Just because George W. Bush has passed you the baton does not mean it is OK to use it as a bludgeon.

Next month will mark the eighth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, a war instigated by Bush and inherited by President Barack Obama.

For the last six of those years the Afghan conflict has shared the public stage with, and played second banana to, the Iraq war. But as Obama vows to wind down the Iraq war and rev up the Afghan war, Afghanistan may end up taking centre stage — and defining Obama’s legacy.

Despite the fact that 57 percent of Americans think that things are going badly in Afghanistan and that Vice President Joe Biden has cautioned against escalating the war, Obama has already committed 21,000 more American troops and has gone on record calling Afghanistan a “war of necessity.”

If you feel like you’ve seen this movie before, it’s probably because you have: It has not taken long for historians and critics to begin to draw comparisons between Obama’s commitment in Afghanistan and Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign in Vietnam.

Though it is a far-from-perfect comparison, there are some rather striking similarities.

For example, both presidents took office with an ambitious domestic agenda — Johnson with his “Great Society” and Obama with universal health care — only to have their attention forced overseas.

Both presidents inherited wars that are not only unwinnable but deteriorating as well. (In the case of Afghanistan, the last two months of combat have been the bloodiest since the war began.)

And both presidents attempted to wage an ideological war — literally a war against an ideology — only to find themselves caught in another country’s intractable civil conflict.

Indeed, the Taliban sees this current conflict with the United States as a war against a foreign occupier and an illegitimate, fraudulent government.

Whatever fundamental disagreements you may have with the Taliban, they sort of have a point.

Afghanistan’s presidential elections last month were characterized by poor turnout, reports of voter intimidation and widespread accusations of fraud. If eight years of occupation and 68,000 American troops (along with thousands of other NATO forces) cannot impose democracy on an unwilling populace, then what possibly can?

For Johnson, things did not end well: His commitment to the war destroyed his presidency, made his re-election impossible and marred a legacy that should have been about civil rights legislation and alleviating poverty but instead is forever associated with his failures in Vietnam.

For the U.S. (and the Vietnamese people, of course), things ended even worse. The war would rage on for another six years under Johnson’s successor, Richard Nixon, causing thousands upon thousands more deaths and terrible injuries with absolutely nothing gained.

Obama is acutely aware of the similarities between the challenges he faces in Afghanistan and those faced by Johnson in Vietnam. Earlier this week in an interview, Obama offered, “You have to learn lessons from history. On the other hand, each historical moment is different. You never step into the same river twice. And so Afghanistan is not Vietnam.”

He is right, Afghanistan is not Vietnam. And the very fact that Obama has taken the time to consider the similarities is comforting. It suggests that he may be able to steer clear of an Afghan quagmire that could consume him and his domestic agenda.

So far, however, Obama has not budged. He has pledged to win the war in Afghanistan, even though he has yet to define what victory actually means in a country that has historically and routinely embarrassed and driven out all of its would-be conquerors, including 19th century Britain at the peak of its Empire, and Russia two decades ago.

If winning means toppling the Taliban government that gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda, then the United States won a long time ago. But if winning means hitting the Taliban and the remnants of Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda every time they poke their heads out from their caves, then I am afraid the President is going to be engaging in a never-ending game of Whack-A-Mole.

And with every whack he takes, he increases the chances that history will see him not as a successor to Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, but to Lyndon B. Johnson; and this conflict not just as “Obama’s war,” as it became on Inauguration Day, but as “Obama’s Vietnam.”

Cody Gault is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He may be reached at cgault@cornellsun.com. Stakes Is High appears alternate Fridays this semester.