Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Will Afghanistan Be Worse Than Vietnam? 7 Tough Questions to Ask Obama Before He Sinks Us Into a New Quagmire

By William Astore, Tomdispatch.com. Posted April 20, 2009.


These are the questions on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan that Obama should be asked at his press conferences.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It didn't take long. Only 11 days after Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, a Newsweek cover story proclaimed the Afghan War "Obama's Vietnam." And there wasn't even a question mark. As John Barry and Evan Thomas wrote grimly in that January piece, "[T]here is this stark similarity: in Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, we may now be facing a situation where we can win every battle and still not win the war -- at least not within a time frame and at a cost that is acceptable to the American people." In the two and a half months since that piece appeared, the President and his advisors have, in fact, doubled-down on what is increasingly the Af-Pak War -- with the expanding fighting in Pakistan's tribal borderlands helping to destabilize that regional nuclear power. As a result, it would hardly be surprising if "Obama's Vietnam" became an ever more common refrain in the year ahead.

In a number of ways, however, the Af-Pak War couldn't bear less of a relationship to the Vietnam one. After all, this time around there is no superpower enemy like the Soviet Union or regional power like China supporting and arming the Taliban (or, for that matter, like the United States, which supported and armed the mujahideen to give the Soviets their own "Vietnam" in Afghanistan in the 1980s). In Vietnam, the U.S. faced a North Vietnamese professional army, well-trained, superbly disciplined, and supplied with the best the Soviets and Chinese could produce, including heavy weapons; while the guerrilla organization we fought in South Vietnam, which Americans knew as "the Vietcong," had widespread popular support, was unified, dedicated, well structured, and highly regimented.

The "Taliban," on the other hand, is a rag-tag, under-armed set of largely localized militias adding up to only perhaps 10,000-15,000 armed fighters, loyal to a range of leaders, including the pre-2001 Taliban leadership headed by Mullah Omar, various former mujahideen commanders of the anti-Soviet War, or sometimes just local warlords. Even where firmly lodged itself, the Taliban's support in rural Afghanistan, as far as can be told from what opinion polls exist, is at best unenthusiastic, and based largely on its ability to bring some safety to rural areas the corrupt central government has no control over, and above all, on its ability to present itself as the only real opposition to a foreign military occupation of the country.

Unlike the Vietnamese, the Taliban are largely incapable of bringing down American and NATO planes or helicopters, attacking big American bases, or massing for major offensives of any sort. While growing in strength by every measure available, what they are largely capable of doing, in military terms, is blowing things up via roadside bombs or suicide attacks (which is, of course, no small thing). As a result, American casualties, while serious and possibly due to rise this year (along with Afghan civilian casualties), are exceedingly modest if measured by a Vietnam-era yardstick.

In other words, in scale, the Af-Pak War is unlikely ever to become a real "Vietnam" (Obama's or otherwise). Looked at another way, however, this war may have the capacity to inflict upon the U.S. the kind of defeat that the Vietnamese, for all their strength and nationalist fervor, were incapable of. In a sense, Af-Pak threatens to be, in the personalized terms the American media often favors, not "Obama's Vietnam," but "Obama's Afghanistan" -- that is, our version of the defeat we once helped inflict on the Russians which played a role in breaking the back of the Soviet empire. The U.S. suffered a genuine defeat in Vietnam and its army nearly collapsed in the process, but the American empire and the American economic system stood in no mortal danger from it.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: vietnam, obama, foreign policy, afghanistan

William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), now teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. His books and articles focus primarily on military history and include Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism (Potomac Press, 2005). He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yet another story about Afghanistan with not one word about HEROIN
Posted by: LeftWright on Apr 20, 2009 1:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a joke!

My questions regarding Afghanistan for Mr Obama:

1) Considering that 15 of the alleged 19 9/11 "hijackers" were from Saudi Arabia, and none were from Afghanistan, why are we in Afghanistan?

2) What evidence do you have that connects Afghanistan to the events of 9/11?

3) Why has heroin production in Afghanistan surged by over 1000% since the U.S. invaded?

4) What is U.S. military policy in regard to heroin production and distribution?

5) Does your CIA still fund the Pakistani ISI which supports the Taleban?

6) Are U.S. forces identifying warlords who traffic in heroin? If so, what actions are they taking against them? If not, why niot?

7) Considering that the U.S. is responsible for the past 30 years of misery in Afghanistan, do you really expect the Afghan people to trust us?

8) Would you consider asking the Afghan government to hold a referendum on the U.S. occupation of their country?

Come on, Alternet, you can do better than this story, can't you?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama: Intelligent, But Not Insightful
Posted by: DrBrian on Apr 20, 2009 1:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've gone from Bush, the low-end model neocon, to Obama, the DeLuxe model. However, we still have a president who thinks we were attacked on 9/11 because we're such lovely, free, prosperous people and that there are just 2 kinds of folks in Afghanistan, good ones (pro-US) and bad ones (anti-US). So when we kill all the bad ones, there will be democracy, prosperity, goodness and light and we can fold up our tents and go home.

They just can't figure out that our abuses over the years fueled the rage that led to the unjustifiable, horrific carnage on 9/11, and that our military action inevitably produces more civilian than combatant casualties, radicalizing the population in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, undermining support for our occupation, and making us less rather than more safe, albeit at exorbitant cost in money and lives.

Intelligent Obama certainly is, but insightful he is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama continuing the lie that is 9/11.........we must conquer Afghanistan
Posted by: pfgetty on Apr 20, 2009 2:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Afghanistan has been the "good" invasion, war, and occupation.
Why? Because 9/11, the official story, tells us that we had good reason to go into Afghanistan and slaughter thousands of innocent people.
Obama, and Alternet, agree.
But now Alternet is worried that we are in a "Quagmire". And so they will turn on Obama, criticize him. He'll be the bad guy.
But Obama is only continuing a campaign that
Alternet has supported.
Most Americans supported our invasion of Afghanistan because of the lies of 9/11. But 9/11 was an inside job. And anyone who has looked carefully at the events of that day will realize it. But Alternet has decided NOT to look at that day truthfully. And so the lies of 9/11, and the reasons to go into Afghanistan remain.

Figure out what you want, Alternet. If you want us out of there, expose 9/11, the reason we are there.
It has been seven and a half years.......plenty of time to have fully exposed the lies of 9/11. You haven't had even one good article on the massive evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Start clean now, Alternet. let's go back and look at the whole rationale for being and murdering in Afghanistan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are a weirdo! Posted by: pfgetty
» Here, this should be easy Posted by: GuitarBill
» %^) Posted by: GuitarBill
» Dr. Steven E. Jones - Posted by: LeftWright
Can any good ever come of doing evil?
Posted by: Basenjis on Apr 20, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debacle of the Soviet military adventure in Afghanistan is a tough act to follow, but we are well on our way. Does no one read history?

In "Overthrow," Stephen Kinzer tells us that the Soviet war against the people of Afghanistan was 'an unmitigated disaster. It cost them by their own count, 100 million dollars, the lives of 15,000 soldiers, incalculable amounts of international prestige and strategic power. Within a few years the Soviet Union collapsed. The defeat it suffered in Afghanistan played a role in its demise.

'If anyone lost even more from this war than the Soviets, it was certainly the Afghan people. The cost was so staggering as to be almost incomprehensible. One million Afghans were killed during the 1980's. Three million were maimed. Five million fled to refugee camps in neighboring countries. No war ever fought in Afghanistan left such a physical and spiritual legacy.'

He goes on to say, 'This outcome produced a giddy round of congratulations in Washington.'
Washington was warned by President Najibullah after the Soviet army departed that without help, the country would soon be turned into a 'center for terrorism, both a 'training ground and munitions dump for foreign terrorists and at the same time the world's largest poppy field.'

'Fateful misjudgements by 5 presidents,' says Kinzer, 'laid the groundwork not simply for the the September 11 attacks but for the emergence of the worldwide terror network from which they sprung.' The question now is this: Is Barack Obama about to become the 6th American president to continue these 'fatal misjudgements' by not only continuing the war in Afghanistan but even expanding it into one more Middle East country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Much like the reichwingers who blame potsmokers for supporting terrorism,
Posted by: xvictor on Apr 20, 2009 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SUV drivers, those who like cheap gas, and those who didn't invest in renewable energy sources supports the Afghan debacle. Because of our lust for energy, Afghanistan will be an important transit for huge pipelines across the land. Obama is merely paying heed to those demands.

Let's make this absolutely clear: the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was NEVER about Osama bin Ladin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We, the PEOPLE
Posted by: wormfarmer on Apr 20, 2009 11:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of this world, should be concentrating on providing an example of what we are capable of, not maintaining an empire, we should be promoting the advancement of a global existence that results in an address of the problems that are threating the planet that we call home, our very survival.
You think things are bad now? Let this pursuit of aggression continue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Washington Post article
Posted by: sunnywater on Apr 20, 2009 12:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a significant peace movement in Afghanistan.

Pamela Constable of the Washington Post, in a recent article in Afghanistan, argued that when the new American troops come, they’re going to face two enemies: the Taliban and public opinion, meaning the peace movement, whose slogan is “Put down the weapons. And we don’t mind if you’re here, but for aid and development. We don’t want any more fighting.”

We know from Western-run polls that about 75 percent of Afghans are in favor of negotiations among Afghans. That includes the Taliban, who are Afghans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John F. Kennedy Was Smart Too-And He Escalated the Vietnam War
Posted by: Blueprelude on Apr 20, 2009 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Obama seems to be following the "Best and the Brightest" precedent of smart people who make foolish choices. John F. Kennedy believed in that silly Domino Theory, which predictably turned out to be nonsense when we looked back at the Vietnam debacle from a distance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» JFK wanted OUT of Vietnam Posted by: xvictor
ba
Posted by: mnstra on Apr 20, 2009 2:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very true but why does it take three pages to say that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Weapons
Posted by: wint on Apr 20, 2009 3:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The theory behind weapons is if you have them you must use them or how else can you justify buying more of the same? So we have the technology and we must use it?? Alexander the Great got his ass handed to him by the Afgani's and buried many of his people but never subdued them. The English and Russians and now us?? We never read our histories so why remember them for the test? As one of the questions about the Silent Ones the poor you must understand that we are nothing but cannon foder or targets. The elite have to go to school so they can come up with more financial slight of hand to fill their coffers and screw the kids they send. In Moore's 9/11 a kid at an arms convention is talking to him and then as an after thought says "Oh the real heroes are the ones over there fighting" (paraphrase), Yes he was so concerned but again he just sold the stuff that was killing thousands and thousands of people and my guess he was making a pretty penny off of it. How many articles have you read about the war profiteers? None and I don't expect to see any. With the newspapers being bought up by corporate America and laying off the investigative reporters I don't see much of this happening any time soon. Bring back the draft and send the rich kids over there and you may see a quiet negotiation going on about closing the door to this mess. But Americans were wounded in 9/11 and they want a pound of flesh or more. Sound familiar?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Weapons Posted by: EncinoM
If Taliban Islamists will copy 'Palestinian' cult of child sacrifice, we'll fail!
Posted by: Aprilis on Apr 23, 2009 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Taliban Islamists will copy 'Palestinian' cult of child sacrifice, we'll fail!

Once there will be available graphic images of 'dead Muslim kids', like the Palestinian Arabs did and as Hezbollah did (in 2006) (both backed by the radical Islamic FUHRER - EichmannJihad of Iran...)

The fake victims the Arab immigrants in Israel/palestine (their "roots" in Jews' land - basically since the late 1800's) human shields tactics - crimes against humanity of its OWN children - how (Islamists leaders do) to make sure their kids die so that Israeli humane defenders get bashed

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement