Obama and the Limits of Power
On August 17, President Barack Obama made the obligatory presidential pilgrimage to the conclave of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, this time on Senator John McCain's home turf. The speech, carried live on the cable networks, captured a VFW audience often surly and seemingly uninterested in the president's remarks. But at one point, he predictably brought even his recalcitrant audience to its feet when he made a pitch for his health care proposals: "One thing that reform won't change is veterans' health care. No one is going to take away your benefits. That's the truth." No doubt.
The president and his spokespersons spent much of the day backing and filing on health care. Did he or didn't he flavor a public option? How much would "his" package (did he have one?) cost? And what about those "death panels?"
But for the VFW, Obama concentrated on the expanding war in Afghanistan -- and it is the war that he now proudly asserts as his own. After in effect declaring victory in Iraq to justify the removal of American troops, Obama promised he now would "re-focus" our efforts to "win" in Afghanistan. As Obama made abundantly clear in his presidential campaign, this was his war of choice, the one he consistently has said is necessary to eliminate al-Qaeda, which had taken refuge in the desolate Afghan mountains.
During the campaign, he seemed at pains to demonstrate he was not the caricatured soft liberal when it came to American military power. Although Obama consistently has admitted, as he did with the VFW, that military power alone will not be sufficient, he nevertheless insisted his "new strategy" had the clear mission "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda." Obama knows that defeat of the Taliban is essential to this strategy. "If left unchecked," he remarked, the Taliban insurgency will bring "an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." It is not, he insisted, a "war of choice," but "a war of necessity."
In 1991, following the defeat of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi forces in Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush proudly announced that we had "kicked the Vietnam Syndrome." His successor son, propelled by Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, heady with the lightening rout of Iraqi forces, believed he had restored World War II ("can do") notions for the military component of American foreign policy.
The same day President Obama spoke to VFW, the New York Times carried a dispatch from Afghanistan, with a villager trying to explain the difference between night and day, and his security: "When you leave here, the Taliban will come at night and ask us why we were talking to you," a villager named Abdul Razzaq said. "If we cooperate, they would kill us."
Déjà vu all over again. The American military in Vietnam often announced that they had killed so many Viet Cong, and had "freed" a village. They left assuming the enemy had lost control but at night, of course, the VC returned and reminded villagers of the reality.
Whatever "syndrome" we kicked, Vietnam's primary lesson remains intact: American power is not without limits, both in terms of defeating an enemy, and in terms of its domestic support. The primary lesson of Vietnam seems that it is a lesson lost. And now we have some of the same intractable problems in Afghanistan.
General Stanley McChrystal and Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke recently called Vietnam War historian Stanley Karnow for advice. After the conversation, Karnow told the AP that the main lesson to be learned from Vietnam was that "we shouldn't have been there in the first place." We apparently don't know what was said on the other end, but General McChrystal has asked for more troops.
As Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson expanded the American commitment in Vietnam, their deputies regularly insisted that the insurgency had Chinese support and backing. "Peiping," as Secretary of State Dean Rusk scoffed, blatantly demeaning the Chinese, was to blame. If the government had any historians, or anyone with knowledge of history, and had the courage to speak truth to power, they could have pointed to the historic enmity of a millennium between the Chinese and the Vietnamese. As if to prove the point, the Chinese launched war against the victorious Vietnamese in 1975, only to suffer an embarrassing defeat.
The historical lessons for Afghanistan are clear. The British readily acknowledge their defeat. Surely, the Russians know that Afghanistan was their Vietnam -- with some not-so covert intervention by the CIA. Afghanistan has been a graveyard for imperial ambitions, however noble and ostensibly good the ventures may have been. Long after the Guns of Health Care Reform are stilled, Afghanistan apparently promises to be with President Obama -- and us -- for a very long time.
We thought we defeated the Taliban once before; and now, they are back again. President Obama believes we must do more to roll back the Taliban. But what can we do with the ethnic and tribal rivalries, the corruption and inefficiency in Kabul, all of which are related to the place of the Taliban? Will the U.S. be able to totally destroy, everywhere in the country, the Taliban's grip on power? Does anyone in Obama's circle ask "why?"
We can ponder the alternative. If successful, the Taliban possibly might offer "an even larger safe haven" for al-Qaeda and similar groups. But now, without Taliban control of the Afghanistan government, "safe havens" persist in the mountains of the country and in the northwest provinces of Pakistan. The situation is not much different than it was in 2001, except that the safe area for terrorists may be smaller. But what is different is our intelligence, our use of it, our vigilance, and our capacity to strike with sophisticated air weapons.
American are questioning the Afghanistan involvement as never before. A Washington Post- ABC Poll (August 19, 2009) for the first time showed a majority of Americans opposed to the war. Meanwhile, suicide bombings and other attacks mount in Kabul. American troops can protect the local citizenry only sporadically, and with limitations. But inevitably, Americans will we ask how long we will we remain in Afghanistan, how many troops will be needed, and whether the costs in lives and treasure justify the venture? As with the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, chances of our destroying the Taliban are slight. Eventually, the Afghans -- Taliban or otherwise -- will inherit their land and have to assume responsibility for governing. We, like the British and the Russians before us, will fade into Afghanistan's history.
Stanley Kutler is the author of The Wars of Watergate, and other writings.
Robert Naiman: By How Many Days Can We Shorten this War?
In our ally Britain, which has far fewer troops there, the question of how long their troops will be in Afghanistan is openly discussed. But this question is not even being asked in the U.S. Senate.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There's an article on foreignpol
The most powerful army in terms of land power at the time, the Soviet army, could not win in Afghanistan. This war can not be won and this is known. So I guess the question is why is this war being fought? The terrorist idea is ridiculous as they can spring from anywhere - just look at 911. The Taliban question is absurd as we support extreme Islam elsewhere, like in Saudi Arabia. So what's in it? A useful military exercise? A market for weapons? A containment strategy? An experiment? What?
Oil. Specifically a pipe line. War profiteers. The drug trade. All "good" reasons to be in the Afpack war. Fortunately, these imperial military adventures will end as soon as the Chinese stop funding them.
There is no reason whatsoever for there to still be US troops in Afghanistan.
Troops were sent to Afghanistan to find and deal with OBL and friends by way of punishing the Taliban for providing them with a haven. That situation is now over, and there is no reason to maintain a visible force there at all.
Even as a very-far-leftie, I would support tasking an appropriately sized Special Operations Group with continuing to search for and deal with OBL and friends.
But there's no reason at all for the presence there now. No reason at all. This could definitely be Obama's Vietnam.
Why not end the war now?
Get our troops out of there and bring them home!
If I knew that he was going to just keep dumping troops into these wars I would NOT have supported him ...
The U.S. Armed Forces should be in any place where their mission is U.S. National Security and the protection of American lives.
Under those circumstances, their sacrifice and the expense from the U.S. Treasury, is justified and honorable and necessary.
It's why we have an Armed Force, and why we deploy them, and why they risk their lives: in the name of U.S. National Security, and in defense of the American People.
And the American People are in fact those U.S. Troops, and make this sacrifice in the defense of their own country, in defense of themselves.
Now, is there any legitimate and sensible threat to U.S. National Security in Afghanistan?
Only our Intelligence Community can know the true answer to that question, and we don't have public access to the data or to the analysis of that data, that concludes whether Afghanistan (or Pakistan) poses a threat serious enough to U.S. National Security, to warrant the sacrifice of U.S. Troops there, in a military occupation.
The President, who is also the Commander in Chief, has access to the Intelligence that concludes to what degree if any, Afghanistan (or Pakistan) poses a threat to the lives of the American People.
Also, our efforts in Vietnam came to nothing good, because there was absolutely no U.S. National Security objective served by the military occupation in their south, or by the bloody and expensive conflict against their north...
That's the Vietnam lesson.
I agree. We've got to get our military out of Afghanistan.
It would really take a person like me to figure out what to do about the situation there.
I bet a place as big as central Asia can come up with a few guys capable of restoring balance and life-style.
Why do Americans have to show Afghans "the way"?
Obama said that we're in Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda while General Petraeus recently said that Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan. The two should get together. But what Obama is really doing is nation building, attempting to "democratize" Afghanistan, where corruption is pervasive. Obama has learned nothing from recent history.
he said "win," what are his terms for victory; will the war on terror be over with al qaeda?
what is to stop us from stagnating in Afganistan?
it looks a lot like he is using the war to keep leverage on the terrorist regimes; that's bad if the war is a timetable or a cushion as apposed to a solution.
how do we quantify success, do we have a list of the active terrorists that need to be dispatched, or we playing tit for tat with their recruiting potential?
When the founding fathers left the Constitutional Convention most of them were disgusted with the results. So many issues were unresolved, e.g., slavery, that the only way we got a constitution was by providing for amendments in the future. We still have so little that is defined and the lack of resolution of these issues are bound to lead to future domestic violence. The divisions in the U.S. are steadily increasing and are being exploited by the inscrupulous.
Relative to this article, in my lifetime we have had the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Iraq, and Afganistan
Why can't we have a constitutional amendment that insures that any use of our military, however small, has to have a declaration of war by Congress complete with definitions and ultimate goals?
Cindy Sheehan going to Martha's Vineyard to protest the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan-The press is so over it- Charlie Gibson said- "Enough already"
So much for anti-war talk now that Obama is in- he's apparently fighting a "good war"
Did they really say that?!
If that's true, it is the most hypocritcal thing I've heard ...
That's terrible!
Good summary. Seems a topic few want to discuss. The Republicans just want to continue and the Democrats want to deny it exists. The media ignores because they don't have talking points from the DNC or RNC.
"But for the VFW, Obama concentrated on the expanding war in Afghanistan -- and it is the war that he now proudly asserts as his own."
As time goes on, watch Obama try to distance himself.
doubtful
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
