Jim Stillman
NevarIt's time to shout
January 10th 2011 19:43
Get the old “protest” signs from the attic.
In the 1960’s America, and especially its younger citizens, convinced a President that re-election was doubtful, that prosecution of a war in far-off Asia was a mistake and had to come to an end and that trying to prop up a weak, corrupt government with little or no support from the indigenous peoples of South Vietnam was impossible. We left Viet Nam and wonder, now, how we could have wasted the lives of so many of our brave military. So we left and the world has not ended; moreover the city of Saigon, renamed Ho Chi Minh City, is prosperous, the destination of much investment and a standard of living that exceed the rest of Vietnam. It is, in short, remarkably capitalist.
In Vietnam, the United States started sending “advisors” in 1950 designed to strengthen a weak and corrupt government, one that had little support from the general public. The conflict really started years before prosecuted by the French. By 1965, United States combat troops had taken the dominant role in the fighting until the capture of Saigon in 1975. Americans were airlifted from rooftops. Nearly 60,000 American men and women were killed and thousands more maimed for two ends.
First was the thesis that, if North Vietnam succeeded in unifying Vietnam, the “domino effect” would engulf all of southeast in a Communist feeding frenzy and, second, we must not lose the war lest the “hearts and minds” of the people in the south would be lost forever. We lost and neither of these dire predictions came true.
In truth, the war in Vietnam was not related to United States national security.
The United States next became involved in Iraq. Four years ago, in arguing that we should leave Iraq to its own people, I wrote
I suggested that we choose the lesser of the two unfortunate results. That would be to leave Iraq to its own fate. If the present Iraqi government cannot prevent civil war and create a peaceful society that has to be its problem. The only unity in Iraq now is the near-universal hatred of America!
We are now engaged in a war in Afghanistan and the parallels with both Iraq and Vietnam appear obvious. We are, in effect, continuing to prosecute a war to create order out of chaos, a war which Russia finally acknowledged that could not be won.
The president has announced a withdrawal date in 2014, three years from now. What if we were to declare victory and leave next week? First we would have to define victory and our goals in Afghanistan; second, we would have to face reality and the costs of continuing what has been described, at 10 years and counting, as the longest war in United States history.
While our stated goals have changed over the years, the administration, as the previous one, has contended that we are in Afghanistan for two reasons.
We are attempting to provide security to allow the Afghan government to unify the nation and, secondly, to “defeat” Al Qaeda and the Taliban extremists. Presidents Bush and Obama have both stated that we should remain until these ends are accomplished.
As to the first goal, in the light of the corrupt and incompetent Afghan government and the ethnic and tribal divisions that afflict the country, there will always be more to do and we will not do any better than Russia did.
The country has no history of a united and respected national government.
As to the second goal, according to Central Intelligence Agency reports, there are at most some 100 Al Qaeda operatives in remote parts of Afghanistan, and the Afghan Taliban are largely a local movement, with little interest in global jihad. What remains of the old Al Qaeda leadership has long since moved to Pakistan. In the meantime, the terrorist threat has spread into a many-celled franchise spread across several continents.
It seems that the greatest threats to the United States come from people whose only initial connection to Afghanistan or Pakistan is anger at the killing of Muslims in Muslim lands. Our efforts have, paradoxically, become a terrorist recruiting tool.
Meanwhile, the Afghan war continues. The costs are huge. As in Vietnam, we are suffering casualties for reasons that have no rational connection to our national safety. At a time when there is concern over the federal budget, we are spending about $343 Million per day in Afghanistan, and our overall annual defense budget is larger than all military budgets in the world combined and includes $5 billion that remains unaccounted for in Iraq, as well as aid to Pakistan that has wound up in the hands of the Taliban or other "unfriendlies".
We are all agreed that our federal budget is out of control and the deficit and national debt must be addressed. There are many policies that would help and the stopping of engaging in wars that are not directly related to our national security is one of them.
So let's get out of Afghanistan, next Thursday.
In the 1960’s America, and especially its younger citizens, convinced a President that re-election was doubtful, that prosecution of a war in far-off Asia was a mistake and had to come to an end and that trying to prop up a weak, corrupt government with little or no support from the indigenous peoples of South Vietnam was impossible. We left Viet Nam and wonder, now, how we could have wasted the lives of so many of our brave military. So we left and the world has not ended; moreover the city of Saigon, renamed Ho Chi Minh City, is prosperous, the destination of much investment and a standard of living that exceed the rest of Vietnam. It is, in short, remarkably capitalist.
In Vietnam, the United States started sending “advisors” in 1950 designed to strengthen a weak and corrupt government, one that had little support from the general public. The conflict really started years before prosecuted by the French. By 1965, United States combat troops had taken the dominant role in the fighting until the capture of Saigon in 1975. Americans were airlifted from rooftops. Nearly 60,000 American men and women were killed and thousands more maimed for two ends.
First was the thesis that, if North Vietnam succeeded in unifying Vietnam, the “domino effect” would engulf all of southeast in a Communist feeding frenzy and, second, we must not lose the war lest the “hearts and minds” of the people in the south would be lost forever. We lost and neither of these dire predictions came true.
In truth, the war in Vietnam was not related to United States national security.
The United States next became involved in Iraq. Four years ago, in arguing that we should leave Iraq to its own people, I wrote
[President Bush and his administration state] that, to leave Iraq precipitously would create more chaos in the middle-east, would result in a loss of credibility with respect to the Unites States and would encourage terrorist states such as Syria and Iran (as well as North Korea) to intensify their efforts to support and export terror. Moreover, the inevitable civil war in Iraq would result in even more instability in the region. This would conceivably translate into greater danger to this country.
They are right.
The administration's critics assert that continuing our present activities in Iraq spreads our resources too thin, preventing us from giving meaningful attention to terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia, and from focusing on the Israel-Palestinian quagmire, endangering the only true democracy in the region.
They are right, too.
They are right.
The administration's critics assert that continuing our present activities in Iraq spreads our resources too thin, preventing us from giving meaningful attention to terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia, and from focusing on the Israel-Palestinian quagmire, endangering the only true democracy in the region.
They are right, too.
I suggested that we choose the lesser of the two unfortunate results. That would be to leave Iraq to its own fate. If the present Iraqi government cannot prevent civil war and create a peaceful society that has to be its problem. The only unity in Iraq now is the near-universal hatred of America!
The administration claims that its goal is to introduce democracy into the region
Bringing democracy to the third world is problematic at best. Democracy will not take root in cultures that have not prepared for it, either through generations of experience (such as the United States) or by imposition on a nation that is well educated and willing (as Japan after 1945). And even if it were possible to create a democratically elected government in this region, it is no guarantee that we will be happy with the result. The Palestinians had a free election and choose a terrorist mob, Hamas. Iran freely elected a terrorist government that is developing nuclear weapons. Lebanon has a parliament in which freely elected representatives are part of Hezbollah.
We should leave Iraq to the Iraqi people, civil unrest notwithstanding. We should devote our military and diplomatic power to address and eliminate real terrorists throughout the world. We would find cooperative allies and not be the focus of hatred, everywhere.
Bringing democracy to the third world is problematic at best. Democracy will not take root in cultures that have not prepared for it, either through generations of experience (such as the United States) or by imposition on a nation that is well educated and willing (as Japan after 1945). And even if it were possible to create a democratically elected government in this region, it is no guarantee that we will be happy with the result. The Palestinians had a free election and choose a terrorist mob, Hamas. Iran freely elected a terrorist government that is developing nuclear weapons. Lebanon has a parliament in which freely elected representatives are part of Hezbollah.
We should leave Iraq to the Iraqi people, civil unrest notwithstanding. We should devote our military and diplomatic power to address and eliminate real terrorists throughout the world. We would find cooperative allies and not be the focus of hatred, everywhere.
We are now engaged in a war in Afghanistan and the parallels with both Iraq and Vietnam appear obvious. We are, in effect, continuing to prosecute a war to create order out of chaos, a war which Russia finally acknowledged that could not be won.
The president has announced a withdrawal date in 2014, three years from now. What if we were to declare victory and leave next week? First we would have to define victory and our goals in Afghanistan; second, we would have to face reality and the costs of continuing what has been described, at 10 years and counting, as the longest war in United States history.
While our stated goals have changed over the years, the administration, as the previous one, has contended that we are in Afghanistan for two reasons.
We are attempting to provide security to allow the Afghan government to unify the nation and, secondly, to “defeat” Al Qaeda and the Taliban extremists. Presidents Bush and Obama have both stated that we should remain until these ends are accomplished.
As to the first goal, in the light of the corrupt and incompetent Afghan government and the ethnic and tribal divisions that afflict the country, there will always be more to do and we will not do any better than Russia did.
The country has no history of a united and respected national government.
As to the second goal, according to Central Intelligence Agency reports, there are at most some 100 Al Qaeda operatives in remote parts of Afghanistan, and the Afghan Taliban are largely a local movement, with little interest in global jihad. What remains of the old Al Qaeda leadership has long since moved to Pakistan. In the meantime, the terrorist threat has spread into a many-celled franchise spread across several continents.
It seems that the greatest threats to the United States come from people whose only initial connection to Afghanistan or Pakistan is anger at the killing of Muslims in Muslim lands. Our efforts have, paradoxically, become a terrorist recruiting tool.
Meanwhile, the Afghan war continues. The costs are huge. As in Vietnam, we are suffering casualties for reasons that have no rational connection to our national safety. At a time when there is concern over the federal budget, we are spending about $343 Million per day in Afghanistan, and our overall annual defense budget is larger than all military budgets in the world combined and includes $5 billion that remains unaccounted for in Iraq, as well as aid to Pakistan that has wound up in the hands of the Taliban or other "unfriendlies".
We are all agreed that our federal budget is out of control and the deficit and national debt must be addressed. There are many policies that would help and the stopping of engaging in wars that are not directly related to our national security is one of them.
So let's get out of Afghanistan, next Thursday.
| 29 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by RickB_GA
But, I still agree. The Middle East is not ready for a democratic form of government and when it is, the people that live there will make it happen. I am not an isolationist but right now, I think we need to be paying more attention to our domestic issues and stop trying to police the world … or so generously supporting much of it with our “foreign aid”.