It is becoming more common to see conservative news and commentary sites being at least questioning, if not critical, of our support for Ukraine against Russian aggression, as for example this. The general line of reasoning is something like "let's not get bogged down in another Afghanistan-style quagmire."
I'd argue that Vietnam, recent Afghanistan or Iraq are incorrect analogies for our involvement in Ukraine. The key difference is that we have no literal skin in the game in Ukraine - money yes, but no boots on the ground.
The correct analogy for Ukraine was our first involvement in Afghanistan where.we supported the Afghans in their struggle against Soviet troops occupying their country. We provided arms and supplies, they did the fighting. The Hollywood film Charlie Wilson's War is about this effort, which is generally thought to have been a success.
The Russian/Soviets eventually got tired of Afghanistan and went home. Who is to say they won't eventually do the same in Ukraine? The Russians have a safe home to go to, the Ukrainians don't, which side is more likely to persist?
