American Morning
Is Afghanistan another Vietnam?
Critics of the war in Afghanistan are quick to make comparisons to the war in Vietnam, but is it valid to compare the two? Peter Beinart, senior political writer for the Daily Beast, says no.
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/08/beinart.jpg caption="Peter Beinart says there are other historical analogies one can make for the war in Afghanistan."]
Beinart spoke to Kiran Chetry on CNN’s “American Morning” Thursday. Below is an edited transcript of the interview.
Kiran Chetry: You wrote an article called, "Bury the Vietnam Analogy." There have been a lot of people saying there are comparisons to be made between Afghanistan now and Vietnam then. Why do you think that's off base?
Peter Beinart: First of all, South Vietnam, a country we were trying to defend, was not a real country. It was an artificial country created in 1954 by the French as they were leaving. The country was to be reunited with North Vietnam in two years.
The problem in Afghanistan may be that we have a government partner that's problematic. Afghanistan is a real country that Afghans generally believe in. They have an Afghan national identity. That didn't exist in South Vietnam.
That's why we might be able to do better in Afghanistan than Hamid Karzai. We could never have been done better in South Vietnam than Diệm because South Vietnam itself was not a country that people felt loyalty to. That was one of the big differences. There were other big differences. For instance, the fact that the Taliban is much, much less popular in Afghanistan than the Vietcong were in South Vietnam. In Vietnam, the Communists essentially controlled the nationalist movement. They had the nationalist legitimacy. That's not true in the same way with the Taliban.
Chetry: In the New York Times recently, columnist Frank Rich wrote that while JFK was deciding about Vietnam, “military leaders lobbied for their new mission by planting leaks in the press. Kennedy fired back by authorizing his own leaks, which like Obama's indicated his reservations about whether American combat forces could turn a counterinsurgency strategy into a winnable war.” When we take a look at what's happening now, it seems to be a bit of the case.
Beinart: Yeah, but that was also true in Korea where Harry Truman faced off against his general, Douglas MacArthur; in Bosnia where Colin Powell, very publicly as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, opposed Clinton's efforts to try to get the U.S. more involved there. That's true of most wars, that there are conflicts between military and civilian leaders that play out in the press. It does not tell you anything about whether Vietnam on the ground is like Afghanistan.
Chetry: At the end of the article you write, “…let's not flatter ourselves with Vietnam comparisons. In Vietnam, we lost because the war was unwinnable from the start. In Afghanistan, we had a grateful population, an unpopular enemy and a just cause, and we frittered it away. Afghanistan isn't Vietnam; It’s worse.” So we’re eight years out and some say it seems as though we are starting back at square one. How do you win?
Beinart: I don't know if we can win. I think what's clear is that the resources we put in Afghanistan have been absolutely minuscule compared to Vietnam and compared to Iraq. In 1968 we had over 500,000 U.S. troops in South Vietnam. We had up until a couple of years ago only about 20,000 [in Afghanistan.] We were spending 2.3% of GDP in South Vietnam. In Afghanistan, we are spending 1/7 of that. So what’s clear is we haven't made anywhere near the kind of commitment to Afghanistan as we made to Vietnam. The question is, is it now too late?
Chetry: It seems to me that when people compare Vietnam to any current conflict – because we heard it with Iraq as well – they say one of two things. One is that we are fighting a losing battle. The other thing many people say is can we learn from our mistakes? What can be learned, if anything? What's the value looking back on Vietnam and saying is there a way we can learn from our mistakes in our current conflict?
Beinart: Well, I think the American military deserves a lot of credit for having learned. Particularly from the experience in Iraq. The American military clearly has gotten a lot better at understanding how to do counterinsurgency. Trying to reduce the number of civilian casualties, focusing on protecting people so that their loyalties will shift. I think the American military has done a great job of learning. Afghanistan is a very challenging case. Above all because there is a question of whether we have a good partner in the Karzai government.
But we should learn from Vietnam and learn from lots of other conflicts. People invoke Vietnam because it’s a synonym for failure, but there are other U.S. wars that have gone better that also have something to teach us. People said Bosnia would be a Vietnam. It didn't turn out to be a Vietnam. So there are lots of historical analogies we can look to.
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
like any war there can be parallels between them, but it seems the comparison to Vietnam is just setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy. Vietnam was a proxy war between the U.S., Soviet Union and China during the cold war. Afghanistan, ruled by the Taliban, was used as a base of operations for Al Qaeda, a terrorist network directly responsibly for the the U.S.S Cole, 9/11, and U.S. embassy attacks. The goal of the Vietcong was to reunite with South Vietnam. The goal of Al Qaeda and associated groups is the destruction of the West and a global caliphate. Getting into terrain, Vietnam was a jungle , Afghanistan is arid, mountain terrain. So yes, they're exactly the same war. I think the Vietnam thing is coming out now less because of a failure of our military but a boredom of our populace due to the war continuing for the length it has. We have the memories of goldfish and the attention spans of gnats.
It is a losing battle people. Have you seen the cost of this unwinnable war? Our country is going to go bankrupt borrowing money to fight these wars and play planet police. And when China stops loaning us money, and uncle sam goes bankrupt, who is going to protect America?
Let me see:
Undermanned fire-bases being overrun
Fire bases on low ground being attacked from high ground ('68 Tet replay)
With 40,000 more troops we can win (Westmorland wanted 100,000)
Win the hearts and minds
Can't tell good guys from bad guys
I wasn't 'in country' but was in the military – there are definite parallels and when the guys came back, they said never again. We'll see.
Vietnam and Afghanistan are similar. Both wars are being fought with frontline troops against Guerillas. The guerillas in Afghanistan are now called Jihadists. These are fanatics whom will do anything to kill an armed enemy. They are coming from all over the muslim world to fight in Afghanistan. Will we win there? No! Not with our frontline troops. Even though they are the best in the world at fighting a conventional war, we will lose this one because of the guerillas. We need more killer teams of green berets and SEALS to fight against these guerillas. We don't need another 40,000 front line troops there. Send in the Green Berets and Seals to hunt down and kill all the jihadists.
David, who do you expect to run the war? As I recall, the US is still a democratic nation, so the military takes its orders from elected officials. That is the order of things, because the US is not a military dictatorship. I am no fan of Obama, but if you criticise him for his leadership regarding his Afghan strategy , I must ask you if you were asleep the past eight years. Americans have been dying there since 2001. Rest assure, the US will not retreat from Afghanistan: who else will guard the pipelines for the Kaukasian gas supplies?
we must go in an kill the bad guys, not play the old game and let our
boy die for nothing.
we do not want a to lose all of the young lives and just walk away.
mr obama, let the world know we can and will kill anyone that will hurt
or kill any american in the world.
A little research before spouting off Richard.
Congress did authorize military action in Afghanistan.
S.J. Res. 23 Initially authorized Sept. 14, 2001 with a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House.
Now you can argue that it may or may not be illegal by the United Nations, as the Security council did not authorize it, but from the perspective of American law, it is not illegal. Congress had their say and approved.
Are we not forgetting that while Afghanistan will not likely be Americas "new" Vietnam it was most certainly Russias equivalent .
They tried and failed largely because of American support for Osama Bin Laden and his mudjahaddin (sp) rallying to fight Soviet oppression.
We must never forget the long and substantial ties forged by the the Taliban then and the entrenched code of honor in this region that has allowed bin Laden to lie low for so very long.
To confidently predict sucess in this region is to ignore history, and as Churchill is often quoted as saying " Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it" The US cannot simply throw lots of money at this problem and be seen by "Joe Public "as making an effort to stymie terriosim once and for all. They must stand back and make every buck count or it will most certainly be a complete waste of time.
Afghanistan and Vietnam are the same we have been their 8 years...we your in Nam 10 years and their was no end in sight their and their is no end in sight here,,,,the white house ran the war their and they are running it here,,,,,they can;t even run the post office,,,Obama will in the end kill more American soldiers then any president in history
When people use the comparison of Vietnam to other US and foreign
interventions of course it is not a super specific analogy, but a more
general comparison to a devastating chapter in our history that now
stands for local resistance to invaders and, a never ending quagmire of military mistakes, waste, and overkill.
One similarity I see is that in Afghanistan we disrespected people, the landscape and environment by bombing the countryside and killing civilians with a ‘so what’ attitude . Also we have installed
a puppet government that is not supported by the people . We have no coherent exit strategy. Our goals are not achievable by just sending more troops. The so called enemy can blend with
the local population and ambush us more easily than a uniformed conventional army..And like Vietnam, if you can’t finish in 8 years, we just need to get out and give these people their country back.
peace
Generals never dictated anything in Afghanistan during the Bush administration. Donald Rumsfeld told Tommy Franks how it was going to be and that's the extent of it. Don't make the Bush administration out to be some super competent administration that left everything tip-top for the Obama administration to demolish. The reality is the Obama administration is practically starting at square one all over again because of the Bush administration's pathetic war effort in Afghanistan. Hopefully, Obama will not heed Biden's advice, that is basically continuing Bush's failed policy, and Obama will listen to Gen. Stanley McChrystal but that is probably setting expectations too high for a president who has thus far failed to change the ineffective policies of his predecessor.
Yes it is another Vietnam and it will costs us dearly in the future. Making our president Nobelprize winner of Peace will not do any good, it doesn;t even make sense to make a president the nobelprize winner for peace, only 9 months after being in office while our nation is tied up in all these wars, and he hasn't done anything to stop those wars.
I arrived in Vietnam in October '67 and it took me only a couple of months to discover that the U.S. had endorsed a South Vietnamese regime that was rotten to the core. Officer and even non-com positions were bought; local company-grade or higher commanders pocketed much of the U.S. funds sent to (supposedly) help the locals and earn their respect and cooperation; the national leaders, Thieu and Ky, were both corrupt and incompetent; the South Vietnamese army (the "ARVINs") was undependable as well incompetent; our bombing and artillery campaigns were slaughtering thousands and, ultimately, more than a million civilians in both the South as well as North Vietnam; and American soldiers never knew whether the locals they encountered were truly supporting the U.S. and it's partner, or the Viet Cong and NVA. These things I saw first hand. Now change the Thieus for the Karzais (presidential brother runs much of the opium trade) and shift the locale 1500 miles or so, and my description of the late '60s fits 2009 painfully well. I hope our leaders are seriously considering other ways to protect/contain Pakistan than by propping up Afghanistan and the Karzais. We ultimately lost nearly 60,000 Americans and killed more than a million non-combattant Vietnamese before finally accepting the inevitable and leaving. Please, let's not repeat such an awful mistake.
Let us examine USA's involvement in pre-Communist China, Korea, Vietnam and now Afghanistan where all countries were victims of colonisation and pseudo-colonisation. The USA's involvement ended in defeats and withdrawals (except in the case of the latter but after 8 years...!?).
Would it not be instructive to draw similarities amongst the first 3 cases and try to gleam whatever nuggets of wisdom from them?
They were all colonial and undeveloped countries struggling agst a Superpower.
They were all fighting for their homeland and country agst a Superpower fighting for an Ideal .
They were peasants fighting agst US backed dictators who were admitted to be corrupt and brutal ( Chiang Kai-sek, Syng Mun Rhee and Nguyen Van Thieu ).
What similarities can we identify with the Afghan situation?
Consider also that the 3 countries were not known for belligerence while the Afghans were well left alone by a Superpower, vanquished another Superpower and has now resisted the last Superpower for 8 years.
Quo vadis?!
I agree with Chris. It will take counterinsurgency tactics to win this war, winning hearts and minds. However, this approach requires a lot of boots on the ground. Given the size of Afghanistan I don't think that the 40K reinforcements MacChristal asked will cover this. By the time those 40K arrive I expect him to demand 80K. Another similarity to Vietnam. The American people should think carefully about what they really want on this war, because it could take a force of about 200 K to turn this one around...
I think Chris has 1 or 2 good ideas but I do not agree with all of them especially the A10.
What Chris said was true (but his tactics have been exposed to the enemy for them to be readied and countered with – very unwise) that the US government should have some avenue for people's suggestion.
I think the US is correct on the strategic level but not on the tactical level, I do have a few tactics which I believe are extremely useful in reducing US troops casulaties and hopefully a speedier victory – i am willing to provide it for free (I cannor exposed my ideas to the public).
Wish u all the succes in the fight against terrorism.
Afghanistan and Vietnam differ in many ways. In the first place,
many great warlords over the centuries have tried to subjugate the
peoples there – Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan, the Soviets in
1980's – all have failed. The terrain is inhospitable and is not
suited for Army trucks and Humvees. The only true mobile unit
over the centuries has been the horse, the Afghanis are experts.
The US troops may have the sympathy of some of the natives over the
Taliban, but the insidious I.E.D.'s have exacted a terrible price as it
has done in Iraq. With the terrain as hostile as it is, the Afghan
guerilla has hundreds of square miles to play hide and seek. My
question to the senior brass and DC is there a timetable and guarantee for victory ?
In specific response to Chris (October 8th, 2009 1:10 pm ET):
1) "sealing off the border" between Afghanistan and Pakistan would be 1,000th the difficulty of :sealing off the border between the southern U.S and Mexico. 95% percent of the population cross-border in Pakistan HATES (and I mean HATES the Co;aition Forces in AFG). An impossible feat. Not to mention [most importantly], the Pakistani government will not publicly allow U.S. and/or coalition forces to strike targets in PAK.
2) US Special Forces do not currently have the authorization to "operate" in Pakistan, nor will they unless significant steps are made by the Obama and Zardari administrations to open up the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan] to Coalition Forces. Until that happens, ISAF forces hands' are tied.
3) A-10's ar eby far the best Close-Air-Support aircraft is the coaliton inventory, but there are not nearl yenough in the inventory, nor is that platform fully equipped enough to fully habdle every aspect of U.S. requirements. More ARE IN FACT needed, but they are by no means the "complete solution by air" that you suggest.
4) Human Intelligence (as prominently backed by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)) does need SIGNIFICANT reinforcement in AFG/PAK, but the coalition is capturing a great deal of information by this medium.
All in all, U.S. forces are doing a PHENOMENAL job in Afghanistan, bar none. The security situation has deteriorated significantly, and forces there are struggling to compensate. The ONLY practical mmeasure is to drastically over-weigh the insurgency and drive them into the ground through superior force, addressing the needs of teh local populace, understanding the "ground environment," and eventually [and hopefully], gaining ground access to insurgent targets in Pakistan.
the Vietnam analogy was only useful as a tool to discredit Bush and get Obama elected. now that it is as served its purpose it needs to be retired.
Beinart also needs to further check his facts I don't see how he even got a job writing on this subject since he doesn't even know when South Vietnam was created. Vietnam was divided after the Geneva Accords in 1964. North Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh became communist. South Vietnam was a democracy/autocracy backed by the US after France pulled out after the battle at Dien Bien Phu. Also to another little unknown fact is even before our involvement in the Vietnam conflict Ho Chi Minh had come to the USA and asked President Eisenhour for assistance before he turned to Russia for assistance.
Soviet Union tried to conquer Afghanistan, and we all know the results of that. You just can't win war in Afghanistan, because there's no centralized power in Afghanistan... and people who are in control of the military in the U.S. clearly know that, the idea is to keep the war going as long as possible to suck economy dry of money until we're all broke on the street. Too late, it's already happened!
Both wars Vietnam and Afghanistan are similar in the fact that they were both provoked by intelligence agency to initiate the war. America is known to be the country that loves to shoot itself in the foot and then blame the neighbor for it while sending all of its military power to go after innocent neighbor, while billions of dollars disappear in private pockets of the Lehman Industries, Carlyle group, and so on.
My husband disagreed Mr. Beinart's political approached view point. From a political venues there are differences. From a military tactical point of view the similarity are almost identical. You cannot conduct a war tactically with civilians. He said unless you have been through combat your comments are no different than commenting on a NFL game from an armchair in your living room.
My husband also point out that the way our forward bases are set up, just like in Nam. Air support hindered by weather, just like in Nam. Fighting a ghost warrior, just like in Nam. and so on.
What Mr. Beinart should understand is that our Army is trained to do one thing, to win a conventional war. Not nation building. From a Vet standpoint the only difference is one is dry and the other one WET!
Podruchny obviously has some kind of a superiority complex. I was expecting to hear the same old lies from Beinart that came from five successive Presidential administrations and the Pentagon about Vietnam – but Beinart began with the truth.
The "Republic of Vietnam" never was a real country, it was a fictitious political creation. The series of dictators and military regimes that ran the puppet show from Ngo Dinh Diem to Nguyen van Thieu were never truly democratic either.
The obvious parallel between Vietnam and Afghanistan is here once again – "let the generals fight the war and not their political masters who put them there in the first place." I wonder if making the same mistake twice (a military solution to a political problem) will help anyone?
Of course another parallel would be the deaths of the Vietnamese civilians from U.S. bombings in the north and south of Vietnam with those of Afghanistan. But rather than dwell on that issue, Podruchny pulls out the violations of the Geneva Conventions by the Taliban to point the finger of blame away from himself.
To claim that the U.S. was winning the conflict in Vietnam is FALSE. Even President Johnson said it would " all depend on the hearts and minds of the people (in Vietnam) themselves." Try as they may, the U.S. never won the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese, and certainly have a long way to go before they will ever win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan.
Beinart could not be more mistaken about the nature of Afghanistan and its people. Ask anyone in the country who they are and the answer will be "I am Pashtun/Tajik/Hazara/Uzbek." No one would say "I am Afghani" unless they had emigrated from there. The country is, at the very least, as corrupt as Vietnam was during the Ky/Theiu period. And the Taliban don't need nationalist legitmacy, their authority relies on Islamic fundamentalism and strict interpretation of tribal customs. The only clear difference between the two countries is the geography and climate.
The war in Vietnam and Afghanistan are identical in many ways. If you doubt my word, watch"Frontline" next Tuesday night on PBS. Then ask anyone who was in Vietnam if it feels like deja vu. If we are going to do any good in Afghanistan, then someone needs to learn the meaning of "fighting to win". The Russians learned a hard lesson in the 80's. It's not hard to understand why a majority of Americans want out. The question that needs to be asked is do we make the commitment go in and do the job that is necessary or do we pull out completely. Making any other choice will make Afghanistan our next Vietnam.
What makes us think that the Russians will not do to us what we did to them when they tried to take over Afghanistan?
So Robert, If Bush had it right how come after seven years of doing it right it wasn't over?
If one looks at history in Afganistan, the Russians were beaten and left. Why, becuase they had to game plan and the people did not like the Russians. This is a very harsh country geographically and as such very difficult to fight and hold ground in. The question should be asked, why are we really in Afganistan? I thought it was to kill Bin Laden. What then is the best stragety to the why we are really there? Chris who wrote his points in his comment to winning is partly correct. You need inflitration into the Taliban, you need to secure the high ground to fight from, you need definately more troops, you need to let the combat generals, not the desk generals or politicians make the decisions to fight for victory. You need the backing of the civilian population, not blowing up anything. You need a honest government there not a corrupt one whihc exists now, and finally you need an exit plan as to get out.
In response to Robert Podruchny who blames the failure in the war on the Obama administration,- where were you the past few years?
While we are fighting a form of extreme Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan (the Taliban) we are not fighting Islam as a whole, and the assertion that standing up to Islamic fundamentalism will start WWIII because 25% of the world's population is a bit of a stretch.
Islam is no different from any other world religion, fundamentalists have no tolerance for other religions, or other points of view but the Muslim populace is more understanding and doesn't want a world war any more than we do.
The problem with Afghanistan, even more so than Iraq is that the populace is largely rural and under educated, has very little to no knowledge of the outside world and has no idea what western democracy would mean for them. They know that our soldiers protect them from the Taliban and they are grateful, but when we leave, someone will come in to fill the power void and Afghanistan will deteriorate into chaos again, just as it has dozens of times over the past 1000 years. Militarily we can defeat the Taliban, and politically we can build a government, the problem is, if we leave it all falls apart.
..."That’s why we might be able to do better in Afghanistan than Hamid Karzai. We could never have been done better in South Vietnam than Diệm because South Vietnam itself was not a country that people felt loyalty to."..... HUH? Do you really think the average Afghan has loyalty to Karzai and the "country" of Afghanistan more than South Vietnam had to their leader and country? PPPLLLLEEEAAASSE!!!!. I agree with him that there is basically no analogy between Afghanistan and Vietnam but totally disagree with him his logic. Afghanistan is a patchwork of tribes each with their own power and allegiances and have no loyalty to Karzai or the "nation" of Afghanistan which exists purely in a few buildings in Kabul – this logic does not hold – sorry. It's basically the wild west. And if I hear one more discussion about how the surge worked in Iraq, so let's boilerplate it in Afghanistan on the news, I think I'll get ill. Iraq and Afghanistan are totally different too.
Now it's wonderful to see pockets of citizens in areas under US control in Afghanistan educating, and providing freedom for, women and striving for a modern life, etc.. But the vast majority of civilians in Afghanistan out in the country live as they did for thousands of years. If you're going to convert them to a modern way of life, we might as well completely take over the country for about 50 years and saturate it with western ideologies, education, capiltalism, democracy, etc. The current talk of adding more troops or not is useless – it will affect nothing except waste US soldiers lives. Get out, or make it a US colony and go all out to westernize it with overwhelming force and influence to change it. Don't forget, if the greatest empires in the past couldn't settle Afghanistan...even Alexander the Great and the British Empire..... why will we finally be successful? Because we have drones and they didn't? C'mon!!
I completely agree with the President, lets make sure we have our strategy set before we comitt more troops. My question to all the folks (REPS) saying send the troops now! is where are they going to come from? Our military is stretched thin! these 40k troops are not in the ranks.
I know where they will come from; IRAQ! I thank God we have a president that has wise judgement and is not going to rush into his decisions. The decision to wait is not about upsetting his party, those of us that voted for him will most surely vote for him again. It took 8 years to get where we are at now and the folks on the right think that all should be fixed now!
I it were your son or daughter that was about to receive deployment orders I think you would want to make sure it was the right decision!
HOOAH!
To Richard:
The war is not illegal.
It is often said of US govt. that the executive carries the sword, but the legislature holds the purse-strings. In 2001, Congress authorized and funded (and has continued to do so, every year since) military involvement in Afghanistan. I don't have the time to go find it right now, but there is a bill which explicitly and unequivocally granted war powers to the President of the United States. There was no formal declaration of war made by Congress because we are not fighting a nation–we are fighting a loose coalition of religious zealots (this is the same reason they're call "combatants" instead of "soldiers"–"soldiers" implies they are part of a nation's recognized, and uniformed, military).
The Afghanistan "war" is just as unwinnable as Vietnam ever was. We do not understand the cultures, nor do we try. We are considered troublemakers everywhere and that includes Afghanistan where there is no real national identity and never has been. They answer to Muslim and whomever pays them the most. They fight fellow Afgan in other villages and districts. It is a mess. Sure, we are angry that the terrorists live there, but should we EVER be able to get them out it will not be because the "country" of Afghanistan is on "our side". It will be due to placing 100's of thousands of US soldiers there to control every nook and cranny of the land....and we do not either have the national will nor would we have international consensus to do so. And, if we were successful, they would pop up angrier somewhere else. We can not win. We should start trying to be a less hostile member of the world community and just maybe others will start liking the US again.
History provides no lessons that can provide help in making intelligent future decisions. Every historical event is unique and unrepeatable.
A better comparison would be to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. The U.S. is doing a better job of building connections with the Afghan people and rebuilding the country than the Soviets did, but still not nearly enough. The Soviets, I think, did a better job militarily but we see all the good that did them. The billions of dollars they spent in Afghanistan crippled their entire nation and contributed to the eventual fall of communism. With a legacy like that, is it any wonder the Taliban think they will win this war?
Sorry Richard, the President is the Commander in Chief. He is not legally required to notify congress when he deploys troops to any location.
Do people forget about what happened on 09/11/01?
The US Army should go in there with full-force. If they can't get enough troops to enlist or it weakens the current army, there should be a draft. I think there should be as many troops in Afghanistan as needed to completely eliminate Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
I don't see how people can compare Afghanistan to Viet Nam at all. I majored in History as an undergrad, and I don't believe that any of the self-declared experts posting here really know what they're talking about.
Peter Beinart's observations are excellent. I believe that if we truly focus on Afghanistan and send in the necessary resources, it's a winnable conflict.
How about getting someone who was alive and/or actually has a personal connection to the Vietnam war to make a comparison? This guy has no clue, he wasn't even alive in the 60's (he was born in '71)
What an idiot Beinart!!!!
Read some Afgnahi history. That country was carved out by colony powers in the early 1800's and has always existed as a group of tribal communities.
We are NEVER going to win a guerilla based war, which is what this is!! The Taliban live and work in their county and will never leave.
We have no real goal in Afghanistan. I have been debating some Republicans about this war and they say it is to take the war tothe Islamic fanatics. Was I asleep after 9/11 when we went into Afghanistan to kill Osama Bin Laden? I thought that was the whole purpose. But here we are eight years on and Osama is still alive. Bush screwed this thing up royally because he decided to have a war in Iraq based on lies. When will he be subpoeaned to the Hague for war crimes trials?
TO Chris:
There is no way you can seal that border, its all rugged mountains and no one knows who crosses and who comes back, its not like the U.S.
Special Forces really don't do much other then use a lot of air power, I was embedded with SF and all they do is call in airstrikes when they get into a TIC. Its a joke really.
Secondly, the Afghan people as whole will do not want foriegners in their country, they like the simple life, a couple gathering with family member here and there, they don't like the fancy cars, democracy BS we talk about. They just wanna have their chickens, and sheep and family members safe and happy. Also, religion is very important to them, so one must be very careful when you are in the villages. I have been there done it, and people need to understand the reason we are there isn't because the Taliban didn't let people go to school and all that other BS, its for the gain of the country's rich natural gas and its location. It wasn't invaded in the past for no reason.
Afghanistan is not Vietnam since it is more expensive financially than all the wars waged by the US including vietnam
Beinart is right when he said Afghanistan is not Vietnam. Yes, Vietnam is winnable war and Afghanistan is un-winnable war. In Vietnam United States fought against communist block , we can win but we lost because political leaders told military leaders how to run the war . In Afghanistan we are fighting agaisnt fanatic religion. We can not win. This war can last forever .
When political leaders decide how to run the war then we can be sure there is no victory.
Got to love all you armchair generals thinking that you know how to win this war. None of you would know the first thing about military strategy and no, a few history classes do not qualify you as an expert.
The micromanaging by untrained and ignorant politicians who can't get anything right is the exact thing that happened in VietNam and, for that matter, Korea. When a third rate political flunkie like donald rumsfeld is allowed to run the war is there any doubt that we are going to lose???? He should be charged with multiple counts of murder. Now we have the likes of hilary clinton putting in her 1 1/2 cents? This bimbo's IQ is even lower than her bra size. I know by criticizing the liberals that this won't be printed, it never is, but just wanted to put in my opinion.
Umm... the Congress hasn't declared war since World War II. We "authorize the use of force" these days.
The War Powers Act allows the President to conduct war for approximately three months – then Congress authorizes continuations. Thus, the war in Afghanistan is NOT illegal.
Get your Constitutional facts straight, chief.
Achieving security, stability, better governance and improve economic conditions in Afghanistan today, is too hard to do. Afghanistan has 17 different ethnic groups, well over one hundred clans, more than 25 prominent Warlords, 60-70 influential Tribes and associated sub-tribes, multiple influential and powerful narco-trafficers, Shi’a, Sunni, Arabians and Persians; of which none has ever demonstrated any kind of sustained loyalty to any single cause. Historically, Afghanistan population-groups have tended to migrate toward and become aligned with which ever entity has the most power. Good luck on trying to gain general and sustained support from this collection of disloyal and unreliable Afghan population cells that make up Afghan's social network. Corruption and vengeance have ruled and to think the US and our allies will change that dynamic is foolish.
The biggest difference between Afganistan and Vietnam is that helicopters cannot fly from the rooftop of the US Embassy in Kabul to waiting ships offshore. It is too far. When the Democrats abandon Afganistan, the US citizens left behind will have to fend for themselves.
I have not seen a foreign force win an insurgency war short of a genocide. A conventional war, yes, but not an insurgency war. Whether it was the US in VN, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the French in Algeria. But the local forces can.
The reason? There are many reasons, but for the US forces, just take a look at the local forces the US forces allied with, the SVNese, the Iraqis, the Afghans. Just about any of them come in contact with the US forces become inept, corrupt, and cowards, or at least were alledged of. Are they any different than the very same people that opposed to the US forces? No it's the same people. Then why the ones allied with the US become inept, corrupt and coward and even become non-natioanlistic as Beinart alleged? But the opposition made up from the very same population are not?
Take the Afghans. There are Afghans forces battled the Taliban years before 9/11. Althought they were losing because the Taliban had the support of the Pakistani. But once the US gave them some supplies, gave them some air support, throw in some commandos, they routed the Taliban. But where are the very same anti-Taliban forces now? Why aren't working with us against the Taliban? I bet you that once the US forces went into Afghanistan, they woud say that the rag tag army that defeated the Taliban is not good enough to build upon to become the Afghan national army. So the US forces probably tear those forces apart and try to create a new Afghans army in the US image. And guess what, they failed.
Another thing that no one talks about is that how corrosive the US forces is to the local forces. Working with the US foces that is world apart in material wealth and equipment, and always acted superior, who wants to stand up next to it? Put yourself in the shoes of an average Afghan soldier. Probably not only the American soldiers don't fight the way an Afghan soldier fight, but with the American forces having all the amories and equipments to protect them, an Afghan soldier must think, why should I stick my neck out? Why not just let the American fight this war?
Chris is right to propose the US forces to seal the border – essentially supply routes – in material and human – to the Taliban. But that should be the limit of the US forces. Keep the US forces in the border area. Separate it from the local forces. And just let the local forces to pacify their own cities and villages themselves without the US telling them how to do it, or what their moral obligations are. Stop telling them who should be their leader, or how their leader should conduct their elections. The US can try to influence such matters. But it should not try to dictate them.
Foreign forces cannot distinguish who is friend or enemy in the local population. So just let the local forces to sink or swim on their own. With the supplies routes cut off to the Taliban, and if the Afghan government still cannot win the war, there is no hope for it anyway. And if the US forces cannot seal the border, then we should not be there either.
By the way, with the help of US power, SVN did stop the North's invasion in its track in 1973. But then the Paris accord was signed and the US cut back its military support to the South severely while the Soviet Union and China increased their military supplies to the North, thus set the stage. The local forces can fight and can win a local war. Just need to look back to right after 9/11 in Afghanistan. Who were the forces that routed the Taliban. And again, where are they now?
Richard...War was never declared on Vietnam and Afghanistan. These are both military conflicts in which the Congress gave the president their support. I'm sure the men & women who fought and are still fighting would call both of these conflicts wars but as per the legality, these are both CONFLICTS not declarations of War. So both actions were and are legal.
In the words of some old friends of mine, "War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing".
I am a Vietnam veteran AND an old Hippy.
The solution is so simple. Phase out the military in Afghanistan. Spend the exact amount of dollars going to support the war on humanitarian projects. Spend a few billion dollars to find the crops that will grow in Afghanistan and help the Afghans to start farming and marketing those crops. That would solve the "Poppy Problem" that is at the root of most War Lord activity. Spend a few billion on the Afghan infrastructure. Take about 10 Billion dollars and create an educational system that would win the hearts and minds of all Afghans. Taliban problem solved. Spend a few more billion to create jobs and fund leading edge research facilities in Afghanistan that would benefit the entire world. Problems solved, my friends. That is exactly how you make Peace, not war.
This whole thing in AFG is about poppies and opium. PERIOD !!!!! The Taliban are a segment of the AFG population that wishes to control that part of the drug trade. And as a sideline they are favorably inclined to Al Queda and would allow them to train in Afghanistan. The U S wants to eliminate Al Queda and it needs to keep them out of AFG. So it must wrest control of AFG from the Taliban. I don't know why they just don't do it with more of a military presence and at the same time try to help get the country under the control of non-Taliban groups who do not favor Al Queda. This is exactly what has been happening but now the effort should be escalated in a major way. Or else pull out completely and leave AFG to the Taliban. Black or white my friends. It is quite immoral but that drug trade will always be there as long as the AFG 'ers of all stripes keep growing poppies. I think this is a no brainer. The U S must stay AND WIN.
As a Vietnam combat veteran, with a Bronze Star, I really love couch potato warriors (check urbandictionary.com). I worked every Corps area in Vietnam, laison to the both governments, and you sir, are clueless as a middle-schooler on history. Excuse me, but, Civil War is Civil War, ok? Whether the issue is slavery ( as with our own Civil War) religion, whatever; does not matter. Vietnam was a Civil War, and Afganistan is a Civil War, period. It is the "clueless" who perpetuate myths, and run for cover–run!
Contrary to Mr. Beinert's assertion, there are enough similarities between Viet Nam and Afghanistan that one fails to consider the lessons of Viet Nam and their application to Afghanistan at their peril. There may be other historical analogies that are useful as well, but none will ever serve our political and military establishments as well as Viet Nam (though Korea and its current predicament is another lesson worth remembering).
the comparison of the two wars boils down to this:WILL POWER. which the usa knows nothing about. the taliban is doing the samething that the mujahadeen did to the ussr, which is drain your will to fight. ex. a man fighting to save his kids will fight a losing fight in order to save his kids from being attacked by intruders, while the intruders might only be fighting for material gains. tell me if you are ready to die and your enemy is not, who do you think will win. the vietmanese were prepared to loose 10 men for every one american solidier, now until the usa goes into a fight ready to loose it all then they will never win unless they are fighting another imperial money hungry country like germany.
Afghanistan and Vietnam are alike in some other respects also. We just recently had eight soilders killed because they were in a really stupid location. Being on the high ground has been a tried and true tenent of war since ancient times. Those poor guys were sitting ducks. It was like shooting fish in a barrel! I saw the same thing in Vietnam when the army reopened an old marine firebase. The firebase was on a mountain top, but it was ringed by higher mountains. Needless to say, over the next three days the infantry company, artillery battery, and a recon platoon were decimated. Whoever the commander was that placed these soldiers there should be sacked!
The Viet Nam comparison fails for a lot of reasons. Firstly, Viet Nam never attacked, or had the ability to attack, the US.
Just as many people in this country seem to think that Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11/01, they also seem to forget that Afghanistan's government at the time was very involved. It's popular to invoke Viet Nam just as it's popular to invoke Nazi Germany, because these are highly evocative metaphors that stir people's emotions up, and cloud judgement.
Afghanistan, from a purely historical standpoint, is the first conflict since World War II in which we had a clear moral imperative to go to war. Too bad we don't have such a clear strategy, and too bad we have a corrupt drug lord as our new Afghani leader.
As to coments that the war is ilegal, remember that Congress authorized this action. Just because there is not a declared bill of war, that's not the same as saying that Congress had no input – they had their say, and they clearly and unequivocally said "go", in writing.
Chris's comments are illuminating. It seems strange that our military needs him to tell them to take and hold the high ground, but, here we are. I'm not sure closing the border is practical, or desirable. If we seal it as well as we have sealed our own southern border, we might as well forget it. Further, Pakistan is becoming a more and more useful and reliable partner, and a certain fluidity in that border in both directions may be to our advantage. I think that using A-10's is also a sound suggestion – in fact, I was surprised to learn we are not. Way to engage in thoughtful debate, Chris.
Rick's comments about Islam are just the kind of ignorant, two-dimensional thinking that gets this country into most of its trouble internationally. I think the Kuwaitis might think differently, not to mention the Iraqi people, who are for the most part civilized folks who would like to send their kids to school and be left the heck alone by history. I will not belabour the list of civilized groups in the Moslem world, it's necessarily incomplete, and nevertheless subject to interpretation. But those kind of generalities are gross evidence of the kind of deep seated fear, ignorance, and narrow minded thought that got us into this mess. Palinista.
Robert's suggestion that history be studied has merit. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes, true. On the other hand, history is a bit more complicated than one can quite cover in a semester. Perhaps the change in major (TMI) was best for everyone, Bob. Your analysis of Viet Nam is shallow and represents the POV of a myopic generalist.
Beware generalities, gentlemen. They are the first refuge of the incompetent thinker.
Everyone compares every conflict post vietnam, to vietnam, it's ridiculous, honestly. They said lebanon was going to be another Vietnam, and Grenada, and Panama, and Colombia, and Rwanda, and Somalia, and Bosnia, and Kosovo, and Iraq 1+2, and now afghanistan. That, my friends is what happens to a collective psyche when a nation loses a war. It is devastating in every way to the country that loses . We could have won Vietnam if we had the stomach for it, we didnt, we withdrew, and we lost. And over 1million south Vietnamese that we had promised support to died when North Vietnam swept down south. If people had been behind the military effort, there is no way that we would have failed. The only question would have been, how do we define victory. The same will be true in Afghanistan, we will never win this war in the traditional sense, because it isnt really a war...it's a counterinsurgency struggle. Hell, it took the British 12 years in north Africa to effectively quell the insurgency there. Every conflict is unique, everyone is different, and we should learn from them all. Just whining that a conflict is like Vietnam is a defeatist, spineless liberal attitude (and im a liberal) that spits on the memories of the people American, Afghanii and allied, who have shed blood in this conflict. If we dont have the stomach to do what it takes to win a conflict...THEN DONT ^@%#$ GO TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!! We are in Afghanistan now...so lets do what we have to do, achieve some semblance of victory, and then get the hell out. I think that people also tend to forget just how important Afghanistan is strategically, and spiritually for our enemies. If we leave...i just dont want to even think about it. I know we are not leaving though, Obama isnt a moron. He understands the complexity of this issue. And you can bet that the people who are really making intelligent decisions here are not stuck in the past worrying about whether or not this is like Vietnam. WHO CARES. Enough, learn from the past and make you own future. Dont sit around dwelling on the past and fearing the future. That's my philosophy.
What's the difference what the countries situations are like or not alike. What the problem is the political wish-washyness of the politicians in charge. Now we have a President re-assessing the objectives of why we are there and determining politically what support he will give the current troops over there. The response of our government to the situation at hand in Vietnam was inappropriate. Likewise the current response is inappropriate for Afghanistan. Our Government slowly fed troops in Nam at trickle and it caused the war to drag on and needless deaths to occur. Sending less that what our current General in command is asking for is a lame response by an inexperienced politician. Send the 40 K troops over now, let's stabilize the country, and get out. Otherwise, like Nam, the situation will be extended and needles deaths will occur.
Bienart is not correct. Perhaps "South Vietnam" was not a country, but Vietnam was a divided country ideologically, just like Afghanistan.
And just like Vietnam, the stronger-willed of the opposing forces will win. Right now the stronger-willed of the two forces appears to be the Taliban.
Robert G Podruchny needs to get a clue. The Afghanistan war belonged to the Bush administration for 7 years until the current administration inherited it. We were no closer to winning there when Obama took office than we were when that war started. To blame the problems of the war in Afghanistan on Obama and Gates is to construct a little revisionist history. The Bush administration had 7 years to win that war and failed miserably. Obama and Gates are left to clean up the mess and try to lay the groundwork for ending it.
What scares me is that the arguments revolve around dead US soldiers. We've lost 1400 of our young men and women, however this pales in comparison to 50,000 in Vietnam. Each of those 1400 lives were precious, but speaking from the military perspective...it is frustrating that the US public isn't willing to sacrifice when we are. (We military members have given and continue to willingly give) Is there nothing worth fighting for???
I shudder to think if our grandfathers had decided to ignore a direct attack on the US in 1941 because a response was too "difficult" or too "hard".
I think that the comparisons are not political but what the average person see's a conflict with no end an enemy that looks and dress the same as the friends. So far there is nothing to show for all the lives lost.
There are certainly similarities between the two conflicts. One being that the population is neutral, sometimes hostile, to us. Or that the government is corrupt and has no support outside the nation's capital.
good afternoon everyone. first of all i would like to clarify one thing. the military action in southeast asia was NOT a war. it was a POLICE ACTION. just like the POLICE ACTION in south korea. yes the current military action is war, and DAMIT if your going to fight it then fight it. stop pissing around and get the job done. in a way afghanistan and vietnam are the same we are once again fighting an enemy with one hand tied around our balls and being led by a president who has no clue what so ever what it means to truely put your ass on the line. so either start fighting the WAR the way it should be fought or get the hell out.
I agree with chris. both wars are the same
Who is this jack __ Beinart? He needs to take some history classes regarding SE Asia region...especially about the South Vietnam.
My comment is in regards to the comment made by Chris in that "we need to gain the higher ground and have not have our camps surrounded by high ridges and mountains" This is clearly another statement by somenone who does not understand the region. Are you suggesting that we have our camps on tops of mountains? These mountains are the tallest in the world with most of them topping out over 20,000 feet. The reason why they have their camps situated where they are is so that they can breathe!!! This is the problem with fighting a war in this remote region, it is unwinnable for any army.
Who says that people can't draw similarities? If I remember many Congressmen have said that every war after VietNam will be "like VietNam".
If Bush is in office then compare Afghanistan to Vietnam is ok. If Obama is in office then you don't compare the two. Do I have it right?
I'm sorry, but the contrasts you show are weak and do little to persuade anyone to change their current opinion of the Afghan war, whether they believe it similar to Vietnam or not. You seem no better an expert on the subject than I am.
Agree with Richard.
Afghanistan and Viet Nam are completely similar. US government lost VN's war due to 1) Kissinger sold VN to China & Russia for Israel / Middle East. 2) US Military was in no way competing with NVN guerrilla war. Vietnamese was torn and did not support the war due to many families had their relatives from both sides. However, Afghanistan geography is more dangerous comparing to VN and US soldiers can't combat with "barefoot".
US has not win any war in any country but help in brining down the country, e.g. Vietnam for example. Resulted hundred thousand of innocent VNese died at sea and at pirates and milion in exile.
We don't want history repeating and don't want another Vietnam. The sooner US get out of Afghanistan (with dignity, not like the cowarded withdrawal like VN) the better. US has no $$ and is weaking every week / month if it is still involving in the illegal war. Yes, China will be super-national, and US will be #2 or 3 if the war continue and no improvement in US economy.
Sad!
intially Afghans thought that the USA would bring peace, financial wealth, new schools and hospitals and general prosperity to Afghanistan. Eight years later, there is continual war, increased civilian death and poverity, schools and hospitals getting blown-up and shot up by Americans, and absolutely nothing good has come of the American invasion and occupation of their country. Americans have lost their welcome and haven't a chance of regaining that. Get the flock outta there.
Afghanistan, Viet Nam and Somalia are all the same. No matter how much money we give them, how many roads and schools we build and attempt to empathize with their culture they will never like us. In their child-like minds we are regarded as "hypocrite agents and crusaders" attacking the mujahedeens who have God on their side. To die for their cause is regarded as highly noble and many are happy to do so in order to escape the misery of their subsistence lives. It has been like that for thousands of years in that area. Alexander the great even paid for his passage.
The unfortunate truth is that weapons technology has advanced to a point where they can now gain the capability to cause mass destruction. As a result the threat to us "hypocrite agents and crusaders" is very real.
We only have two choices: Get the hell out and hope we can defend against the next attack or systematically annihilate the entire population.
Of course killing them all and leaving them lay in the street certainly does not sound very humane, however much like a spoiled child that is the very weakness they are using against us.
Unfortunately, it's no longer about being humane; it's about survival ... our survival and it is within our capability.
Not very pretty. It’s just what we have to do. There is no hate or animosity they represent a serious threat that must be dealt with. Sherman proved … and many before him … you cannot fight a nice war. When you are in it you are in it to win, there is no second place. So either get in it or get out of it.
But ... should you choose to be in it be there to gain respect so no one will never cross you again.
The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
– Sun Tzu, the Art of War
The real difference is Pakistan. Afghanistan wants to improve but Pakistan stands in the way.
Beinart obviously has never taken a class on the history of the Vietnam War like I did when I originally was pursuing a history degree before changing majors to Information Technology. He has his comparisons correct geography and politically wise. However military wise he missed his target on the comparisons. Afghanistan and Vietnam are similar now since the Gates/Obama administration has taken the fight away from the generals and made combat a political matter. We were winning the Vietnam CONFLICT it was never declared a war, until for political reason the president and staff started dictating how combat should be carried out instead of allowing the soldiers to do their jobs. In Afghanistan during the Bush administration combat was dictated by the generals that were on the ground in the AOR. Airstrikes used to defend our troops were not full of stringent rules of engagement. Now the Taliban and Al Qaeda are using the ROE's against our forces and making more successful attacks. The Taliban are blatantly violating the Geneva conventions by hiding in Mosques and other unlawful targets. When the U.S. Generals get their power back to carry out combat in a manner that will defeat the Taliban we can win this war. Until then I am waiting for Walter Cronkite’s successor to step forward and publicly and historically announce that this war is now un-winnable. Beinart needs to go back to school and take the History of the Vietnam War course and talk to some veterans in order to get his facts complete.
The real difference in the two wars, is that in Afghanistan, we are really fighting a religious war, against extreme Islam.
That is, in my view, going to have the potential of a much bigger mess, than Vietnam ever thought about being.
When we look at Islam today, as accounting for 25% of the world's population, the potential for WW III, is just right there......just waiting to begin, because Islam has zero tolerance, for any other religion, which means a world wide religious war, is inevitable.
There ARE some comparisons between Vietnam and the ongoing fighting in Afghanistan. Not politically, but militarily. The current strategy of holding a few strong points and sending out patrols to root out opposition is clearly failing. This is the same strategy used in Vietnam, but on a much smaller scale. Drone attacks are not the answer either. Drone, which were not originally designed to carry out remote attacks, cannot distinguish between friend or foe very easily. The result has been an embarrasment to American military planners.
The Commanding General in Afghanistan is right to request more troops. But a sound strategy must be in place before deployment.
1. Seal off the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will be a hardship to civilian movement and commerce, but will place pressure on Afghan leaders to move forward to a speedy "victory".
2. Allow small units, (i.e. special forces) to freely operate in those border areas to root out Taliban and Al-Queda leadership.
3. Gain the high ground. Having American soldiers situated in camps surrounded by high ridges and mountains put them at a severe disadvantage.
4. Use human intelligence to locate and identify targets suitable for remote attacks. This will keep civilian deaths down.
5. Bring back the A-10. Apache and Blackhawks are O.K. for close ground support, but lack the speed and firepower of the A-10.
6. Inform the Afgan people and government that we are not going to leave until they help us force out both the Taliban and Al-Queda from their country.
If the person(s) reading these comments feel that the strategy is sound, please forward to our President, political and military leaders.
Thank you for reading this opinion.
Afghanistan and Nam are completely similar in that both conflicts were and are ILLEGAL. According to Article I, section 8 of the constitution the congress shall be responsible for matters pertaining to declaration of war, NOT the President's National Security Council. THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN, like the war in Viet Nam IS ILLEGAL according to our own law....which nobody in Washington seems to worry about violating these days.