Vietnam Again?
As critics taunt the President about becoming another Jimmy Carter on the economy or Bill Clinton on health care reform, an older generation is haunted by the makings of another LBJ in Afghanistan.
General Stanley McChrystal’s call for more troops with the or-else warning that our mission “will likely result in failure” is an invitation to follow the Vietnam path that led to 550,000 Americans fighting and 18,000 being killed in a tribal war that ended in defeat and humiliation.
LBJ was motivated by the Domino Theory (“If we allow Vietnam to fall, tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week in San Francisco”). President Obama is concerned about Afghanistan, and Pakistan, as safe havens for the kind of terrorists who executed 9/11.
He is on the brink of making a commitment but worries out loud: “Are we doing the right thing?” he said on CNN yesterday. “Are we pursuing the right strategy?
“I’m answerable to the parents of those young men and women who I’m sending over there, and I want to make sure that it’s for the right reason.”
His hesitation is well-founded. Beyond all the political blather is the reality that Afghanistan, like Vietnam, is the quintessence of Matthew Arnold’s 19th century vision: “on a darkling plain/Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,/Where ignorant armies clash by night.”
In today’s New York Times, conservative columnist Ross Douthat claims: “On foreign policy, Bush looks a lot like Lyndon Johnson–but only if Johnson, after years of unsuccessful escalation, had bequeathed Richard Nixon a new strategy that enabled U.S. troops to withdraw from Vietnam with their honor largely intact.”
11 Responses to “Vietnam Again?”
A couple of corrections on Vietnam Robert:
It was 55,000 Americans that died not 18,000 and Vietnam was not a tribal war but a war against French occupation/imperialism that morphed into a war against western imperialism when the French left and the Americans moved in. But yes Afghanistan is like Vietnam in that the fight for many if not most is now a war against against Western occupation. Obama like LBJ has boxed himself into a no win corner.
Also, if I'm recalling correctly, about two million Vietnamese.
Huge difference between Vietnam and Iraq:
In Vietnam, we were trying to stop an “evil” ideaolgy (“communism”) from gaining root.
In Iraq we wanted to gain control of the ground (we already had contol of the airspace,) so that we could have a permanent military footprint in the Middle East. We also gained access to Iraq's oil.
It's worked out really well, don't you think?
[snark]
Well, at least we got the oil, right?
“Iraqi crude deal 'boost' for China's oil security quest
Rumaila is the workhorse of Iraq's oil sector, with a current capacity of 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) out of Iraq's total national output of 2.4 million bpd. With a foothold in Iraq, China can diversify its oil supplies to enhance energy security, said Lin Boqiang, professor, Xiamen University, adding that the consortium model can reduce risks both for BP and CNPC.”
Darn it,
are you telling me that we didn't get the oil?
who the hell was in charge of this clusterf**k?
oh, nevermind, let's not make people here crabby…
Vietnam was a Republican's dream war. Republican financial enablers made mega bucks and they wanted to blame the Democrats for the failure. Ross Perot made billions off of selling electronics to the military.
We all know that Nixon was elected on an “end the war” platform which he really didn’t want to do. Problem was that LBJ didn't want to go whole hog and start nuking,, which was what that idiot Barry Goldwater stated he would do. Thank God for Watergate or the world would probably be an ashen isotope.
So its no surprise we are in this big war mess created by another Republican G.W.Bush. Only this time we also have massive debt created by G.W.Bush, done with the same politics that initially created massive debt and destroyed Social Security as with Ronald Reagan.
If no one learns from their mistakes, it’s the Republican party.
Make them crabby, remind them of how they goose-stepped mindlessly behind their Decider into two pointless wars and economic catastrophe. It's far more entertaining listening to the would be brown shirts explain that they really didn't support the Decider and that the Decider isn't a real conservative than to listen to them whine about the Obama Administration.
Judging by many of the comments here, liberals will address the problem in Afghanistan the same way they have addressed many other problems – by complaining about the GOP.
I think Obama and the Democrats are in a quandary. For years one of their talking points has been that Afghanistan was the real war, the one Bush neglected and the place we really ought to be. But now with the Democrats' almost complete control of the government they are forced to stop looking at it abstractly and theoretically, and must look at it practically. They also have to factor in what I think is an admirable and real aversion to war on the part of many Democrats.
So now many liberals have boxed themselves in, and are forced to choose between their previous rhetoric and the realities of war. Afghanistan won't be pretty and may not be winnable, especially given the cold feet Obama is already showing. To win in Afghanistan will require a huge commitment, not waffling. My feeling is to get out now and fight Al Qaeda though intelligence/targeted means and discard any plan of nation-building Afghanistan.
CNN Poll: Afghanistan War opposition at all-time high
Now if we could get Democratic Politicians to grow a spine, and if we could teach them to ignore Republican whining and bitching we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan 9 month ago.
“Afghanistan won't be pretty and may not be winnable, especially given the cold feet Obama is already showing.”
That al Qaida is in Pakistan now is the common theme in support of a troop reduction or evacuation.
Of course, if we leave, al Qaida can then return to Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, we're limited in what we can do in Pakistan, with Obama just as much as with Bush in the White House, because as bad as the government in Pakistan is, the likely result if it were to fall would be much worse. And, if we did too much in Pakistan, it could lead to fall of that government.
If only we could identify, herd or channel the enemy into a killing zone, and be done with them easily and quickly.
There is a big difference between Afghanistan and Iraq/Vietnam. Afghanistan is actually home to the group that knocked down the twin towers. Neither Iraq nor Vietnam ever actually succeeded in hurting us on our own ground, nor appeared to have any real interest in doing so. We went into both of those wars without any direct provocation and with no expectation of either of those countries launching attacks on us in the future.
Afghanistan is still home to a violent murder cult of saboteurs that has repeatedly gone after targets in the United States. Something needs to be done. Can we win? Depends on your win conditions. I don't care if Afghanistan wants democracy, they need to not be in bed with terrorists. Kill Osama Bin Laden and wreck his network of terrorists? Doable. Turning Afghanistan into a democracy & freedom filled country where they don't stone their own women to death for getting raped or going outside alone? Not doable.