Blogs and Stories
Bury the Vietnam Analogy
Maya Alleruzzo / AP Photo
Exactly eight years after Bush sent troops to Afghanistan, critics are once again calling it Obama’s Vietnam. In his debut column, The Daily Beast’s senior political writer Peter Beinart on why there's no real comparison.
“Those who can remember the past,” Arthur Schlesinger once wrote, turning George Santayana on his head, “are condemned to repeat it.” Maybe someone should tape that to the computers at The New York Times.
In recent weeks, with Barack Obama rethinking his Afghan policy, the Times has been bursting with Vietnam analogies. The “Afghanistan is Vietnam” stories all share a rather unconventional structure. First, the author tells you that his premise is wrong. “Such historical analogies are overly simplistic and fatally flawed,” acknowledged Peter Baker a few months back, in a story entitled “Could Afghanistan Become Obama’s Vietnam?” (One can only imagine the conversation between Baker and his assignment editor. Baker: “I have this fatally flawed idea for a piece.” Editor: “Get us 1,100 words by Monday.”) Then, having taken confession, the writer proceeds to sin. Many parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam, Times columnist Frank Rich conceded late last month, “are wrong, inexact or speculative”—before calling the parallels “remarkable,” “eerie,” “indisputable,” and “uncannily” exact. Perhaps other pundits should put this kind of warning label on their commentary. Many analogies between Barack Obama and Adolph Hitler “are wrong, inexact and speculative,” Glenn Beck might concede. And then on with the show.
Schlesinger’s point was that we shouldn’t get too excited if the events of our day resemble events of the past. Of course they do. The difficult question is whether they resemble them in ways that really matter.
Schlesinger’s point was that we shouldn’t get too excited if the events of our day resemble events of the past. Of course they do. The difficult question is whether they resemble them in ways that really matter. Rich, for instance, declares it “remarkable” that Obama is engaged in a battle of leaks against military leaders who want to force his hand, just as Kennedy’s generals tried to force his on Vietnam. But what’s so remarkable about it? Douglas MacArthur tried to squeeze Harry Truman the same way during Korea, and Colin Powell used similar tactics against Bill Clinton on Bosnia. Sometimes the generals are right; sometimes they are wrong. The fact that they pursue their agendas in the press doesn’t tell us anything about whether those agendas are correct.
• Leslie H. Gelb: How to Win Afghanistan
• Tina Brown: Let’s Not Abandon Afghan Women A couple of paragraphs later, Rich declares that Joe Biden, who reportedly opposes an Afghan surge, “uncannily echoes” George Ball, who opposed a surge in Vietnam. But why doesn’t Biden uncannily echo John F. Kennedy’s father, who as Ambassador to Great Britain opposed FDR’s decision to enter World War II? Just as almost every war involves generals who play to the press, every war involves house hawks and house doves. In Vietnam, the house dove was right, perhaps because Ball understood the French colonial experience in Vietnam better than his colleagues, having served as France’s lawyer in the United States. But does Biden have any particular expertise that should lead us to give his opinion special weight? Rich doesn’t say. Biden is just the dove, and because Afghanistan is like Vietnam, the doves must be right. Finally, Rich notes, Hamid Karzai’s brother is a reputed drug lord, which makes the Afghan leader “a double for Ngo Dinh Diem” of South Vietnam, whose brother was a criminal too. (And presumably, a double for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as well, whose brothers also ran afoul of the law).
• Stephen Holmes: Strategy in Aghanistan? What Strategy? It’s easy to find similarities between Vietnam and Afghanistan. What’s harder is weighing those similarities against three big differences. First, Afghanistan is a nation. Sure, its central government has often been weak, but its history as a country dates to 1747. In polls, the vast majority of Afghans say their national identity trumps their loyalty to tribe. South Vietnam, by contrast, dated from 1954. On their way out, the French created it as a fig leaf to cover their defeat by the communist-dominated Vietminh. South Vietnam was supposed to exist as an independent country for exactly two years until Vietnam was unified in national elections--elections that Dwight Eisenhower scrapped because he feared the communists would win. The point is that while Karzai may be a lemon, it is possible to imagine a more legitimate, vigorous Afghan leader, since Afghanistan has had legitimate, vigorous leaders before. In South Vietnam, by contrast, Diem was the best America could do because the problem wasn’t the legitimacy of any particular South Vietnamese government; it was the legitimacy of South Vietnam itself.
• Martin Sieff: The Key Democratic Defectors on AfghanistanThe second difference is the enemy. In Vietnam, the communists had led the anti-colonial struggle, and thus become the face of Vietnamese nationalism. Our guys were Vietnam’s Benedict Arnolds: they had mostly aided the French in opposing their people’s independence struggle. Ho Chi Minh was Vietnam’s George Washington. The Taliban, by contrast, don’t embody Afghan nationalism in nearly the same way. They’re a tribal movement, and an unpopular one at that. Even with the recent decline in Afghan support for Karzai’s government and for the NATO occupying force, both remain far more popular than the Taliban, which in a spring 2009 ABC poll garnered an approval rating among Afghans of seven percent.
Finally, in Vietnam, we tried. In 1968, the US had over half a million troops there, and was spending 2.3 percent of GDP. In Afghanistan, as a percentage of GDP, we’re spending less than one-seventh that, and only recently got much above 20,000 troops. When doves say that what America needs in Afghanistan is a smaller force that eschews nation building and focuses merely on killing terrorists, they are proposing the same minimalist strategy that Donald Rumsfeld pursued for almost five years.
Does all this mean we should flood Afghanistan with U.S, troops? Not necessarily. Given the massive rise in Afghan corruption; the decline in support for NATO’s occupation, and the disastrous presidential election this summer, perhaps it is too late. But even if it is, let’s not flatter ourselves with Vietnam comparisons. In Vietnam, we lost because the war was unwinnable from the start. In Afghanistan, we had a grateful population, an unpopular enemy and a just cause, and we frittered it away. Afghanistan isn’t Vietnam; it’s worse.
Peter Beinart, Senior Political Writer for The Daily Beast, is a Professor of Journalism and Political Science at City University of New York and a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
The Tea Partiers' Phony Populism
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June.
Obama Outsmarts the Terrorists
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June.
The Republicans' Reagan Amnesia
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June.
exploora
I think Afganistan is costing a lot more, and as the USD devalues, it will even cost more, add the debt funding a lot of it, the casualty related to this war could be the economy, as we know it. Better to make comparisons of the past, than creating models represents trends that appear to be spiking.
raptor
"Only the dead have seen the end of war"
George Santayana
princeminski
Indeed. On this topic, at least, I prefer Santayana to Schlesinger; his reversal of Santayana's famous dictum is an abomination for a historian. I also like "a fanatic is one who redoubles his efforts while forgetting his ends"--which I first heard quoted by Chuck Jones in reference to Wile E. Coyote, but works great for Vietnam as well.
rhlowry
Wasn't it Plato who said that?
fblaze
An important similarity is that the enemy has safe sanctuary. In Vietnam they could cross over into N. Vietnam, laos or Cambodia and return at the moment of their choice to attack again. In afghanistan they have sanctuary in Pakistan. Another similarity is that we cannot identify the enemy prior to any attack, they look just like the population we are trying to protect. In Vietnam they worked for us during the day, but at night they worked for the enemy. In Afghanistan our soldiers have been killed by the local troops they are training. The real lesson is that we cannot win, but can we endure long enough and well enough so that local forces friendly to us can survive?
roadhunter
Well said. My Dad's base was attacked in Viet Nam one night. In the morning, he found the body of the house boy he and his buddies had hired to do their laundry and cleaning, who had worked for them for nearly a year, and received wonderful treatment and pay. He had led the attack.
Daveparts
"On their way out, the French created it as a fig leaf to cover their defeat." The US created the Afghan Government eight years ago.
"The second difference is the enemy. In Vietnam, the communists had led the anti-colonial struggle, and thus become the face of Vietnamese nationalism."
"In 1968, the US had over half a million troops there, and was spending 2.3 percent of GDP."
What does the amount of money spent have to do with the situation? If I lost $100 in a crooked poker game or I lost $10 in a crooked poker game, how does that change the crookedness of the game?
The Taliban now lead and anticolonial strugle against the US that has become the face of Afghan nationalism just as they did against the Soviets and the British before them.
Just as in ancient Goth, the tribes fought constantly with each other until a foriegn invader arrived. Then they would unify to fight the invader and once the invader was gone they returned to fighting amongst themselves
princeminski
As Bobby Kennedy famously said, referring to his reversal on Vietnam: "Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation." I think your last paragraph, about the "barbarians," is spot on. Quick chorus of "when will they ever learn?" fits pretty well here.
gommygoomy
Wow. So many words. You are quite the Chatty Kathy, when it comes to sticking up for your Boy. I, on the other hand, am a man of FEW words. I'll tell you EXACTLY why Afghanistan is NOTHING like Vietnam. Because Barak Obama is in the White House now. See? 9 Words. The TRUTH always takes less time than a LIE. Right Peter? Idiot.
princeminski
Not few enough, pal. And why do you capitalize "Boy"? Thinking of Tarzan?
retired-army-1SG
"The truth always takes less time than a LIE" reductio ad absurdum = reduction to the absurd. The truth is no more limited to those who use a few words as those who use many. Reducing complex ideas or issues to a couple of sentences does not clarify them. Rather, they often cloud the issue in a smoke screen of "common sense." Discovering the simple among the complex is a feat that few ever achieve. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."
Holland
I'm a "Roosevelt" liberal and Beinart's take is pretty spot on, except that he forgets to add that Ho Chi Minh not only had the Viet Cong, -more analogous to the Taliban- but commanded the exceptional North Vietnamese Army, which was supported by the Soviet Union who was fighting the United States through a proxy war (kind of like what Iran did to us after the invasion of Iraq). It's Ho's army that really turned Vietnam into an American nightmare, not the Cong, nor is it the Taliban that's the problem in Afghanistan..
What needs to be appreciated here is that Afghanistan is sputtering not because anything the Taliban is doing right -there "victories" are more press hype then anything significant- but because what the United States is not doing. Withdrawing from Afghanistan before a fully funded and effective counterinsurgency campaign is completed would be unbelievably stupid. To have a better idea what that means and how and why it's possible, please read "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife," one of the few academic books worth reading if you want to understand how counterinsurgencies are supposed to work and their place in history.
whipmawhopma
Holland - I agree with everything you said and would add that the real reason for failure so far is chiefly (though not entirely) the corrupt and inept government that the Afghans (collectively) had provided for themselves.
The Taliban is not popular, not too many Afghans want them back in power, and it's only the Mayor of Kabul and his allies in power that make the Taliban even seem like an alternative because at least the Taliban kept corruption in check, however bloody-minded their style of rule was.
robjh1
Really unfortunate. Bush started but he is stuck in the middle.
"and we are not saved..."
khepri
The most striking similarity is that in both regions America insists on flying full speed into a darkened, narrowing tunnel.
T1Brit
hehe. I'm not saying that Afghanistan is the new Vietnam and Obama is doomed as JBJ was and we will be driven out in ignominious defeat as the sound of the Grateful dead echoes from the stereo and whiffs of hash smoke mingle with the tear gas outside.... BUT
periscope
The Taliban and al Qaeda go together like a hand-in-glove. Give them Afghanistan as their own to do with as they please, and you will turn the Afghan people, especially the women into slaves and worse, and you will allow these homicidal maniacs to conjure more 9/11s, and attract more of the worlds disenchanted volunteers as suicide bombers for any city in America or the world.
"Those who fail to heed the lessons of history, are condemned to repeat them." Santayana.
pennsykid2000
It appears your periscope is pointing down, not up. The point of Beinart's article is to question how applicable Santayana's quote is for those who think Afghanistan is like Vietnam. You seem oblivious of the intent. You also fail to see that there may be little we can do to avoid some sort of Taliban control over Afghanistan, unless the various tribal warlords band together to create some sort of national govt. In any case, after what hosting al-Qaeda did to their regime due to 9/11, it's inconceivable that the Taliban would risk losing it all over again by allowing al-Qaeda to do the same thing, for virtually no benefit to the Taliban. Most Taliban are not allied with al-Qaeda anyway. Even if Taliban gained control of the country, their govt assets would provide easy targets for U.S. to attack if necessary, further inhibiting their cooperation with al-Qaeda, as opposed to now.
Lotto1
There are several similarities our troops died in Vietnam and our troops are dying in Afghanistan. At some point Bin Laden's murderous act was a criminal act not a declaration of war. Bin Laden never has been the head of a country nor a head of state. He should have been treated like a mass murderer which he is and brought to justice and not start a war. Starting a war is exactly what Bin Laden wanted which is again like Vietnam it is what the Communist Chinese wanted a war against America.
johnstafford
>i agree with much of what peter beinart has to say, especially his conclusion that "afghanistan isn't vietnam; it's worse." what i'm not clear about is what he recommends. given the current situation, what the u.s. should do in afghanistan?
>here's where vietnam analogies come into play,
not "over there" but over here. fundamentally, the american people are sick of endless foreign wars that produce real casualties and only virtual success (i.e., the "surge").
the most important lesson we [should have] learned from vietnam is that the u.s. can't sustain a military commitment,
over time, without the support of the american people.
>add to this fundamental reality the fact that our military leaders have been telling us for years that the army is "broken," that we are still deep into a massive economic recession that has produced record deficits along with metastasizing unemployment, and that even our n.a.t.o. allies, who should be our enthusiastic partners in the real "war on terror" in the pakistan/afghanistan region, are heading for the exit, it's time to consider a new strategy: "let the wookie win."
robwriter
Vietnam and Afghanistan are exactly alike in the most important respect: both are countries of essentially no importance to America's foreign policy, and both are countries in which America has elected to fight a war it almost certainly cannot win. For 16 years American's were assured that South Vietnam was a critical "domino" that, should it fall, would take down all of Asia and possibly the world. In fact, Vietnam was an obscure country being run by a corrupt regime and populated by peasants living in poverty. Now, 8 years into the fiasco which is Afghanistan, a pseudo-country being run by a corrupt regime, Americans are being told that it is the front line in the war on terror and that "losing" in Afghanistan will be a disaster. Fact: no one from Vietnam ever launched an attack on the territory of the United States. The Vietnamese began killing Americans after American's invaded Vietnam. Fact: no one from Afghanistan participated in 9/11. Afghanis began killing Americans after America invaded Afghanistan.
msbenton
Mr. Beinart doesn't make a point. Comparisons of percent of GDP is not very convincing. What Mr. Rich was stating in the Times is that the parallels with the military lying, subverting the truth, hiding the cost of the war are all too reminiscent of Vietnam. What does perplex me more than anything is what we tout as learned people in today's internet age. A teacher at a University who can't make a cogent point; misses the entire thesis of a newpaper article and then sniffs that all these analogies are incorrect because Mr. Beinart says so. I clearly remember Mr. Beinart's performance on Bill Moyers Jounal on the run-up to the Iraq war. When queried by Mr. Moyers on his credentials as an "expert," Mr. Beinart said he was not, but, Mr. Moyers further questioned his championing of the Iraq war and his points and his image melted before my eyes. If we had a draft in this country, we would not have the blind devotion to military propaganda; be able to finance health care; and limit what the role of the USA is in world affairs can actually be. Finally, what exactly is the author suggesting? His weak analysis should alert readers to the ego of the writer rather than any expertise on the subject.
Bottle
Peter Beinart isn't too bright. For starters:
.We killed people in Vietnam and are killing people in Afghanistan.
.We killed the wrong people in Vietnam and are killing the wrong people in Afghanistan.
.The fighting is guerrilla in nature.
.The rationale for either war is not convincing and not even strong.
.Innocent people are the most frequent victims.
.Nothing of significance achieved in either place.
.Both wars: Wrong, costly and ineffective.
.
allonfla
I don't think you are too bright. His point was that we should not develop a strategy based on claims that Afghanistan is Vietnam.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.