Obama's Meaningless War

True, he doesn't seem a bit like Lyndon Johnson, but the way he's headed on Afghanistan, Barack Obama is threatened with a quagmire that could bog down his presidency. LBJ also had a progressive agenda in mind, beginning with his war on poverty, but it was soon overwhelmed by the cost and divisiveness engendered by a meaningless, and seemingly endless, war in Vietnam.

Meaningless is the right term for the Afghanistan war, too, because our bloody attempt to conquer this foreign land has nothing to do with its stated purpose of enhancing our national security. Just as the government of Vietnam was never a puppet of Communist China or the Soviet Union, the Taliban is not a surrogate for al-Qaeda. Involved in both instances was an American intrusion into a civil war whose passions and parameters we never fully grasped and could not control militarily.

The Vietnamese Communists were not an extension of an inevitably hostile, unified international communist enemy, as evidenced by the fact that Communist Vietnam and Communist China are both our close trading partners today. Nor should the Taliban be considered simply an extension of a Mideast-based al-Qaeda movement, whose operatives the U.S. recruited in the first place to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

Those recruits included Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attack, and financier Osama bin Laden, who met in Afghanistan as part of a force that Ronald Reagan glorified as "freedom fighters." As blowback from that bizarre, mismanaged CIA intervention, the Taliban came to power and formed a temporary alliance with the better-financed foreign Arab fighters still on the scene.

There is no serious evidence that the Taliban instigated the 9/11 attacks or even knew about them in advance. Taliban members were not agents of al-Qaeda; on the contrary, the only three governments that financed and diplomatically recognized the Taliban--Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan--all were targets of bin Laden's group.

To insist that the Taliban be vanquished militarily as a prerequisite for thwarting al-Qaeda is a denial of the international fluidity of that terrorist movement. Al-Qaeda, according to U.S. intelligence sources, has operated effectively in countries as disparate as Somalia, Indonesia, England and Pakistan, to name just a few. What is required to stymie such a movement is effective police and intelligence work, as opposed to deploying vast conventional military forces in the hope of finding, or creating, a conventional war to win. This last wan hope is what the effort in Afghanistan--in the last two months at its most costly point in terms of American deaths--is all about: marshaling massive firepower to fight shadows.

The Taliban is a traditional guerrilla force that can easily elude conventional armies. Once again the generals on the ground are insisting that a desperate situation can be turned around if only more troops are committed, as Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal did in a report leaked this week. Even with U.S. forces being increased to 68,000 as part of an 110,000-strong allied army, the general states, "The situation in Afghanistan is serious. ..." In the same sentence he goes on to say "but success is achievable."

Fortunately, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is given to some somber doubts on this point, arguing that the size of the U.S. force breeds its own discontents: "I have expressed some concerns in the past about the size of the American footprint, the size of the foreign military footprint in Afghanistan," he said. "And, clearly, I want to address those issues. And we will have to look at the availability of forces, we'll have to look at costs."

I write the word fortunately because just such wisdom on the part of Robert McNamara, another defense secretary, during the buildup to Vietnam would have led him to oppose rather than abet what he ruefully admitted decades after the fact was a disastrous waste of life and treasure: 59,000 Americans dead, along with 3.4 million Indochinese, mostly innocent civilians. I was reporting from Vietnam when that buildup began, and then as now there was an optimism not supported by the facts on the ground. Then as now there were references to elections and supporting local politicians to win the hearts and minds of people we were bombing. Then as now the local leaders on our side turned out to be hopelessly corrupt, a condition easily exploited by those we term the enemy.

Those who favor an escalation of the Afghanistan war ought to own up to its likely costs. If 110,000 troops have failed, will we need the half million committed at one point to Vietnam, which had a far less intractable terrain? And can you have that increase in forces without reinstituting the draft?

It is time for Democrats to remember that it was their party that brought America its most disastrous overseas adventure and to act forthrightly to pull their chosen president back from the abyss before it is too late.

Comments

[jefke]

There is absolutely no way that Obama will withdraw from Afghanistan. 1) He is much too concerned at how the Republicans will respond to such a move. 2) He has the same respect for Military Brass that he has for the lords of Wall Street. 3) He runs from taking a stand on any controversial issue.

[lonbwoy]

If the Democrats really, really want to end these Wars, guess what??, they can, just cut off Funding, but will they do it??, NO.

[jc747]

The North Vietnamese were “nationalists”. The Taliban are “hedgemonists”. We didn’t realize until after the fact that the North Vietnamese simply wanted to unite with South Vietnam to form one country. They were not interested in the “Domino Effect”, that is the theory that, country after country, communism would take over the world. (In the end, both the theory and the ideology have been equally discredited). Communism, however, is just another form of economic distribution that is not “capitalism”. Being a communist, by definition, does not make you a hedgemonist. Russia, under Stalin especially, were paranoid hedgemonists. China, however, was not. Cuba was not. North Vietnam was not. They were just nationalists. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, are “terroristic hedgemonists”. The Taliban may also have been nationalists as well at first, but as evidenced by their extremely cruel treatment of their women, by the fact they gave aid and comfort to al Qaeda in full knowledge of their intent, if not of specifics, by the fact that they are trying to violently take over Pakistan, a sovereign country, it all shows that they, too, are exhibiting traits of hedgemonistic terrorism and in the interest of world security need to be beaten into submission!

[dhinds]

"The Taliban ... are exhibiting traits of hedgemonistic terrorism and in the interest of world security need to be beaten into submission!"

Not on my tax dollar, jc. As the article states, the Taliban has no standing army and no uniformed troops. There's no way to tell who is and who isn't a member and as we all know, the vast majority of US deaths are caused by IEDs, which can be placed by anyone at any time without showing their face.

The presence of the USA's invading and occupying forces drives local and Muslim Nationalistic and Religious sympathizers to join the resistance.

Increasing that presence makes the USA less safe. Bring ALL the troops home NOW!

Aside from intelligence work and a few surgical air strikes when truly justified (i.e. against proven al Qaeda training camps), the only defense against terrorism in the USA will come from defending the hearth here at home.

More troops means more targets and more mourning families.

[jefke]

Absolutely. Every civilian death caused by the US army and its allies, is a step forward for the Taliban. And as long as the US is there, there will be civilian deaths.

www.anamericaninbrussels.com

[Dfndurites]

Vietnam we bailed out the French again and now we trade with them the Vietnamize did not attack us on our soil several times Al-Qaeda did and they also attacked our people over seas, the sad thing is we made Al Qaeda when we were supplying the Afgan rebels in the Afgan Soviet War in the 80's

[mbaty]

We can't quit now. Remember 9/11! We need another surge...because of 9/11! We just might catch Bin Laden if we keep looking. He's got to be around here somewhere, no doubt gloating about 9/11 and concocting other, even more ridiculously improbable "terrorist" events.

[dhinds]

That's written tongue in check, right?

Your joking.

[mjc]

It is Obama's war now. If he is unable or unwilling to learn from a conflict of the immediate past...Iraq...what can we conclude about this man who was touted to be so intelligent, had so many progressive programs he wanted and yet is pulling us deeper and deeper into another no-win war. Afghanistan is even less of a "state" than Iraq; Iraq at least had a dictator to overthrow and a real army to destroy. Afghanistan has none of the trappings of a modern nation state and is unlikely to have those super-imposed on them by the United States. It is difficult...nay, impossible....to see what the hell we will get in return for our blood and treasure. And like Iraq, none of the generals or Obama are telling us why we are upgrading the number of troops there. No definition of success except some garbage like clear and hold has been mentioned. It seems it is like pudding: find a pocket of resistance..(and the question is, to what?), clear it of Taliban, and move one. The pocket in the pudding just fills in. Unless we want to take on Pakistan....and that is what really scares me about the people surrounding the White House....we will never be able to say that Afghanistan is cleared.

[research]

apparent it would be bad for the country if the War profiteers didn't have lots of wars.

[billw8017]

Switching the emphasis to Afghanistan was candidate Obama's strategy to mock and undermine Republican support of any and all wars. He came out for the "good war."

[RoseMerry]

Obama has joined the ranks of U.S war criminals - allow to roam free and commit mass murder. Why, hell, I really cannot tell you. Now that the contracters in Afghanstan outnumber the troops, it looks like someone is making massive profits.

And the dying continues. In our name.

IMPEACH HIM!

[timefortruth]

U.S. troops have been in Afghanistan since 2001 and long before President Obama took office. George Bush was at the helm.

KBR, a spin-off of Halliburton where Dick Cheney was the CEO, has one of the largest contracts in Afghanistan. In addition, KBR also has one of the largest contracts in Iraq.

Not to be confused, ArmorGroup North America holds one of the contracts for providing security in which personnel were captured in photos embarrasing our country. Other security contractors include Aegis, Blackwater, GSI, KBR, Titan, and many more.

Before calling for impeachment, get your facts in order to support your case.

[billw8017]

And when you have your facts in order, must impeachment follow?

I really enjoyed Lincoln's Cooper's Union speech, and it swayed its generation of Americans. You might read it, if you get the opportunity, and discover what passed for technique by the greatest orator of his time. T4T may be inspired by Lincoln, but most that Lincoln had to say was general, merely universal and forever true.

In T4T's post, the data might be called trite and incidental to his conclusion. I suspect he merely rejects the call for impeachment and points out how President Obama's policies are but consistent with previous policies, accepted without impeachments then so that impeachment is ridiculous when our conduct is smarter. If so, he could say more since there is plenty to be said but he doesn't really have to.

[Venise Alstergren]

The writer makes some excellent points, to do with the lack of morality of the US, in being involved in a war in Afghanistan. Especially when 'the Taliban' is invoked, which is akin to George W Bush saying the war in Iraq was about WMD.
Historically the US is on a dead-set loser. No one has ever successfully invaded this strange country with its forbidding terrain, and its deadly guerilla fighters.
Of course, since WWII, no US President has ever been his own man. He has to do what he is told to do by the people who really run the country. The big war materiél companies. Of course the big auto manufacturers like General Motors and Ford, etc may have gone bad in the last recession, but that was only on the automobile side. The war materiél departments were OK
It is a pity the companies, producing uniforms and weaponry, can't run the army as well as they run their businesses
If, the fighting man was led by people who wanted to WIN wars, each soldier would be taught to live off the land, carry as little equipment as possible and become a guerilla fighter, the way the other side does.
Think of the benefits. planes and bombs wouldn't have to be replaced all the time. Soldiers free of hideous weights would be fit when they retired from army life. Wars wouldn't be being fought all the time. The list is endless. So, apparently, is men's patience.

[Craig Orrell]

Lets be honest-It is about OIL-Left or Right-our government cares only about keeping its filthy hands on the worlds most precious resource-O­IL!!!OIL!!­!OIL!!!-Co­me on Obama I thought you were going to be different-What a Sham!!!

"My ardent desire is, and my aim has been...to comply strictly with all our engagements foreign and domestic; but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." -George Washington

[RoseMerry]

Excuse me, but there is no oil in Afghanistan!

[twofish]

No, but there is a pipeline across it.

[Scarborian]

If we are not helping the Afghan people and we're not protecting American interests then we are an occupying force and have no business being there. Americans don't enlist in the Armed Services so they can die for nothing in particular.

The Administration has to justify why our troops are still there or get them out.

[dadw5boys]

SO HOW DOES AS 800 WORD COMPLAINT WITH NO REAL ADVISE HELP OUR PRESIDENT DEAL WITH THE HORRIBLE POSITION BUSH LEFT OUR TRROPS AND COUNTRY IN ???

Excuse me but -- " How the U.S. Military can pull out of the Afganistan without taking sides in their civil war." Would be a better article is it included real options and alternatives.

The Taliban do not want to be fighting the Americans but they will. The Tailban are not the 9/11 Terrorist they are rebels like the old Confederate Sholdiers in the U.S. but these guys have not quit .

So come on real answers, we know the Vietnam War was started on a lie and kept going to sell weapons to the military . War profiteers are always with us. The President listens to reports from the front all day everyday he needs help not more complaints. A Veteran Journalist like yourself should not be used by the Right to add undue pressure to cause problems.

[SamEllison]

Gen Petraeus just wrote the book,
one soldier for every fifty Afghans.
It ain't going to happen, in excess
of half a million troops as an occupation force.

That fact equates to the Pentagon Papers.

[dadw5boys]

6 Retired CIA Officers describe the Afgan War as the USA attacking a hotel where some bad quest once stayed. The USA now holds the hotel and is telling the bad men they can not come back. Everyone knew the bad men had left when the USA started bombing Afhanistan but they invaded anyway. A couple say the USA invaded for thepower to keep the bad men out other say it was to act as an Economic Stimulius with money going to the Military Industrail Complex. But one says it is meant to keep Soldiers on both sides of Iran.

Meanwhile the USA has to take care of this hotel and the quest there now. The control it including the water system they bombed, power grid and everything else they destoryed has to be rebuilt. Even the farms and food supply was destroyed and now the only cash crop is opium.
On top of that the Old Managment of this hotel is facing a Hostile take over from the Taliban and wants the USA to stop them. But here is the problem the old managment is extremely corrupt as the last election proved to be.

What does the USA do ? So many forgieners now trying to help the people as long as they are in Afganistan we have to protext them, don't we ? We can't just walk away without putting millions at risk.

So we are in the middle of a civil war and on the wrong side

[manyamile]

i agree.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

At what point can we start calling it "Obamistan?"

[lizt]

In his second term. Right now it's still the war that Bush started and led for years.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

I'm sorry, but I voted for Obama.
I did not vote for a two-term war.

[Angeltour]

..tell that to all the troops that died this month...the deadliest month of the war so far...if it was wrong for Bush, it is even more wrong for Obama

[noneIn2008]

1, No matter who we support for governing Iraq and Afghanistan, they will be corrupt. They will be politicians, like ours, and will be corrupt. We will be supporting corruption the people hate. There is no win.
2. hose who say we are there to get the Taliban, do they suggest we further invade Pakistan to get the Taliban or Al Qaeda?
3. At least with Lyndon Johnson the media would ask tough questions. Too bad our media is MIA on the wars.
4. Russia wants the place, give it to them
5. No more excuses. Get us out, now.

[stryker]

Wasn't the reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place was because the talilban were hiding bin laden? Because they refused to give him up? While bin laden is public enemy #1, bush didn't lose any sleep over him and turned his interest to the phony Iraq war. Do we need a large buildup there? PRobably not, but do we run home and leave bin laden laughing at us. Then when the taliban takes over afghanistan again and turns it sights on Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons, will we sit back here and say, "Oh well, what the hell?"

[LyssaBarnes]

Ditto. How soon we forget.

[noneIn2008]

Sounds like the Vietnam domino argument?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Vietnam didn't have nukes.
Vietnam didn't pull off 9/11.
Vietnam didn't bring down the Soviet Union.
Other than that...

[S1m0n]

No, that wasn't the reason. The Taliban made no such refusal. They asked what evidence the US had that bin Laden was responsible for the bombing. This is a perfectly reasonable request to have made; every government in the world would have done the same. Bush called that refusing.

[peterg76]

Iraq might have been a quagmire no matter what, but it didn't help that the war was done on the cheap: the minimum number of soldiers, with the minimum of equipment, little or no action taken in light of abuses, and administered by unqualified ideological zealots. The only innovation was the 'surge' - by definition not a new strategy direction. Obama seems to be escalating Afghanistan just enough to increase casualties but not enough to ensure tangible results.

Unless, of course, the goal is to prevent rather than enable Afghanistan to become governable, which would thrill oil pipeline consortiums to no end.

[noneIn2008]

The military is very good at breaking things. That is their job, as it should be.
They were never built to be an international police force.
Get them out, now