Afghanistan is Not Pashto for Vietnam
By Larry Johnson on October 31, 2009 at 10:42 PM in Current Affairs
Although I compared Obama’s treatment of Afghanistan’s President Karzai today with that meted out to Vietnam’s Diem back in the early sixties, I do not mean to suggest that Afghanistan is just another misadventure like Vietnam. That is utter nonsense.
Here is Theodore Sorenson’s misreading of the current situation.
America’s unwise, unwarranted, and sadly unwinnable war in Afghanistan—hastily initiated and then abandoned for Iraq by President Barack Obama’s ideologically blinded predecessor and dumped into Obama’s lap in the worst possible way—is beginning increasingly to smell like the 1964-68 war in South Vietnam that swallowed up the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson.
It all sounds familiar. A powerless leader (whether Vietnam’s Diem or Afghanistan’s Karzai) with a corrupt family and little support in the countryside, who refuses to undertake the reforms (land, tax, electoral, and administrative) that the U.S. president tries to press upon him, therefore endangering the regime’s stability against the guerrilla extremists (once communists, now Taliban). Repeatedly changing U.S. commanders and initiating open-ended increases in U.S. forces, without a clearly definable goal, does not help. A military strategy of “clear and hold” usually lasts about a day.
Ted forgot an important point–CLUELESS POLITICIANS IGNORING THEIR MILITARY COMMANDERS AND TRYING TO SECOND GUESS THEM FROM THE COMFORT OF THE WEST WING.
He closes his piece with this nonsense:
Even the rhetoric today is familiar—the dire warnings that an American loss would embolden our enemies and lead to a “domino effect” chain of setbacks across the region; that we must keep on sending fresh troops to kill or be killed, thereby expanding both America’s mission and stakes, even though Obama had no more initiated America’s role in Afghanistan than Kennedy initiated America’s role in South Vietnam. There was little the U.S. could do to stop the flow of arms and enemy combatants into South Vietnam across its porous border with North Vietnam, just as there is little the U.S. can do now to stem the flow of arms and enemy combatants pouring across Afghanistan’s porous border with Pakistan.
How clueless can someone be? Ted Sorenson. Ahh, but I repeat myself.
Okay Ted, let me take a shot. We are not imagining nuclear weapons in Pakistan. We are not imagining that senior elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI) helped organize and fund Al Qaeda and at least two other Islamic terrorist organizations (e.g., Harakat Ul Mujahedin and Lashkar Taeiba). The Taliban have received funds and protection from government officials in Pakistan. In fact, former Pakistani President Musharref interceded with George Bush to let Taliban leaders flee Afghanistan in December 2001 just as CIA and US military operatives were closing the noose on Bin Laden at Tora Bora.
Aghanistan/Pakistan terrorist nexus has been the cesspool, the fountain fueling most of the terror over the last 12 years. In my infamous op-ed in the NY Times in July 2001 I made the following point:
The most violent and least reported source of international terrorism is the undeclared war between Islamists and Hindus over the disputed Kashmir region of India, bordering Pakistan. Although India came in second in terms of the number of terrorist incidents in 2000, with 63, it accounted for almost 50 percent of all resulting deaths, with 187 killed, and injuries, with 337 hurt. Most of the blame lies with radical groups trained in Afghanistan and operating from Pakistan.
The Islamic extremism emanating from Pakistan and being given safehaven in Afghanistan is the major source of terrorism and is a threat to not only our security but the security of countries throughout South Asia.
Think I am exaggerating? Then answer this question–what happens if the Taliban get their hands on a Pakistani nuke? Do we do anything?
We are not fighting a nationalist Vietnamese movement fueled by communist ideology. We are up against a fractious religious fanaticism that is not invincible. General McChrystal understands this basic point. Read what he wrote.
It is laughable to insist that we have been “at war” for 8 years in Afghanistan. Nonsense. George W. Bush shifted significant military resources away from Afghanistan starting the end of November 2001. We have had no significant, sustained troop commitment. Bush and company treated Afghanistan like a “red-headed” step child. We have never had an integrated strategy and the chain of command has been muddled–NATO doing its thing, CENTCON another and Special Ops forces pursuing terrorists. Just because we send soldiers to a country and disperse them widely in poorly defended forward operating bases we should not jump to the conclusion that this is “war.”
Second, read McChrystal’s assessment. McChrystal is not calling for a conventional military force nor is he advocating “attacking” armies in Afghanistan. Instead he’s calling for enough troops to protect those villages/cities that are not under the sway of the radical religious nuts. He also recognizes, correctly, that the enemy in Afghanistan is not monolithic and is completely and totally enabled by the religious extremists in Pakistan. More importantly, he specifically recognizes that we cannot win a military victory–that diplomatic and political deals are necessary.
Afghanistan is where we should have been focused 8 years ago. I was “fired” from Fox News for making the case that Iraq would be a distraction in the war on terror. Instead of nabbing Bin Laden and helping Pakistan break its ties to the Taliban, we have let the situation fester and the radical Islamists bent on setting the world on fire are making a come back. The initial blame for this mess belongs to George Bush. But Bush ain’t President now and Barack Obama is sending nothing but a message of vacillation and weakness to the world. If we do not stop the spread of the Taliban or contain them we will be looking at worse than what happened on 9-11. That’s why I don’t think the McChrystal strategy is out of line. We risk far more if we ignore it.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Absolutely dead on! Afghanistan should have been our only military action after 9-11 and we are paying the price of Bush’s personal Iraq power trip. He took our eye off the ball.
I’m so afraid that gutless Obama will not put enough troops into Afghanistan to do what is necessary.
Thanks, Larry, I get so infuriated hearing Afghanistan compared to Viet Nam.
Viet Nam is my era. We were not attacked by Viet Nam. Viet Nam didn’t have nuclear weapons. The Vietnamese didn’t hate America. In Viet Nam we got conned into propping up a Catholic minority government in a predominently Buddhist country where most of the population had sympathy for the other side and saw it as a matter of nationalism. Leaving Viet Nam wouldn’t threaten the U.S. in any way.
If people don’t see the difference they are either very young or very stupid.
LJ:
You state the case for prosecution of the war well.
If HRC or McCain were president, I think your analysis would prevail but with the callow and naive Obama I am very doubtful.
He is in a state of confusion right now - there is no clear propaganda choice at this time: no easily identifiable self-laudatory moment. And, since he has no capacity to think beyond himself or the moment - there can be no plan.
Consequently, the only ‘plan’ we will have going forward is a variation on vacillation and a total absence of decision.
This, of course, plays directly into the hands of our enemies - who seem to have read him like a book. Sadly, we seem to be too stupid to do likewise - we may pay dearly for our stupidity.
who seem to have read him like a book
I like to think of BO as a short story.
If you add this to Mr. Goodman’s recent post on the history of the region, it is beyond ironic that Sorenson would snarf Mr. Johnson’s post as an example; saying that it is a loser out of the gate. When the military makes a sound recommendation, they call it a ball; but can’t muster the diplomatic side of the ledger. They are paying taliban to get out of the way, instead of killing them, as was reported recently in the military budget that BO signed,what can I expect?
.So does a political one. I get that there is a force of political momentum with in the military and that BO is WAYYY out of his element, but leaders don’t shirk taking on the responsibilities when they ran for the office KNOWING what they knew at the time was NOT a whole ball of wax.
The argument that it was “dumped into his lap” is an insult to the people serving in Afghanistan.
You may be too charitable. A book called “Obama: a Lifetime of Achievement” would be on the same shelf as “The Wit and Wisdom of George W. Bush” and “The Humanitarian Work of Joseph McCarthy” (i.e., a shelf of books with nothing in them).
But you still give Clinton a pass.
I blame both Presidents.
And this new President? He could care less what happens to our men and women in harms way, or NSA or the CIA or the USA.
But then again, this probably won’t even get posted.
Tammy, STFU.
Your idols Bush and Cheney are total idiots.
The endless self-victimhood of the righties.
STFU already with your idolizing of Bush and Cheney, you’re pathetic.
Keep it up, Tammy. Your Bush&Co adoration is really beginning to show.
Obama and his administration need out. Lets not forget about the economy. He blames it on Bush, well lets not forget that Bush was being run by Obamas congress two years before Obama took the helm….The economy is Obamas problem and he can not blame it on Bush…. I hope every real American gets the trash out of congress because their representatives are selling them down the river.
“I hope every real American gets the trash out of congress” - will there be anything left afterwards?
“will there be anything left afterwards?”:
Quick answer: No. Both sides of the aisle will be quickly depleted.
thats okay, because anything that resembles good representation of the people isn’t there, so they are already gone. they have forgotten the idea of our democracy and who and what they are supposed to working for.
problem will be, finding someone we can vote for and trust.
.
The apparent import of this is BO is NOT a commander in chief, and would rather compromise the security of the this country than execute.
An other whole month gone in deciding what to decide! <a href=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33560281/ns/world_news-washington_post/” Washington Post via MSNBC
For God’s sake, there is no compromise. You either commit the troops with a mission to get the job done or you pull the plug and bring our troops home.
Anything else is absolute insanity. I agree with, Larry. George Bush brought this half-ass mess upon us. But now it’s Obama’s mess, and he cannot have it both ways. We don’t need a compromiser. Hello? We need leadership, the real deal! This Administration gets worse every day that goes by. And we haven’t even hit the first year mark.
Good thing the clocks were turned back–I’ll get an extra hour of restless sleep.
Amen to that. You don’t compromise when soldier’s lives are at stake. That One should fulfill McChrystal’s request and do it today.
[...] is just another misadventure like Vietnam. … Read more from the original source: Afghanistan is Not Pashto for Vietnam : NO QUARTER Share and [...]
[...] that Afghanistan is just another misadventure like Vietnam. … Originally posted here: Afghanistan is Not Pashto for Vietnam : NO QUARTER Share and [...]
Another thing Sorenson leaves out (lies about) is that as pre-destined Senators, Kennedy and Obama both fully embraced the rationales for the wars.
Senator JFK said the domino effect could reach as far as India and Japan–yikes!!! When did JFK ever renounce the domino theory? Up to his death, his reluctance to send troops was based on the hope that he could prop up the South Viet army. By ‘64, it was clear the South’s army stood no chance against the Viet Cong–all of which Sorenson knows, of course. JFK never decided to let Ho Chi Minh over-run the south. So I don’t know what he means by the ‘Kennedy Lessons.’
“Obama, as a presidential candidate, sounded much the same alarm against the dangers of another quagmire in Iraq and, by indirection, Afghanistan.” What? That is a complete crock of shit. Obama campaigned on “Iraq=dumb war. Afghanistan=smart war.”
When Bush played the Hitler card against Iran, Pat Buchanan shredded the comparison. We should be just as wary when people like Sorenson play the ‘Viet Nam’ card as a knee-jerk substitute for policy analysis.
Bin Laden cited Viet Nam as a predictor that Al Qaida could ride out the U.S. in Afghanistan post-9/11. Was he counting on advisors like Sorensen when he planned his long-term strategy?
“Even the rhetoric today is familiar—the dire warnings that an American loss would embolden our enemies and lead to a “domino effect” chain of setbacks across the region…”
Yeah. Except in this particular chain, the world is only about one domino away from seeing lunatics gaining control of an arsenal of already-existing nukes.
What happens in Afghanistan is really all about what happens in Pakistan.
KABUL – Afghan presidential challenger Abdullah Abdullah announced Sunday he would not participate in next weekend’s runoff election but stopped short of calling on his supporters to boycott the balloting. Abdullah also said the Afghan people should not accept results of an election from the current election commission and told supporters President Hamid Karzai’s government had not been legitimate since its mandate expired last May.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan;_ylt=AqdlZ029O42rBzSBYhg.JEKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJzOWN1b2I5BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTAxL2FzX2FmZ2hhbmlzdGFuBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDYWZnaGFuY2hhbGxl
I guess this means Barry may do some work tomorrow.
Yeah, another one of his “teaching moments”. Maybe he can invite Karzai and Abdullah over to the WH for a beer. Or even better, he can give a long-winded speech on Afghanistan politics, talking at them until they make peace with each other just to shut him up.
I’d guess the speech, on television, in prime time of course. He has to be seen to be “working’!
No, the “work” Obama is doing today is concentrated in my home state, New Jersey. He’s trying to shore up Corzine, appearing in Camden and Newark to rally the base.
Politics always comes first!
Of course, the practiced line is that these elections are totally unimportant.
Tell me another one!!!!
LMAO. Yep, That One sets the example, by saying one thing and then doing the diametrically apposed, for our resident squatter bots who say how bad it is here on NQ and that this is just a backwater site but then proceed to set up housekeeping and show us their dirty laundry.
Claiming these elections to be totally unimportant is a sour grapes admission that they’re afraid of losing them.
I totally agree with Larry, and am disturbed by Ted Sorenson’s characterization that the war in Afghanistan is reminiscent of Vietnam. What I find alarming in the U.S., and even in the general public in NATO countries, there exists the same kind of thinking. It is unbelievable that when the invasion began after 9-11, it enjoyed such broad international support not seen since World War II.
There are lessons to be learned from the U.S. walking away from Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew their forces in 1989, as well as after the Taliban and Al-Quada were overthrown in 2001. It should be apparent that the basic objective of defeating the enemy is not sufficient to bring about long term peace and stability in Afghanistan. General McCrystal, backed up by his superior officer, General Petraeus, understands this. The Taliban attack civilian reconstruction programs such as building roads, bridges and schools. So protection of population centers is essential to any long term peace and stability.
Regarding Pakistan, the Obama Administration should begin serious long term efforts to reduce tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Pakistan’s military and ISI officers must once and for all come to the scary realiziation that their real enemy is the Frankstein they created in the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba,and all the other extremist groups they trained to fight India.
i am just not why is amirican went to afghanistan?…………did they done any things or bad?
and why they want to go other people country for not reans i dont think they want ot fight with thalan BUT geting some thing from the land i think they wan oil
x