Even more on Iraq and Vietnam

Via Busy Busy Busy, Mickey Kaus has this to say about comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq:

The difference, of course, is that the war Johnson fought using the Gulf of Tonkin incident produced very little except massive carnage and a Communist government in South Vietnam. The Beirut attack was a total loss. But American soldiers in Iraq--whether or not there were WMDs--are in the process of freeing a nation from a dictator. This accomplishment survives the Kay report. It doesn't "cheapen the sacrifice" American soldiers made achieving this goal to admit the truth about the WMDs. Does Kerry think the troops haven't achieved this?

Hey, I'm in the process of finishing my thesis. That means I'm done, right?

Look, I have always been critical of comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. And comparing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to Bush's lies about WMD's is questionable, for reasons I won't get into. But Kaus's logic here is considerably lacking.

Even if we pretend that being in the process of something is the same as an accomplishment, Kaus's pure ends justifying the means comment is complete bullshit. Following this logic, if we had lost World War II, for instance, then our entrance into it would be unjust. Or to be more pertinent to current events, our entrance into Afghanistan is entirely unjustified, since Osama Bin Laden is still at large and the Taliban are regaining control of the country.

I doubt Kaus would argue that the only thing that made our entrance in World War II justified was the fact that we won, nor would he argue that our entrance into Afghanistan was unjustified. His entire statement is a cynical hypocritical "Bush is right about Iraq" stance that he hopes no one will think about.