TOPICS
TOPICS
Foward Observer: Non-exit strategy
Voices from the grave make me fear that President Obama and Congress are unwittingly setting up the American military for another Vietnam-type failure in Afghanistan.
"I don't think anything is going to be as bad as losing, and I don't see any way of winning," President Lyndon Johnson told Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in a formerly secret tape-recorded telephone conversation on Feb. 26, 1965 -- since made public.
That president had said while campaigning against Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., in 1964 that "we are not about to send American boys 9,000 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys should be doing for themselves." At the end of 1964, the United States had 16,300 troops on the ground in South Vietnam. At the end of 1968, this same Lyndon Johnson had sent 536,000 American boys to fight a war in Vietnam that he did not believe he could win.
Gen. Bruce Palmer Jr., a thoughtful and far-seeing four star who was deputy commander in Vietnam, wrote in his slim but pithy book, "The Twenty-Five Year War," that "with respect to Vietnam, our leaders should have known that the American people would not stand still for a protracted war of an indeterminate nature with no foreseeable end to the U. S. commitment."
I humped around with troops in the outbacks of South Vietnam in 1968 and 1972 and saw for myself several hard-fighting troopers wearing black armbands to protest the very same war they were in. One of their generals said, "Westy doesn't get it," a reference to Gen. William Westmoreland, America's field commander in Vietnam in 1968, whom critics contended never realized the North Vietnamese leaders would stay in the fight until they won, regardless of how many soldiers our forces killed.
"Your generals are leading you down a primrose path, Mr. President," Clark Clifford, McNamara's successor at the Pentagon, said he told Johnson late in the Vietnam War. Clifford told us editors and reporters at The Washington Post that LBJ had asked him to find out how the United States was really doing in the Vietnam War. Clifford told us that no general would guarantee the president victory no matter how many more troops were sent to Vietnam.
So, as Yogi Berra would put it, Afghanistan looks to me like "deja vu all over again." If I'm right, and I hope I'm not, Obama's decision to put 21,000 more American troops in Afghanistan to bring our total there up to about 59,000 Americans will be followed by our commanders requesting more and more and more military power.
The Vietnam calls to attack enemy sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos may well be echoed as our commanders ask Obama to hit Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan.
As in Vietnam, our European friends cannot be counted on to give us significant military help in Afghanistan. Remember, our war in Afghanistan has been going on for almost eight years now. The American public and Congress will eventually demand that Obama either show them light at the end of the tunnel or get the hell out of Dodge.
Obama probably has more time to show progress in Afghanistan than Johnson had in Vietnam. The reason for the longer tolerance is that the mainstream of American society does not have to worry about being drafted to fight a questionable war. The draft, if nothing else, was a national referendum on the rightness of a war America's youth, some from the establishment, were dying in. Not so today. The all-volunteer American military is almost as far out of sight of the American establishment as was the French Foreign Legion to France.
Yet, the patience of the American public and its hired hands in Congress is not unlimited. The more people, especially lawmakers, who read books like Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin, the more the American military's mission to pacify the 40,000 tiny villages in Afghanistan will look like mission impossible, especially if our bombings keep killing Afghan civilians and infuriating the ones who survive. Like it or not, fair or unfair, the war in Afghanistan has become Obama's war. The big question is whether Afghanistan will ruin Obama's presidency the way Vietnam ruined Johnson's.
I recently asked the top military officer in our land, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whether he was worried about his civilian bosses setting up the American military for another Vietnam-type failure in Afghanistan. His reply: "I've been given a mission by the president of the United States, and I'm going to succeed in that mission. There are going to be a lot of hard questions" about the American military's role in Afghanistan and its exit strategy, Mullen acknowledged. "I welcome those hard questions. I think we need to be able to answer them. This is a tough fight and it's going to take some time."
In contrast, Andrew Bacevich, a retired colonel who served in Iraq and teaches international relations at Boston University, sees another failure coming. "Just as in the 1960s, [when] we possessed neither the wisdom nor the means needed to determine the fate of Southeast Asia," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently, "so, too, today we possess neither the wisdom nor the means necessary to determine the fate of the Greater Middle East."
COMMENTS
- THERE he is, our man, Skeeter in the pan. I must admit that the recent fiscal debacle and the atrocious constitutional track record of the past 10 years tinted my view with a certain bias. I hope to eliminate that over the next 3 years and achieve more clarity of vision. Back to the Gipper... Ronny had three things going for him; Carter’s deregulation of several prime industries (transportation being a big one), his versions of Keynesian Economics that he modified (coining the term “Trickle Down Economics”), and, lastly, his ability to assure the working public that his was their man with the plan. His primary fiscal policy focused almost solely on tax avoidance by the wealthy to create pools of wealth that could be recirculated as loans to the less fortunate like you and I. Those tax exemptions merely replaced the current government spending with the rich… placing more weight on the middle class to prop up the government financial health. Yes, his is a modified version of the same theory and program currently being followed by our present commander in chief; albeit without emphasis on tax breaks to the rich folks. Besides, what’s the difference in cutting taxes and running up a tab for our future generation and just grinding out the money? Both are backed by “Chimerica”. Both have to be repaid. But both did not occur during fiscal crises; only now do we see such. As far as rebuilding the military, there are few ways one can more quickly stimulate an economy than through the creation of a wartime economy without a war. Military investment solves unemployment, stimulates the heavy metals industries, and every dollar the government spends changes hands 5 times. Yep, Ronny was a spendthrift. Many attribute the collapse of the USSR to him; and while I will give him credit for several things done well, that I cannot. Their antiquated monetary system, protectionist policies, and a costly war of attrition in … where of all places(?) but Afghanistan led to their downfall. He wasn’t bad, per se; but he was no saint either. And then the same could be said for every single president from Kennedy to Shru… Oops… scrub the Shrub; there we CAN point fingers! Even doctors follow the policy “At least, DO NO HARM!” We have less freedom today than ever in our nation’s history. Tip off Posted June 4, 2009 4:36 PM
- Some folks just need a cause and/or a place to play out violent games, but that sentiment leaves out politics and other folks that can make money off of either. If anybody wants to "kill" us, we have to be able to "kill" them, but how much is enough? When can we get back to being a world leader in the promulgation of basics such as education, infrastructure, communication, food, housing, health and so on...or aren't they sexy, dramatic, compelling or intersting enough? Ralph Posted June 4, 2009 2:58 PM
- Tipsy as usual your bias is showing, Regan spent like crazy REALLT??? He inherited a hollow military from carter just like Bush did from Clinton. So did he spend on the military you bet and it was worth every dime. Even his star wars program was implemented. And now we have BO who has added $3trillion to the national debt in only a hundred days. I think your issue is that Reagn as an actor is so much smarter and better at politics as your icon BO dan m ketter Posted June 4, 2009 1:22 PM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco









