From a reader:

To that editor guy. Oh btw, very nice meeting you at the Dubliner, you were just like I picture you from your work, except you were a BIG guy. You have noted your west side Judaism so much I had Woody Allen with your face in mind. I was, uh, wrong.
Anyway, wish you’d mention this guys overall big dumb point. He calls all your list of important and major aspects of wars that are different between Iraq and Vietnam, little things like oh, whether the beligerants were large powerful states or not, and calls them obvious and “Duh” to disregard them.
But…then he says you ignore the ‘profound’ similarities, and lists the most trivial vague things, like that wars take a while, they cost a lot of money, civilians get killed, and that cities can get bruised up while fighting them etc., that are the ultimate ‘duh’ list. By his list, WWII is Iraq (destroying Stalingrad to save it!, Huge costs, 7 years long!), and the Civil War (destroying Atlanta to save it!, huge costs, 4 years long!) and well, the hard part is finding the wars he won’t think are Vietnam by those criteria.
I mean, come on, kick this dudes a** some more, he is the prototypical liberal boomer moron, and deserved a kicking for all his kind!!!