Ever since the Vietnam War, whenever our country gets militarily involved in a conflict that appears to be unwinnable, or (for) a lost cause, the Vietnam “quagmire” analogy seems to be freely invoked.
Newsweek’s editor, Jon Meacham, however, puts it in perspective: “To evoke the Vietnam analogy is not to be dovish or defeatish; it is, rather, to recognize that we are engaged in a war for noble ends that is not going well, and which may never go well given the circumstances.”
Meacham says this in his introduction to a set of brilliant—seminal is a better word—articles on the war in Afghanistan, which, I believe, are a must-read for every inquisitive American.
The first article, by John Barry and Evan Thomas, “Obama’s Vietnam,” delves with laser-like sharpness into both the similarities and differences between the Vietnam War and our struggle in Afghanistan:
Vietnam analogies can be tiresome. To critics, especially those on the left, all American interventions after Vietnam have been potential “quagmires.” But sometimes clichés come true, and, especially lately, it seems that the war in Afghanistan is shaping up in all-too-familiar ways. The parallels are disturbing: the president, eager to show his toughness, vows to do what it takes to “win.” The nation that we are supposedly rescuing is no nation at all but rather a deeply divided, semi-failed state with an incompetent, corrupt government… The enemy is well accustomed to resisting foreign invaders and can escape into convenient refuges across the border. There are constraints on America striking those sanctuaries…
But also:
True, there are important differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam. The Taliban is not as powerful or unified a foe as the Viet Cong. On the other hand, Vietnam did not pose a direct national-security threat; even believers in the “domino theory” did not expect to see the Viet Cong fighting in San Francisco. By contrast, while not Taliban themselves, terrorists who trained in Afghanistan did attack New York and Washington in 2001….
Barry and Thomas continue to expand upon such similarities and differences—“The analogy isn’t exact, but the war in Afghanistan is starting to look disturbingly familiar”—and to illustrate the enormous difficulties and dangers that are facing our new President, and America, in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, Fareed Zakaria, while agreeing that “the war in Afghanistan is not going well,” and while pointing out that “almost all trends are moving in the wrong direction,” writes that we still have time and opportunity to implement “A Turnaround Strategy” to “fix” the war.
He outlines how we can and should “overhaul” our policy towards this conflict “in four steps, each more complicated than the last.” A fascinating read.
A footnote:
Newsweek—via Messrs. Barry, Thomas and Zakaria—has done a masterful analysis of and commentary on the Afghanistan war.
However, I must object to the cover title, “Obama’s Vietnam.” Not because I dispute the similarity of the two wars—the authors did a superb job of establishing such similarities—and differences. But because it undeservedly and prematurely connotes and ascribes defeat and failure to our new President.
If we do not succeed in Afghanistan—and we must succeed—it will not be Obama’s Vietnam, it will be America’s tragedy.
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.