Mr. President, Can the Ghosts of Vietnam Talk You Down?

Dear Mr. President:

In these days before a fateful decision, I hope you are hearing the wise counsel of those who directly experienced the Vietnam Quagmire, who now watch you prepare to sink your presidency, like Lyndon Johnson, into the unforgiving history and terrain of Afghanistan.

It is stunning to me that a humane and discerning mind like yours is being dragged further into an unnecessary and unwinnable war. You campaigned on Afghanistan being the "Good War" to help extricate America from the Iraq debacle. But your own analysis of the Iraq mess in The Audacity of Hope is right on the mark for the Afghan War today (especially since the "central front" against Al Queda has shifted to Pakistan). In your book chapter "The World Beyond Our Borders," you wrote about the predictable cycle of failure in Iraq, describing it as:

"A botched and ill-advised U.S. military incursion into a Muslim country, which in turn spurs on insurgencies based on religious sentiment and nationalist pride, which in turn necessitates a lengthy and difficult U.S. occupation, which in turn leads to an escalating death toll on the part of U.S. troops and the local civilian population. All of this fans anti-American sentiment among Muslims, increases the pool of potential terrorist recruits, and prompts the American people to not only question the war but also those policies that project us into the Islamic world in the first place."

Mr. President, it seems that you might know deep in your bones that the path the generals and crackpot realists are walking you down is, as Yogi Berra once said, deja vu all over again. We are told that you recently finished reading Lessons in Disaster, which traces the hawkish march to war and later regret by Vietnam-era national security adviser McGeorge Bundy. The book details the myopic worldview of military leaders focused on troop numbers, and the civilian leaders who tragically followed their advice.

I fear that you may recognize the hazards that lay ahead, but are letting your instincts to find a middle-ground, compromise solution lead you to pursue a "bipartisan" troop increase--an escalation never enough to win, but certain to enlarge and deepen a most damaging defeat.

Please listen to your inner compass, Mr. President. Consider the wise words of prominent historians, politicians, and military analysts whose lives and careers were defined by the Vietnam War, and who today warn you against escalating this fool's errand in Afghanistan. Here are four prophetic voices hoping to talk you down:

Stanley Karnow, author of the seminal 1983 book, "Vietnam: A History":

What did we learn from Vietnam? We learned that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Obama and everybody else seem to want to be in Afghanistan, but not I.

It now seems unthinkable that the U.S. could lose (in Afghanistan), but that's what experts ... thought in Vietnam in 1967. It could be that there will be no real conclusion and that it will go on for a long time until the American public grows tired of it.

George McGovern, 1972 Democratic presidential nominee and the first member to oppose the Vietnam War on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

"I'm convinced that war is going to turn sour. I'm convinced we're not going to prevail there. Some of the best reporters over there are telling us that the Taliban are getting stronger and we're getting weaker in the minds of the people, and that you have a corrupt government involved in drugs, involved in just plain old-fashioned stealing and corruption. It's a lousy government, and it's very difficult, even for a great country like [the U.S.], to make them look good. So I think we have every reason to withdraw."

Daniel Ellsberg, former military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1971, making public the decision-making details behind the Vietnam War:

"I see the situation as Vietnamistan: If you put more troops in this year, the Taliban will be stronger next year. We recruit as we kill and support a corrupt, dope-dealing government. There's no way of making this government look like it really cares about the Afghan people. No foreign troops have ever carried out a successful counter-insurgency campaign in terms of actually winning over the population."

Ted Sorensen, former special counsel and adviser to President John F. Kennedy, and author most recently of Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History:

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.

America's national security, much less its way of life, was never at stake in Vietnam, thousands of miles from our shores, nor is it in Afghanistan. U.S. leaders say we must win to establish sufficient control in Afghanistan to prevent our enemies from ever again meeting to plan, plot, and train anywhere in that vast, ungovernable country. Every bomb we drop, antagonizing more civilians, makes that goal more unrealizable. The main al Qaeda forces have already left Afghanistan--why haven't we? The cost of Afghanistan in American lives and dollars has steadily risen to the point where the American people, as LBJ discovered regarding Vietnam, want no more.

 

Comments

[Kenny2k]

I truly believe this war has never been about Al-Queda or the Taliban or even 9-11-01. It's always been about securing the oil fields in the middle east. Our leaders should come clean about their real motives. Maybe the people would support them if they knew the truth. Maybe!
The world has changed. More and more countries look for oil for their own needs. The compitition for these resourses is fierce. Our government believes our national security depends on our control of the middle east. That will not change. Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is just a prelude to the bigger war coming with Iran or any other Muslem country who oppose our dominance. They cannot let the people of this country put that to some kind of vote. President Obama is finding out the hard way the difference between running for president and being president. The Bankers control him now and they say fight for oil.

[TheIndependenceParty]

It seems some in the middle and all on the right are attempting to convince Obama of their ability to discern the "good war" from the "bad war", ... Afghanistan from Iran. There are differences to be sure. In the end, war can not work well as a means of retribution for crimes of one people against another. Gaza lobs crude rockets into Israel and kills several of its citizens, ... Israel retaliates, some say rightly, and the actions result in a thousand killed in a strip of land from which civilians can not escape.

And so it goes for us in Afghanistan. The Taliban remain just out of reach in Pakistan. The civilian Kharzei government, smelling of CIA money and influence, rigs an election, and intimidates the contender from the runoff. In sports such a win would carry an asterisk. No glory to a victor of such a win. Dozens of innocents die in drone attacks, while our young die in increasing numbers . Dwindling our defenses in a shadow war for a suspect government.

If Iraq feels "right" it is because we are disengaging, and not because Iraq has evolved to what we "want it to be".

It is literally schizoid for us to continue in Afghanistan what we have learned could not work in Iraq.

[yankee222]

I disagree with the premise that the military is not misleading the president.

The president is unable to decide whether to give the troops the equipment and reinforcements that the troops say that they need to do the job.

Either give them what they need or get them out.

Obama has always been afraid to take a stand on hard issues (voting PRESENT) and this is another manifestation of that same lack of conviction.

[sticksnstones]

Both Johnson and Nixon made the mistake of accepting Westmoreland's force requirements until we had 550,000 troops in-country. How did that work out for us ??

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Excellent piece, Dan, and I appreciate opportunity to add my voice.

I have to agree, Mr. President, with the assessment that says we have NOTHING to accomplish by staying in Afghanistan valleys and villages, besides forcing perpetual targets (OUR troops) upon a people that want us gone - to return to their 'civil war'. Repositioning for a time at just a few bases and eventually pulling out, timed to coincide with the greater withdrawal from Iraq...

I know it sounds simplistic, and we could complicate it greatly by discussing drugs, but how will results greatly change by having 50K to 100K MORE troops occupy THEIR country - for a few additional years? Spend that 'occupation' money at home 'rebuilding readiness' and you provide considerably more quality jobs...

Could another hundred thousand 'lions for lambs' (powerful movie) somehow win 'the war on terra' for us?
I think not. I humbly suggest we hunker down much more while we stay, sir, and be as stingy with every single one of OUR troops lives - as possible.

[Dan Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

You are right about how little difference 150 or 100k troops means in their country, and how our leaders should be extremely "stingy" in US lives lost....and how that treasure and blood could be used here at home. Thanks!

[hrholmes]

Has anyone else noticed that the USA has not 'won a war' since 1945? Our contractors and Merc's are just not getting the job done since the initial looting of Vietraqistan. We've only lost a few thousand service people over there over thwe past 8 years at a huge financial cost that we could have spent in America for single payer healthcare to save 45,000 to 50,000 American citizens per year. But war is more fun and sick people should shut up! lol

[yankee222]

Grenada!

[sticksnstones]

Sledgehammer meets carpet tack.

Your comment isn't a refutation of hrholmes' point. It's an obfuscation.

[Neopolitan]

The Generals are not leading the President down the primrose path. That is an inaccurate statement. The Military, when given a mission to carry out policy, advises options and then obeys orders. If the Administration wants to reverse the policy in Afghanistan for political (or realistic) reasons, take the GWOT in a new direction, or even withdraw completely , then it should do it posthaste so that the Military can plan and execute those orders. We stayed in Vietnam for years because the White House wanted us there.

[goodpyr]

Get out now.We've spent too many lives there.these people are living in the 17th century with 20th century weapons.We don't need to prop up another dictator.

[billieTEE]

why is there never any mention of afghanistan's strategic value in terms of natural resources and the placement of the big unocal pipeline across asia? i just get the feeling this isn't all that much about defending the united states....

[hrholmes]

yep, not to mention hundreds of tons of cheap heroin also too.

[bighat]

President Obama should bring the troops home. But I am afraid that politics is getting in the way. Democrats want to show they can wage war every bit as good as Republicans..

What is there to win in Afghanistan?

Will common sense prevail or politics?

[Dan Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, it is interesting that in Audacity of Hope, Obama notes that politics had twisted the decision-making around the Iraq War. You are right to note the perverse role that domestic politics can and has played in some of the most costly U.S. misadventures abroad.

[ss193]

It has been my contention for years that every president elect should be required to visit the Holocuast Museum and every momument to our fallen soldiers in DC prior to the inauguration. Especially the Viet Nam memorial, there in stark relief, the uncountable costs of war stand for all to see. I don't know how anyone can view those names and not be forever humbled and aghast at man's stupidity and brutality.

[Sherl]

Brilliant essay that sees the parallels between the fiasco in Vietnam and in Afghanistan. Why can't we support development in this country and have only the security forces necessary to protect the nonprofits who can build schools, clinics and support the provision of education, healthcare and the institutions of a civil society that would stablize and enhance that country. President Obama needs to step away and think this through very carefully indeed.

Shirley Fredricks

[jamiso]

Uhm... you just described exactly what the NATO mission is after the Taliban were removed from power....

Problem is they then attack those NGOs, IOs, and LNGO that those security forces are protecting....and then you get here.

[kulthur]

More ideology and arrogance. Let's not remember that just 8.5 years ago the Taliban were terrorizing Afghans and hosting al Qaeda, among other groups. 8.5 years ago is not even the blink of an eye, and already you're forgetting. I'm afraid simply saying "it won't happen again, you stupid Rethuglican" is not exactly a cogent argument.

Vietnam was a Communist war funded by a superpower and guarded by another, the first of whom we were already checking with troops, treasure and political capital in Europe, East Asia, the Caribbean and Africa. China actually had dozen or so divisions in North Vietnam to underline the dynamic. So few liberals study actual strategy. Why is that? It's really interesting!

Anyway, the Taliban would be back, and probably the victorious Pashto - if they could keep it together long enough - would destabilize Pakistan within a relatively short period of time. In the meantime, jihadi triumphalism would erupt even more certainly and deeply than it did after the Soviet withdrawal in '89/'91. Why can't you see that? How can that possibly be a controversial supposition?

[sticksnstones]

Spare us the Domino-theory lecture. The VietNam war was a cilil war between a communist north and a corrupt oligarchy to the south. The north was supported in the south by an insurgent VietCong civilian militia which in turn was supported by the majority of the South Vietnamese civilian population. They (the north AND south) were fighting an occupying country and its military.
They won.

The population of Afghanistan is fighting an occupying country and its military. That same population is opposed to the western supported puppet regime in Kabul. They fully realize that the Karzai government is corrupt, incompetent, illegitimate, and resistant to change. The Taliban and the reconstituted Mujahideen will willingly set aside religious, cultural, ethnic, and ideological differences long enough to rid Afghanistan of a foreign occupying country.
And, like the Vietnamese, they will also ultimately win.

Strategically speaking, an occupying conventional army cannot win a war against a committed, dedicated insurgent population.

[Dan Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, good point about the corrupt local regimes propped up in Saigon and Kabul. This support feeds the mass resentment layered on top of the historical antagonism to occupying foreign powers.

[mamalisa38]

Just as in Iraq there are thousands and thousands of innocent people being killed. Someone's mother, daughter, father, son, grandparents and babies. What about them? We can't stop women from being treated like dogs by bombing their country.

How many more American lives do we sacrifice? We have 18, 19 and 20 year old kids coming home, their lives forever changed, having seen and done things that none of us could even begin to imagine.

We have been there for nearly a DECADE and our troops are exhausted. What exactly is "winning" and what does it look like? The only answer is to bring them home now.

[damyanky]

I agree. I am sick to my stomach at the idea that more troops may be going. I can't know the details restricted by security considerations and I'm not a military strategist, but I don't want any more American blood spilled to "save" Afganistan. It's not right. Our troops have done more than enough and they deserve their chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We owe nothing to the Mid-east nations. We owe everything to the victims of poverty, illiteracy, sickness and natural disasters here at home. I am not an Isolationist, but charity begins at home. We should be using our dwindling funds and our National Guard to build new bridges, repair the roads, really clean up from Katrina, etc.,and work to save the environment. I realize that some 80% or more of the world's opium is grown there. We need to use our inspection technology and more trained people and DOGS to keep it out. More troops in Afganistan will never prevent incidents like the killings at home in Fort Hood.

[timm0]

The basic common denominator is that the de facto governments in both South Vietnam and Afghanistan had/have no support from the citizens. Without raining nukes on the country to disintegrate everyone, it is impossible to win a war where the citizens don't like/trust any of the parties vying for power. And when you factor in how the US brought the current Afghan regime into power, we're not trusted either.

At this point, there is no debate over if we "need to be there" morally. The situation is like a doctor with a patient who has an inoperable brain tumor. Whatever you do will kill the patient.

[Peggy Sharyon]

Let's send Dan Siegel to Washington to serve as a wise and wonderful advisor to President Obama! I hope and pray we do the right thing and get our soldiers out of Afghanistan. There is a time and a place to use our resources and our resources are needed here.