« Levin Warns Obama: Don't Make Afghan Success Dependent on Pakistan | Home | Pat Toomey To Join With Joe The Plumber, Against EFCA »
Anti-War Groups Compare Obama's Af-Pak Plan to Kennedy's Vietnam Escalation
Peace Action, an anti-war coalition that has enlisted four Democratic and four GOP members of Congress in an effort to dissuade President Obama from sending more troops to Afghanistan, just invoked an ominous historical analogy to describe today's new White House war plan.
Kevin Martin, executive director of the anti-war alliance, said in a statement:
It's a shame President Obama believes he can pursue the same militaristic strategy as his predecessors and produce a different result. While President Obama has made some good statements on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the emphasis is clearly on military operations. John F. Kennedy was in a comparable situation when he was elected. He chose to escalate then as well, and the consequences of his decision left our country mired in an unwinnable war.
Peace Action is organizing local protests against the escalation of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, starting in early April.
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
MSNBC was calling Afghanistan "Obama's War" this morning.
As if the last 7 years didn't happen.
March 27, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just keep pointing out if Bush(the republicans) had gotten the job done at Tora Bora (?sp) we wouldn't still be stuck there.
It's the war America supported ... allowed to fester for 7 years due to a lack of attention. If we are going to get Bin Laden, it will be through action in Afghanistan.
March 27, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, it's not the same strategy. In fact, any strategy at all would be a different strategy.
March 27, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the statement makes clear that the strategy referred to is that of JFK, LBJ et al. Or more broadly a strategy that uses the military to try & choose governments for other countries.
It sucks, but the fact is that it is Obama's war now. Life ain't fair.
March 27, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't read it that way at all. "[T]he same militaristic strategy as his predecessors..." refers specifically to Af-Pak. The next sentence makes that clear. It's only the sentence after that where the JFK comparison is raised.
But, yes, it now is Obama's war. Sure glad he's not allergic (like the neocons) to the phrase Nation Building. 'Cuz that's what it's gonna take. (At least!)
P.S. Ronkonkoma?
March 27, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Mr. Martin -- how exactly do YOU propose to capture Bin Laden?
We're waiting!
March 27, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many more lives and how much more treasure will be expended over one man?
The terrorists succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in triggering a reaction in which we have done terrible damage to our own country.
March 27, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
When that one man is responsible for the deaths of three thousand Americans, quite a bit.
March 27, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hussein,
pull the troops out and turn his capture or death over to the CIA.
March 27, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think this is about Bin Laden? It really isn't. And why we are at war with the Taliban, as vile as I find them to be, is a mystery to me and has been since the first.
The Taliban did not attack us. The Taliban did not plan the 9/11 attacks. And the truth is that after 9/11, when the US wanted the Taliban to turn Bin Laden over to us, they did not flatly refuse. What they did was say "Show us some actual evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in or otherwise behind these attacks. Your word is not enough." And to that the US (via the Bush admin) replied "We ain't gotta show you nuthin!"
You can look through history and the next successful invasion, occupation and control of Afghanistan by a foreign power will be the first. Ever.
March 28, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the emphasis is clearly on military operations"
This is disappointing. To balance that out, it does seem that Obama wants to fight Afg. corruption. But is the situation in and around Afg. really a military situation (other than by us having made it such)?
Where are the appeals to the hearts and minds in Afg? Where is the positioning to create a more stable political society? Why is Karzai being allowed to be ineffectual (allowed by US and Afg. people)?
March 27, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless Obama is greater strategic genius than Alexander the Great or builders of Persian, British and Soviet Empires we want to be very cautious engaging in Afghanistan for long and with large forces, if this is not absolutely vital for survival of US. Is this?
March 27, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean just leave and leave a big mess behind. That would be your alternative to Obama's moves?
Your closing issue is spurious, and an extreme case.
March 27, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I mean do whatever is deemed necessary after thorough analysis of US basic national interests (of which stable political society in Afghanistan, or efficiency of its government aren't examples). You say:
Indeed, and also if the conventional military buildup is the best, or even an effective way to counter and defeat such plots. None of these questions is, to my knowledge, answered or even asked, while thousands of additional US troops are deployed to Afghanistan. Examples I give show that getting out of that miserable place undefeated is much harder than getting in, even for a superior military force. Have you seen official discussions of an exit strategy? Me neither. What could possibly go wrong?March 27, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe Afg. is currently being approached at all as a conventional military exercise.
It is too early to formalize an exit strategy, Bush wasted about 6 years leaving it in limbo. Obama is setting out some principles now. I would like to see more on the cultural side.
Also, I hear the 4K new troops will be used to train Afg. soldiers. Also, there is a story about an Afg. initiative training "security" personnel distinct from police (law enforcement) and military, a sort of middle ground.
March 28, 2009 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
" President Barack [vowed] to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" the terrorist al-Qaida network in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. ... infusion of U.S. forces is designed to bolster the Afghan army and turn up the heat on terrorists that he said are plotting new attacks against Americans.
"
We can ask how serious these plots are, and whether they are stimulated or created by American military presence/activities in the region.
March 27, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is where anti-war protesters equal anti-tax protesters. In that sense, I mean they are ideologues and are not capable of being persuaded to see a different viewpoint. I'm disappointed that they could not be persuaded in any form on this issue.
March 27, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think you're confusing them with blind supporters of throwing our military weight around. Those are the people who keep inventing new and ever more ridiculous excuses for doing what they want to do anyway. And when their militarist ideology is challenged they respond with... bullshit like your comment.
What ever happened to the Obama who "wasn't against all wars, just agaisnt dumb wars"? THIS is a dumb war.
March 27, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is this a dumb war? It's easy to throw pithy sayings and analogies. It's difficult to formulate a plan. Make no mistake, the problem is Pakistan. That country is very close to collapse. If you believe that a nuclear armed country close to being collapsed next to a country that is well, close to being collapsed as well isn't a dangerous threat, then clearly you can't call that a "dumb war".
March 27, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see proposals. Let Afghanistan sink or swim? Walk away? Hand off to Nato? Care to offer any Steve?
I think the anti-war folks are appropriately warning us. This could blow up in Obama's face. There's a big risk here. But the stakes are high no matter what.
The most important thing is actually having a strategy that isn't just based on optimism. We need concrete and realistic goals and an exit strategy. "Pro or against" the war misses this larger point -- we are there and now have to figure out how to resolve this in the least bad way possible.
March 27, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let Afghanistan sink or swim? Yes.
Walk away? Yes?
There is NOTHING constructive we can accomplish in Afghanistan. The only things we can "accomplish" are continued killing of civilians and continued destabilization of Pakistan. That makes it a dumb war par excellence.
Sen. Aiken, how can we leave Vietnam? "In ships".
March 27, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
But didn't letting Afghanistan fail last time lead to Bin Laden living there?
The Vietnam comparison falls apart when consider that we were literally attacked from Afghanistan bases. I didn't remember the Vietnamese attempting to blow up our capitol.
March 27, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was driven out of Somalia, he went to Afghanistan. Now he's not even IN Afghanistan, most likely; he's in the tribal areas of Pakistan where even their government's writ doesn't run, let alone ours.
It's pure hubris to think we have the power to prevent these people from setting up bases somewhere. We can't control every square mile of the earth's land area. It's an idiotic "justification" for a war.
March 27, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also hubristic to dismiss concerns that leaving failed states to fester and foster terror is dangerous.
Throwing up our hands about Al Qaeda doesn't seem particularly wise: "Let them have their base to overthrow regional countries like nuclear armed pakistan and plot to kill Americans".
Good luck with that.
March 27, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's realism to understand what you can and can't control. It's hubris to base policy on wishful thinking. Get the two straight.
March 27, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you don't know what you can control until you try. And how you try affects what you can accomplish. New leadership deserves a chance to show us that it is in fact trying the same failed policies and programs as prior leadership.
March 28, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I don't know how old you are, but I'm in my 50s. Old enough to remember the SAME kinds of bogus "arguments" used to justify staying and escalating in Vietnam. It's very painful to me to see that we as a nation apparently learned very little from that.
March 27, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
in your 50s? Gee, you're a youngster.
March 27, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just old enough, alas, to have a horrifying sense of deja vu. First Iraq, now Afghanistan, we never seem to fucking learn anything in these benighted states.
March 27, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe learned the dangers of analogies? -- the form of argument most open to abuse. Next time you hear a GOP refer to Munich to "prove" that any compromise is dangerous, you'll knwo what I mean.
March 27, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that really the best you can do to defend this war? Because it's pretty pathetic.
And there's no "analogy" here anyway. It's the SAME DAMNED THING. Doubling down on a failed land war in Asia because politicians want to look tough. Christ, even people not old enough to remember Vietnam, have they been asleep since March 2003? These days we don't even wait till one failed war is fully liquidated before doubling down on another.
March 27, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're argument is this:
1. Afghanistan is another Vietnam
2. Vietnam failed
3. therefore Afghanistan is doomed to failure
I take issue with #1. Just like Tolsoy said, every war is unhappy in its own special way. Let's stop fighting the last one, shall we?
March 27, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
FAIL. That is not my argument. My argument is that there are no useful objectives that can be attained in Afghanistan by military means and that military means are in fact, by virtue of alienating the population via large numbers of civilian casualties, counterproductive. Vietnam is simply a famous EXAMPLE of the same kind of stupidity.
March 27, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either you are making an argument based on the intrinsic and unique problems we face in Afghanistan, a TOTALLY DIFFERENT country than Vietnam, or you are making analogies to past wars like Vietnam. I heard a whole lot of the latter, and almost nothing of the former:
There are reasons to worry about Afghanistan, but these are unique to it. For instance, the tribal warlord situation, the Pashtun in the south, and Pakistan harboring the taliban. But you mentioned none of these.
March 27, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The argument is a general one. But you refuse to even try to comprehend it.
Not every threat we face is susceptible of a military solution, in fact few are. Military force is an extremely blunt instrument. It's an especially bad instrument when the goal is supposedly to promote stability.
The general climate of though in this country is so heavily militarized that people don't even stop to examine the kinds of assumptions on which you're operating. And that's folly.
March 27, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
cal,
justify the wars we've been in since WWII. And by the way, I find that most war hawks have never been in the service let alone been in a war, most being content to send others to do the fighting, like the Kagens and William Kristol.
March 27, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to say it, but korea, gulf war I and the original invasion of Afghanistan, which was screwed up tactically and strategically, were probably justified. The entire international community was behind those wars in the form of the UN. Other than those three, I can't come up with excuses for the rest. The problem with afghanistan now is that it is probably way to late to accomplish anything there and is so screwed up that we should just probably get out.
March 27, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
Korea turned out ok, but it was the same kind of war as Vietnam, which didn't turn out ok, or did it?
The first gulf war was none of our business. Bush suckered Saddam into that. His goal was to have a base in the middle east and his Suadi friends accomodated him, but it eventually caused 9/11.
Afghanistan was a mistake, we overthrew the Taliban and now we can't allow them to return.
Getting Osama should have been the CIA's mission, and theirs alone.
Afghanistan might suck us in the same way Vietnam did.
There is no military solution in Afghanistan, these people may be more determined than the North Vietnamese.
March 27, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to justify any of those wars. I'm specifically talking about Afghanistan. I understand the reticence that many people of engaging in any conflict across the board, but to do so without argument and merely because of a blanket statement such as "Afghanistan is the next Vietnam" or simply being against all wars is completely foolhardy. I will give you credit on that last statement as that is most likely true, but if you could answer as to what the rational approach would be, I would be glad to hear it.
Simply put, Obama had a lot of tough choices to choose from. Any of which would have been dreadful.
March 27, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rational approach is to get the hell out. You just don't want to deal with that fact, for some reason.
March 27, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
When we weigh solutions to problems, you have to compare negative outcomes of each. The "get the hell out" approach solves one problem -- Americans getting shot at for years to come -- but creates another problem: failed state and likely terror base. If America is attacked again from this safe haven, Americans will still be killed. That doesn't seem good enough. We need something which solves both. The least bad outcome. You're proposal of simply ignoring the second one is just as bad as people who simply ignore the first.
March 27, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've explained several times why this is a red herring. There are plenty of failed states and plenty of potential terror bases, and we can never hope to control them all. Also, we are helping to create a failed NUCLEAR state, Pakistan.
March 27, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are, but this one happens to actually contain Al Qaeda (the Af-Pk border area).
They attacked us and will do it again. We just can't ignore that.
March 27, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
TERRORISTS!!!!
OH MY GAWD.
THEY'RE NOT AFGHANIS, THEY'RE "TERRORISTS".
AAIIEEEEEE!!! EEEEK! As I remember it, LBJ once foamed at the mouth about "terrorists" in Saigon. The course of events here in the western world, specifically North America and Europe over the course of the past year pretty much validates Islamic abhorence of western values.
As I understand things, the entire premise of Al Queda has been the west, specifically the U.S. sticking it's nose into mideast affairs and the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil following Gulf War I. And then there is the entire history of the U.S. government's blind support of the government of Israel, despite Moshe Dayan's ordering the attack upon the USS Liberty when LBJ was in charge and hundreds of marines being anhiliated in Lebanon, at the time of Shatilla, when Reagan was in charge.
Apartheid continues in Palestine and as long as that continues (with tacit U.S. government support), "Terrorists" can be expected to hold forth. Instead of the Taliban, perhaps they should refer to themselves as the "Afghan Cong."
My fondest hope that the lunatics in charge in Tel Aviv will proceed upon another rampage and provide Obama with the leeway to withdraw our ambassador, order all members of Israel's embassy to be out of the U.S. in 48 hours and cut off all funding to their country. With that, withdraw our troops from the mideast with all due speed and send humanitarian assistance through the U.N.
The state of Israel was established under the auspices of scum-sucking mobsters and it is time that we face that fact.
March 27, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
calchala,
we've been in Afghanistan longer than we've been in Iraq. After approx 8 years both countries are basket cases, Potemkin Village Democracies, crumbling infrastructures, rife with suicide bombers and jihadists, full scale corruption, antagonistic tribes, and religious sects who's antagonism goes back hundreds, maybe thousands of years.
We have failed to bring any real, permanent good to either country, and we have yet to catch Osama.
Our foreign policy in each country has been a failure but too many people don't want to face that reality, rather, they want to hold on to their fantasy of Iraqis and Afghanis marching
into the sunrise of Democracy, freedom, peace and properity, no matter what it costs our troops or treasury.
March 27, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't count the last 6 years or so in Afghanistan, and maybe that's the difference. Let's be honest, there really wasn't a strategy after Bush decided to go topple Saddam. That's where the focus, resources, military, etc. was. Afghanistan was basically there to "hold the line" and "maintain the status quo". Sadly, because of that lost focus, we now have a taliban resurgent and Al Qaeda with greater expanded movement and resources.
Iraq is a fragile peace and if they want us out, they want us out. It's that simple.
March 27, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take action online to tell President Obama you oppose the troop surge in Afghanistan by going here:
http://www.peace-action.org/Afghanistan/surge.html
WHY?
“The New York Times reported yesterday that the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban are putting their differences aside to unite in the face of the coming influx of US troops,” stated Rebecca Griffin, Political Director for Peace Action West. “A military escalation is going to unite the insurgency, and ultimately mean more American and Afghan casualties and less security. Historical data shows that policing, intelligence, and political reconciliation are far more effective at defeating terrorism than military force.”
“President Obama’s plan indicates that he understands a key principle of effective foreign policy: civilian tools are essential for US, Pakistani and Afghan security,” stated Rebecca Griffin, Political Director for Peace Action West. “However the proof will be in the funding. Peace Action West hopes to see more details in the president’s plans outlining a dramatic shift in resources from military force to civilian instruments of security, as well as a clear timeline for withdrawal for our troops.”
March 27, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The hard choices are laid out very clearly in writings by the CIA's former point man on Osama bin Ladin, Michael Scheuer, who also ran the agency's rendition program and still supports it. Scheuer is a tough guy, in other words, who says the options are either to kill all the jihadists, make it quick and withdraw (not a real option), or begin pursuing an agenda that addresses what he calls Muslim issues: the American military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula, the unqualified US support for Israel, US support for states that oppress Muslims (China, India, Russia), US exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price, US military presence in the Islamic world, and US support and protection of Arab police states."
So says Tom Hayden.
March 28, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the thing folks - The Afghanistan portion of the region is only one part of the puzzle. The other part is Pakistan, and to some extent India. Pakistan currently has a weak unstable government. They also have a nuclear arsenal. They're being threatened internally by the Taliban, and by default Al Qaida. Afghanistan represents a weak link in the chain of controlling both the Taliban and Al Qaida radicals. The only potentially stabilizing military force in the area now is the US, and to a lesser extent, NATO forces. So they're the only ones who can push towards the Pakistani border against the radicals. The goal of defeating Al Qaida is real only to a certain extent. I believe that the administration has other goals in mind. The real goal is to neutralize Al Qaida, the Taliban and other radical Islamic group and keep them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. It's important to keep in mind that the only ones in the world today who have stated that they would detonate a nuclear device are radical Islamists. In a number of both Hezbollah and Hamas rallies it has been reported that there were those in the crowd carrying flags depicting a mushroom cloud. They mean it. This is a true threat to our security, should not be taken lightly, and only in some instances resembles Vietnam. But this region's problems cannot be solved just by militarily action. Afghanistan needs to become a bit more stable both economically and militarily; and India needs to give Pakistan some breathing room so it’s military can deal with the threat from its side of the border.
March 28, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink