administrations (conveniently forgetting the drug abuse, My Lai, domestic rioting, etc). But the most ridiculous argument is this one:

It's true that the current American force in Iraq is much smaller than the Army we sent to Vietnam. But the U.S. military as a whole, and the Army in particular, is also much smaller than it was in 1968. Measured by the share of our military strength it ties down, Iraq is a Vietnam-size conflict.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? I would think that the fact that the number of troops being used is a much smaller fraction of our overall population is the more important statistic. If anything, there is constant talk about how little we are being asked to sacrifice as a nation in a time of war. Besides, I think we can afford a greater percentage of our troops involved in a single conflict since the Cold War isn't on anymore.

He then goes on to claim that, "the stress Iraq places on our military is, if anything, worse. In Vietnam, American forces consisted mainly of short-term draftees, who returned to civilian life after their tours of duty. Our Iraq force consists of long-term volunteers, including reservists who never expected to be called up for extended missions overseas."

Is this a joke? Post-Stress Disorder was practically invented during Vietnam! Krugman makes it sound like Vietnam Vets simply shipped off to a jungle on the other side of the world as if the were going on some kind of spring break. Somehow it was more fair to send 18 year-old draftees (the ones who couldn't escape or get a deferral) to war as opposed to the average soldier now who volunteered for military service?

Surely there must be more serious commentators on the Left that the Times can hire.