Command Decision

On May 27, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson had telephone conversations about Vietnam with McGeorge Bundy, his national security adviser, and Sen. Richard Russell, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. First, to Bundy, he said: "It just worries the hell out of me. I don't see what we can ever hope to get out of there. ... I don't think that we can fight them 10,000 miles away from home and ever get anywhere. ... I don't think it's worth fighting for, and I don't think we can get out. It's just the biggest damn mess I ever saw. ... What the hell is Vietnam worth to me? ... What is it worth to this country?"

In a second, 20-minute conversation that day with his friend Sen. Russell, he said: "I've got lots of trouble. What do you think about this Vietnam thing?" Russell responded: "It's the damn worst mess I ever saw. ... I'd get out. ... It isn't important a damn bit."

Late in the conversation, President Johnson worried: "The Republicans are going to make a political issue out of it. ... Nixon, Rockefeller and Goldwater all (are) saying let's move (and) let's go into the North. ... They'd impeach a president ... that would run out. Wouldn't they?"

Johnson went on to speak of a sergeant who was a father of six. He ''works for me over there at the house,'' Johnson told Sen. Russell. Then Johnson said: ''Thinking about sending (him) in there ... and what the hell we're going to get out of his doing it? It just makes the chills run up my back.'' LBJ concluded the conversation by saying, "I haven't the nerve to do it, but I don't see any other way out of it." (To listen to those heartbreaking taped conversations, go here.)

As of that spring day in 1964, a total of 201 Americans had been killed in Vietnam since 1956, according to the official records. A few months later, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed by Congress, and the great escalation of our troop levels started. By the time we finally lost the war and brought our boys home, another 57,992 American troops were killed.

Of course, in 1964, only the president knew he was taping his phone conversations. Publicly, Johnson said that it was a war we had to fight and win and that we would win it. Now, of course, we know that he believed we couldn't win even before he sent the first of those 57,992 American boys over there to die. And that he did it because he didn't have, in his words, "the nerve" to follow his best judgment because he wouldn't risk his own political danger, perhaps impeachment.

As painful as it is to consider the consequences of Johnson's decisions, he was, for all his faults, no monster. And even the finest, ethical leaders often find the pressures of politics powerfully encroaching on their best policy judgments. (For example, in order to win, Franklin Roosevelt ran publicly on a peace ticket in 1940, though he privately believed American interests required us to get into World War II.)

Today President Barack Obama is on the cusp of a fateful policy decision. He has argued consistently that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to deny al-Qaida a base of terrorist operations and to stop the Taliban insurrection from destabilizing nuclear Pakistan. But serious doubts are being raised by many policy experts and an emerging majority of the American and British publics as to whether we have a strategy and the materiel to succeed. Even the optimists believe that a successful counterinsurgency in Afghanistan (and needed as much in Pakistan) will require several years of sustained commitment, with substantially more men and materiel and a shrewder strategy (probably requiring modern nation building of a traditional tribal society).

To have a reasonable chance at success, President Obama will have to sustain the effort for years, which will require him to be at least as determined and stubborn on behalf of this war as former President George W. Bush was in fighting the Iraq war -- whatever one thought of Bush's policy wisdom. It may be a lonely struggle at times for the president because his strongest supporters (the Democratic Party, particularly its progressive/liberal wing) are not by philosophy or recent history natural supporters of military action; their support will be based largely on party instincts. The war's natural supporters -- the hawkish right and center of the Republican Party -- inevitably will have at least their enthusiasm ameliorated by their party instincts.

Thus, President Obama has a hard decision to make. Because things are going worse than expected in Afghanistan, it will take longer and require more sacrifice of American blood and treasure to succeed (if we can succeed even then) than was believed to be the case last year. Moreover, political support for the president is likely to be uneven at best.

So in this already politically difficult summer of 2009, President Obama must bring a higher level of intellectual integrity and moral courage to his go/no-go war decision than Lyndon Johnson was capable of 45 years ago. Notwithstanding his prior and current commitment to prosecute the war in Afghanistan -- and notwithstanding the ambiguous political effect of his decision -- he owes it to both himself and the many young service members who soon may be shipping out to make a new, cold calculation of whether he believes that he has a reasonable chance of successfully leading us in this new stage of the war. I don't envy him his job at the moment.

Comments

[politicky]

"will require several years of sustained commitment, "

Right. Send your kids, or don't talk about committed, eh?

[S1m0n]

The goal of 'denying al qaeda a base' is absurd, given that al Qaeda's needs are modest, and failed states are proliferating. We've turfed them from three other countries already. If that's not enough, nothing else ever will be.

[neoprimordial]

Thank you, Mr. Blankley, for an interesting comparison of presidential decision-making regarding deploying American troops.

Just as Johnson was in a quandary as to what to do with Vietnam in 1964, President Obama is also faced with a question of purpose: what exactly are we to get out of staying in Afghanistan, at least for now? Let's say we quell the insurgency. What purpose would it serve to stay thereafter?

If anything, I think the highest priority should be on stabilizing Pakistan to a sufficient level of security, keeping an eye on Afghanistan while doing so, maybe throwing money at this or that tribal leader. Afghanistan is a sectarian Vietnam. We really need to keep it at arm's length, but always be ready to quash any Taliban-foolery. I think tending to Pakistan will also help keep Afghanistan quiet, though it seems Afghanistan, and the region, are destined (or cursed) to always be at unrest, particularly if we're having the usual spat with Iran.

It's all a mess, but I think it best if we minimize our involvement in Afghanistan. If we can leave them with the capacity to handle their affairs, that's ideal. If not, it seems to me withdrawal would still be a sacrifice we'd need to make, say in the next couple of years or less. We shouldn't be lulled into fixing--at least not any time soon--what has been "unfixable" for centuries.

[Merlin7]

The Taliban are already in control of Afghanistan, except for Kabul, and have been for years. Meanwhile, America is getting less safe every day because we are wasting our resources on this fool's errand instead of fighting terrorism in other ways. The U.S. is taking this approach because 1) It's the easiest way 2) It makes our politicians look tough and decisive and 3) The military industrial complex makes huge profits whether we win or not. See? Vietnam all over again.

[orkt]

My favorite conservative commentator - unafraid to speak evenly about an issue when his team's unfortunately popular M.O. is the opposite (foaming-a­t-the-mout­h Guano Crazy). Even when 'forced' to spew the insane talking points of his chosen side's ideology, there is a sense of humanity to it.

This is an excellent article.

And I can't resist, despite its bad taste, to comment on Johnson taking advice from someone whose first name is McGeorge. A moniker like that has psychological scars built right in. Even more than being named Lyndon.

I wish LBJ had the same nerve here that he had with Civil Rights.

[old timer 37]

Congratulations on saying what needs to be said. Attempting to "democratize" Afghanistan and Iraq were fools errands; tactics without strategy. Both nations are thoroughly tribal and will take generations to change; and then only from within. Our efforts, although well intentioned and courageously executed by our armed services, are killing and maiming our best and brightest for no sustainable result. When we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, this year or in 20 years, they will revert to religious based tribalism, aided by surrounding countries who operate that way and have a vested interest in that outcome.

Ted Kennedy understood this, and was ignored. Candidate Obama seemed to understand this and I applauded his wisdom. President Obama seems to be equivocating.

I have written on this in more detail in an essay "We cannot save other nations! We can only generate failed states" http://www.dismountingourtiger.com/economics/we-cannot-save-other-nations-we-can-only-generate-failed-states

Use our technology to hunt down Al Qaeda. Bring our troops home. Don't continue the process of making our country a failed state by draining its resources in an unending fools errand.

[outnow]

LBJ send thousands of men to their deaths in Vietnam because of political fears. Nixon was elected anyway. Then Nixon played politics with the war.

We live in a system where politics trump patriotic duties to the constitution. The question then becomes, what are we fighting for?

Right wing hawks make money off wars, so we all must keep fighting useless wars to keep a few bad men rich beyond all belief. These evil men are traitors to our country. Again, what are we fighting for?

Obama made a deal with the devil in many ways. He will have to live with his mistakes. He appears to have no spine on his signature issue - health care. He is being pushed around by the MIC and used by bankers to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.

Obama should have followed Ted Kennedy's lead but took his support and parlayed it into another Vietnam.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

"He appears to have no spine on his signature issue - health care"
Unfortunately he seems to have no spine on ANY issue.

[Aaror]

Step 1, quietly tell Karzai that he doesn't need to have elections if they would be a problem.
Step 2, help Karzai make the military accountable only to himself.
Step 3, help Karzai find regional allies (tribal chiefs) who will accept local power in exchange for support and providing fighters for the army and police.
That is what we did with Hussain, right? Didn't that work out well?

[fishhead]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or serious, but I agree with you. It did work out with Saddam, until we spoiled it by overthrowing the country. I don't believe democratizing the middle east is in our best interest. What we should do is find the greediest most ego-centric SOB around and put them in charge and leave. They will not allow the radicals to take over because they will enjoy the power and largesse of being in control. They will not risk losing their plush life style by us coming back in by allowing strikes against us or base of operations of our enemies to be housed in their country. We had a good deal with Iraq and Saddam. Democracy? Iraq will eventually vote itself as a colony of Iran - Plaestinians elected Hamas, and Afghanistan will eventually re-elect the Taliban. No, the implementation of a selfish dictator to rule with an iron hand is what we need. I know it sounds cruel, and I would not wish that for our country, but war is evil so let's at least let them be evil to one another in order for us to "win" and bring our troops home and save American lives. Like LBJ said "what do I care about Vietnam".

Semper Fi

[sychurricane]

It seems as if President Obama is in a lose lose situation with this. If he stays the course in fighting in Afghanistan, he risks another Vietnam and losing thousands of American troops.

If he pulls out of Afghanistan, as Blankley might suggest, he would be condemned for being another weak liberal leader not having the stomach to finish what the US started...

[nivek]

Tony Blankley, for all his faults, is not a monster. Opinions change with circumstance and reasonable people are capable of admitting the error of their ways. Mr. Blankley, it seems, has come to the conclusion that Afghanistan is not worth the blood and treasure required to sustain our military occupation there, I agree. Lets all welcome him into the light of sanity and encourage him to continue speaking out to those who value his opinion. We can wish he had found his way a little sooner, but it is never too late to stop killing.

[Xentrix]

This is concern-trolling at best and hypocrisy at its worst. If Obama had made the move to shut down both wars it would be hacks like Blankley that would rush in to attack him for it, and we all know it. Progressives don't need disingenuous Tony Blankleys to tell us that we need to get out of Afghanistan.

[Chironomid]

BTW, everyone who has HBO should watch "The Fixer" before it falls out of their rotation. Very revealing.

[Chironomid]

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, there's a more aggressive strategy to try to make something posiitve of this, and it does appear like Pakistan has finally woken up to their folly of tacit support of the Taliban.

However, the one accomplishment we can (almost) mark for Af-Pak -- the elimination of Taliban gov't control and institution of a new gov't -- looks more and more like a shot through our own foot, as the new gov't was hastily assembled, rife with corruption, and now alienates the Afghan people daily. Now, we have war "out in the country", and a simmering resentment within the area we supposedly "control".

Philosophically, I think we need to get real about the true extent and reach of American power. Our power is mighty with a far reach to destroy, but a very limited capacity to rebuild. The Marshall Plan worked because the countries we flattened had an infrastructure and industrial base similar to our own --- we understood it and knew what to put back in the place of the rubble. We're on a fishing expedition here.

Terrorists? Terrorists can operate from anywhere. This business of "Osama's out in those hills somewhere..." is a total canard.

[bobh]

Yes, Tony, very few words of concern from you when troops were being shipped out for the worthless adventure in Iraq.

[jordanispalestine]

Tony...funny how you never asked that of Bush!!