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.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
China's Upper Hand
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.
The Dems' Smart Abortion Move
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.
The Myth of the Wall's Fall
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.
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.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war"
George Santayana
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.
Wasn't it Plato who said that?
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?
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.
"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
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.
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.
Not few enough, pal. And why do you capitalize "Boy"? Thinking of Tarzan?
"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."
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.
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.
Really unfortunate. Bush started but he is stuck in the middle.
"and we are not saved..."
The most striking similarity is that in both regions America insists on flying full speed into a darkened, narrowing tunnel.
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
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.
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.
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.
>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."
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
Mr. Beinart:
Arguably, yopur difference are just as non-dipositive as Rich's similarities. From the perspective of America, the number one thing that mad Vietnam Vietnam was feckless, neither-fish-nor-fowl, half-hearted execution of American objectives. There are good reasons to believe that such a response is precisely what the Obama Administration is about to serve up. If Afghanistan becomes a (wait for it...) QUAGMIRE, that will be why.
Robwriter,
You don't quite understand what's happening in Afghanistan. First, al Qaeda, protected by the Taliban (see: Afghanis) planned and launched the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon from Afghanistan. Second, Afghanistan is infinitely more important then Iraq, now and then. Pakistan's incredibly unstable democracy is under attack by Al Qaeda and the same tribes supporting the Taliban. Further, Pakistan's security services are somewhat divided in that there are elements supporting the Taliban. Most importantly, Pakistan's nuclear program would fall into extremists hands if al-Qaeda overthrew Pakistan, which is a goal. Allowing the Taliban the breathing room to do so would be a disaster. Already, Raza Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, was under house arrest for selling nuclear secrets. Their program is of HUGE American, and everyones, foreign policy interest.
Holland - Agree. If it wasn't important before we went in, it's important now. A stable government able to control the Taliban and able to partner with Pakistan own government is in our best interests.
I think you are unintentionally confirming Robwriter's comment. 911 could have been prevented by locked cockpit doors and more careful visa screening. These measures are do-able, whereas trying to manage the dysfunction of distant regions will be a battle without end. One of the stated goals Vietnam was to stop "them" before they got over "here." We have seen how this is unrealistic.
Holland: It should be kept in mind that the Taliban were not aware al-Qaeda was going to attack the WTC etc. until after it happened. This is not to say I regard the Taliban with approval.
Holland,
Thanks so much for straightening out all those things I "don't quite understand." Now that I've acknowledged your condescension, let's move on to some of your various flawed assumptions: (1) Afghanistan is a country. False. Afghanistan is a collection of tribal territories of shifting alliance around which map makers have drawn a line and to which they have applied a label. Therefore it follows that (2) Afghanistan has no central government, and never has. (3) Because al Qaeda planned attacks on the US in Afghanistan, we must attack Afghanistan. Again, false, because attacks can be planned in any country and unless you're some idiot from Texas that doesn't mean the US has to invade that country. Al Qaeda is a movable feast; it can and has gone everywhere Islamic communities exist, including the US. Remember Somalia? Try invading Yemen. Then Indonesia. Then let's do the Philippines. Then maybe we should take on Saudi Arabia were the 9/11 hijackers actually came from.
Afghanistan is of no importance whatsoever. Its resources can't support its population. Over 90% of the inhabitants are illiterate. It is not, never has been, and never will be a "nation." It's a dump. Its fate is of no consequence to us. Let's leave and do something else with our young men and women and our money.
The strategic reason we should leave is simple: we successfully turned Afghanistan into Russia's Vietnam but funneling weapons to the tribal warlords (who we designated "freedom fighters" when they were merely killing Russians) and let them bleed the Russian military white. Now that we are mired in a process of controlling Afghanistan, hostile forces and weapons will filter in from Pakistan and surrounding areas and bleed us white. Even a braindead drunk like Charley Wilson could figure this stuff out.
First, let's let terror work both ways. I'd send an envoy to the Pakistani government with the following message: any weapon used against the US which is thought to have originated in your country's weapons program will result in massive nuclear retaliation. Forget India; we will vaporize your goddamn country. So get your military and your weapons labs under control. Purge your military and your political structure if you have to. That approach seems to have worked with Russia.
Second, why don't we limit immigration into the US from the Middle East? Why do we keep letting in cab drivers and hot dog vendors (and college students for that matter) who can't assimilate to Western cultural norms? The 9/11 hijackers didn't parachute into the US under cover of darkness. They WALKED IN WITH PAPERS! How long do we have to keep making this mistake?
robwriter & Holland - I think you both make very good points.
robwriter-
My apologies for not responding sooner...
Your solution is provocative. I suspect just about every thinking person involved in trying to "straighten" out the problem in Afghanistan wants to avoid exactly your of all or nothing proposition of massive nuclear retaliation, and xenophobic response to immigration. I understand the impulse to draw the hard line -I really do- but, really, don't you see the massive contradiction in your reasoning? You want to kill millions of, say, Pakistanis because its government is unable to control its disparate parts and enemies? But we can't invade Afghanistan because it's dumb? Sounds like you might be slightly to the Right of Dick Cheney. Or are you, I hope, being glib?
To your points. First, I never declared Afghanistan a nation state resembling Western notions. Second, in terms of what's at stake, I don't think it matters whether Afghanistan has a central government or not. It would be nice, but wishful thinking is not what's important here. At this point, keeping nukes out of al-Qaeda's arsenal is. We didn't invade the region/country we think of as Afghanistan to punish Afghanis or slaughter them as did the Soviets. Afghanistan's invasion took place only after the Bush Administration demanded the hand over of al Qaeda leaders being protected by the Taliban. Granted, the Bush Administration's posturing was cynical, and I don't believe they ever actually expected the Taliban could or would do so. But the invasion, by comparison to Iraq, looked nothing like classic Napoleonic warfare, much less the Soviet invasion, which led to the kind or wholesale slaughter of civilians we want to avoid. Rather, the CIA and Special Forces operated with Afghan forces such as the Northern Alliance and, unfortunately, Afghan warlords to roust the Taliban and al-Qaeda from the comfort zone. They cajoled and bribed them, but it worked. Stupidly, because Bush turned his attentions toward Iraq, he allowed a core group of al Qaeda leaders and bin Laden to escape, which was one of President Obama's more salient points during the election. Further, Obama had the great acumen to appreciate the long-term strategic complications innate to Afghanistan.
But allow me to add to the Soviet point: Unfortunately, and sadly, the United States military has bombed innocent civilians out of either poor intelligence or isolated knee jerk aggression, but nothing our military has done comes even close to the scale and absolute brutality committed by the Soviets either in Afghanistan or in, say Chechnya, where the Russians literally flattened the capital of Grozny, twice, to defeat Chechen rebels. I agree that we can't invade every country from which al Qaeda attacks us. And we don't have too. Neither in Yemen or Somolia, their particulars are unique and should be responded to uniquely. Indeed, invading Iraq was an act of criminal incompetence and morally disgusting. But it doesn't follow that Afghanistan should only be invaded if it's able to sustain itself so that we can leave it a functioning nation state. Yes, that would be wonderful. And perhaps we once had a chance to do so if, and it's a big if, we had worked with the Untied Nations to move Afghanistan in that direction and if we had been willing to invest every damned dollar we spent in Iraq to instead stabilize Afghanistan, as Charlie Wilson had counseled after we helped kick the Soviets out.
But here's the blind spot of reason you don't seem to understand. And forgive me if I'm condescending, but your position lacks any real academic study of the situation and is absolutely shallow. The core argument that most "we never should have invaded" liberals make is that Al Qaeda and bin Laden should have been treated as criminals and arrested. Who exactly has the muscle to do that? I would salute the United Nations if it had the nuts and will to do so, but really? Really? In fact, yes, bin Laden and his followers are criminals -war criminals- as defined by the Geneva Conventions, much as are Bush, Cheney and many of his principles. Geneva not only covers classic Western notions of war, but insurgent and terrorist warfare are also subject to international law and prosecution.
So, again, exactly how do we arrest war criminals willing to fly jets into skyscrapers, or overthrow neighboring nation states such as Pakistan to take control of nuclear weapons? (And spare me the assertion that they had no intention to do so)? By sending in INTERPOL, which has no law enforcement arm, much less the military strength to execute a U.N. Security Counsel resolution? No, it's done by the United States invading Afghanistan and pursuing these terrorists until they are either dead or apprehended, which, by the way is allowed under the Geneva Conventions as long as it is done following the rules of legal warfare. Yes, robwriter, there is such a beast called legal warfare. And, by the way, a U.N. Security Resolution is not required to defend oneself from either a nation state or terrorists, wholly, or in part, occupying regions such as "Afghanistan" not quite up to Western nation snuff. We try for the U.N. resolutions to build consensus and provide political cover, and I'm all for consensus, but not to the point of inaction. Am I for putting them on trial in a U.S. court after we capture them? Absolutely. Am I for killing them where they live? Absolutely. But I'm for doing it smartly, with counterinsurgency tactics, which ironically resembles, in key ways, the "policing" style some liberals demand. Please read up on it in, again, "Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife." But let's be clear, small war fighting is messy and long. It takes backbone and patience, and most importantly, a keen understanding of the history of past insurgencies. Because most militaries tend to fall back on blunt force to win objectives, it takes a number of years for counterinsurgent war fighting to be learned and executed with the proper finesse and respect to Geneva, often at the expense of the civilian population, which is morally objectionable. For instance, torture is the fastest way for counterinsurgency tactics to fail because it's used against innocent civilians as much as terrorists. (And I wholly oppose to it because it denigrates our democracy, our national psyche, and our ethical posture in the world,) Which is another reason Afghanistan is faltering.
Finally, the idea that Afghanistan's fate is of no consequence to "us" is a childish notion, and a dangerous one. In truth, and in light of the very serious consequences you blithely suggest, --nuclear Armageddon for wayward nations-- I don't care if we're bled like the Soviets for the next fifty years. But, wait, let's go back to that again. We drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan by delivering sophisticated ground to air missiles that blew Soviet armored helicopters out of the sky. There have been on occasion American helicopters shot down, but nothing on the scale of the Soviet invasion. To that point, I'd add that these were lucky hits and obviously not a part of any broadly organized response. I admit I don't know the numbers, but I'm fairly confident we have not suffered anywhere near the casualties the Soviets suffered-we are not being bled in kind. The Taliban's great strength is our hesitation to move smartly and subtly into a long-term military posture that upsets any broadly organized response by either the Taliban or al Qaeda. At this point, the weapons that the Taliban rely on are rudimentary as compared to the weapons the U.S. is designing or have put into the field. Iran is really the only weapons supplier that might upset that equation (China is too engrossed in trade with the U.S. to make that mistake, and I don't think they have a dog in this fight). But even Iran will go only so far in offering up top self weapons to vex the U.S., because they understand this ain't checkers, it's chess. Going head to head with the U.S. in Afghanistan would put bombing Iran on the table.
I so appreciate this kind of perspective. Similar to how Hitler's become the bastardized example of left or right-wing politics, Vietnam is the overused symbol for bad conflict potential. Around inauguration, Rachel Maddow waxed typically brilliant about the importance of history. I may misremember the words but took away that history's face looks different now and there might be cause to look ahead differently. I like to think her point meant more than Bush hate or taxes are bad. It's a little bit like the vocal majority is writing a chapter of Demarcation for Dummies.
It's not Obama's Viet Nam. It's George W. Bush's Viet Nam, and now Obama has to clean it up.
Exactly!!!
So many retards vomiting about their knowledge of Vietnam especially the writer! Incredible! I'm actually of Viet descent and his knowledge of Vietnam's modern history is nothing than simple knowledge laced with myths peddled by ignoramuses for half a century.
1.) The Viets fighting against the Viet Minh did not fight for France. They regard France as an expedient ally because the free Viets did not want a bloody red regime. The Viet Minh were allied with Mao's China. All Viets wanted independence after WWII. Most knowledgeable Viets understand colonialism was dead. So Viets had a choice of cooperating with a fading power, France or being a stooge of China.
This writer is so clueless about Vietnam's modern history how can anyone understand his ridiculous analogy of the two wars.
2.) South Vietnam was as a legitimate a state as North Vietnam. Over a million North Vietnamese fled into South Vietnam when the country was partitioned not the other way around. Ask those Viets who actually lived during that time to differentiate the difference between the 2 states! The State of Vietnam had its genesis from Bao Dai, the last emperor of Vietnam. Vietnam before French colonialism had a long line of rulers derived from a Confucianism monarchy. Do you seriously think simple Viet peasants would choose a weirdo Ho Chi Minh with his Euro ideology over a hereditary emperor that had a long line lineage over thousands of years?
Your comment about how Afghanistan is a country since 1747 and S. Vietnam is not is about a stupid as it comes. Afghanistan is more of a failed state, failed country as it comes. Are Pashtuns, Hazaris, etc. have a sense nationhood to Afghanistan Viets to Vietnam? Viets have a long sense of identity with over 4,000 years of Viet civilization and conscienceness. South Vietnam as a functional state may have only existed only after 1954 but the Viet heritage and identity existed for thousands of years.
South Vietnam was an underdeveloped country much like all the post colonial countries of Africa, Asia of that time period. Your notion of legitimacy is pretty naive. If South Vietnam is illegitimate then how in the hell is North Vietnam legitimate? Hmmm.... your notion of legitimacy is how brutal a state can intimidate and abuse its own citizens through the Chinese copy cat Land Reform in 1954 through 1956 where 100,000 North Vietnamese peasants were murdered and hounded to death? I guess by this notion North Korea is more legitimate than S. Korea. There are over 3 million Viets overseas as a direct result of North Vietnam's victory. Go tell these Viets how legitimate Ho Chi Minh's state is because they much rather live in any place besides the land of their ancestors and birthplace.
Yes, S. Vietnam depended on foreign aid from a foreign power to survive just as N. Vietnam depended everything from the Communist bloc to exist. It was an ideological struggle.
The only lesson to understand from Vietnam is the WILL of our leaders and people to prevail over our foe. First and foremost is to understand our Friends as well as our enemies! From what you guys wrote from above you truly did not understand Viet people and their own struggle in the Cold War. It was very much an ideological war and because of your ignorant war time leaders who led the US in the 50's and 60's who did not understand protracted warfare or did not have the patience to understand an ally in wartime led to the tragedy of Vietnam. The only way for the US to prevail in the developing world be less arrogant and develop true a partnership with our allies and have a respect for their cause. It was America's fickleness, and impatience that abandoned the peoples of Indochina. The Boat People, Cambodian Holocaust victims and Hmong of Laos are results of America's capriciousness.
What an AMAZING response to this article by someone who obviously knows what they are talking about. I hope Mr. Bienart reads it and learns. Its always amazes me how liberals are so ready to discount out allies as lackeys and house boys rather then our equals with a common interest---and regard our enemies as the true patriots. Its disgusting really.
Displaced goals in both cases. In Vietnam to defeat Communist expansion. In AfPak to defeat al-Queda.
Taliban nor Viet Cong did not attack US, but al-Queda did. Even if we make kissy-face with the Taliban, we still have to kill Osama, or at least most of his organization.
How many people in al-Queda anyway?
In Afghanistan we are using 60,000 troops to go after 300 guys
AreaMan: Are you considering the problem that exists in Afghanistan, that bringing in more US troops only causes the insurgency to grow?
Some Excellent and sane points.
Yea, the police action Afghanistan is nothing like the police action in Viet Nam!
This time there is no draft so that your kid or your grand-kid can get lucky and win an all expense paid vacation to the kill zone of her choosing.
This mess in the Middle East would be very different if the country was conscripting people to staff the services. Instead, we have reservists on the third or fourth tour and mercenaries at $1000/day partying in Embassies.
There doesn't seem to be much moral outrage that uniformed service men/women who are having trouble feeding their kids at home are taking the bullets while mercenaries are doing the non-combat duty. Why should there be, it is cleaner this way; very well managed, almost corporate-like.
The only reason troops are forced to deploy three and four times is because the U.S. Military can't meet their recruiting and training needs. The only reason the U.S. Military is using mercenaries is circumvent the need for another draft system to staff the services.
What ever happened to the pride of the U.S. Marines that used to protect our Embassy's and our traveling dignitaries? Aren't uniformed troops good enough for that duty any more?
The other huge difference is the way the carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq has been sanitized from the public. This time you don't get to enjoy watching burning babies or flag-draped coffins on the evening news while you are dining on your bring-home sushi and washing it down with a nicely chilled chardonnay. The Brass learned this lesson from Viet Nam and you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
I am a 27 year army vetreran. I served in Vietnam for two tours and in Saudia Arabia for three years during the Iran-Iraq war. My experience tells me that there is little comparison between Vietnam and Afganistan.
When I left Vietnam the last time the VC and the NVA were thoroughly defeated. The US Military had won. The enemy pulled back north of the DMZ and signed a peace treaty. The US Military then pulled out, but was ready to go back in if necessary. It was the US Congress that passed a law denying funds for the US Military to return that left the NVA free to re-invade and take over the country.
The NVA had safe havens in three countries and the support of China and Russia. Al Quida and the Taliban do not have a safe haven anywhere, certainly not Pakistan. Pakistan is our ally, and the Pakistani government resents very much the intrusion of both into Pakistan. I worked with the Pakistan military, and they have long acknowledged their lack of control over the wester tribal areas. This war is the latest in a series of efforts they have made to establish that control.
The Pakistani Army is not ineffectual - just poor. Perhaps if they were better armed and supplied, they could do more. It may be cheaper in the long run than using US troops.
The US has subsidized the Pakistani army to the tune of billions of dollars, and most of it, it has recently been revealed, was siphoned off by the country's corrupt government. Pakistan is unstable, the central government is corrupt and not in control of its own territory. Great allay.
My two cents:
1. Leave Afghanistan to the Afghanis.
2. Form a strong military alliance with Pakistan and put American troops around their nukes.
3. Recall American troops from all foreign bases and put them to work guarding America's borders.
4. Get serious -- as if our lives depended on it -- about developing sustainable, renewable, clean and safe energy within our country.
5. Get serious -- as if our lives depended on it -- about preserving our quickly dwindling water supplies within our borders.
The Middle East is sitting on a sea of oil, but they can't drink it or use it to make food grow. Their aquifers are drying up. Their populations are beyond what the natural systems can support. Collapse is imminent, within this century. We don't want to be there when this starts to go down. We need to make our own preparations at home.
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.
Please log in to leave comments.