It's Like They Know Nothing

So, a short article quoting an Italian officer comparing the situation in Afghanistan to 1942 World War II--a time when the tide was shifting for the Allies despite the hard fighting that lay ahead. All fine, as a broad comparison.

And then.

And then the idiocy that I've come to expect from the vast majority of our press corps. The Vietnam comparison:

Di Paola rejected, though, any comparison with Vietnam in 1975, when US-trained Vietnamese soldiers were overrun by communist guerrillas.

So what genius suggested that comparison?

It's only been 36 years since the fall of South Vietnam. You'd think that someone in AFP would know that communist guerrillas were defeated by US and South Vietnamese forces before we withdrew. You'd think that someone might know that South Vietnam was actually overrun by a North Vietnamese conventional army spearheaded by tanks and other armor, and supported by heavy artillery.

But no, the article asks the question of whether Vietnam is the correct historical analogy for Afghanistan rather than World War II. On that question--and it is completely separate from the question of winning or losing, I suppose--no, Vietnam does not provide a good analogy to Afghanistan.

Lord, when they try even a little military analysis beyond reporting on events, they (with few exceptions) just don't have a clue.