With public opposition to the Afghan war growing, the US needs to rethink policy over politically schizophrenic ally Pakistan.
For the US military, the Vietnam War ended on April 29, 1975 when its last personnel were evacuated from the embassy roof in Saigon. Only hours later, the South Vietnamese government surrendered to the Vietcong.
These were momentous events set in motion 25 years earlier when, in August 1950, the first shipload of US arms arrived in Vietnam, ostensibly to bolster France's ability to suppress a mounting Communist-led insurgency against continued colonial rule.
But while that conflict is now just another part of history, the tragic events that culminated in the United States’ ignominious defeat then might be instructive in its now almost decade-long war on the same continent. And, as the United States slips into another quagmire—committing ever more resources to try to quell the Taliban-al-Qaeda insurgency in Afghanistan—its policymakers would do well to consider the increasingly obvious parallels with this earlier endeavour.
The most important of these similarities is almost certainly the critical variable that eventually convinced the US public that the Vietnam War was unwinnable and provoked growing and ultimately decisive opposition to its continuation—mounting casualties.
When casualty rates rose from a relative handful per month to the level of scores and ultimately hundreds per month, no amount of reassurance that there was light at the end of the tunnel—and that perseverance would eventually carry the day—was going to convince a sceptical US public it should continue.
This isn’t to say that the level of casualties has yet (or ever will) compare with the Vietnam fiasco. But relative to the scope of war now being waged in the AfPak theatre, casualties are rising uncomfortably sharply and the US public is growing restive.
There’s considerable evidence that the jihadi quasi-state that now embraces a significant portion of the tribal mountain region situated between the Afghani and Pakistani heartlands has jelled into a formidable socio-political entity with significant military capabilities. This quasi-state is the reason why no matter how many Taliban leaders have been killed by drones, insurgent attacks have persisted and even escalated.
This ‘state’ possesses the fiscal, manpower and administrative and ideological resources to replace its battlefield losses, resupply its military equipment, and mount sustained and sophisticated attacks against US and NATO forces.
As a consequence of all this, public opposition to the war, as happened with Vietnam, is trending toward critical mass, a shift likely to be fanned by the public scepticism on display by key opinion formers.
Back in the 1960s, it was pronouncements like that from the late Walter Cronkite, who declared in 1968 that ‘We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find,’ which helped solidify opposition.
Now, concerns are being raised by leading foreign policy intellectuals such as Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas, formerly director of policy planning in the US State Department under Gen. Colin Powell, who had a cover story in Newsweek last month that effectively declared the Afghan war a failure and called for a complete rethink.
And, while back in 1971 the release of the Pentagon Papers blew the lid off public confidence in its leaders, the WikiLeaks publication has laid bare for all to see the mounting problems in Afghanistan.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Mark
One reason why Vietnam comes up is because in the “American Mind” the Vietnam has been debriefed. So, we believe we are knowledgeable about the Vietnam conflict and there are parallels but not the same conflict. Most do not really understand what really was at issue in the Vietnam War, only notions of win or loss.This new conflict is a diffrent beast, no heads, active tails, and conversions on both sides. It might just be eaiser to leave and let the chip fall where they may, India will not allow this to trickle and grow in their country, neither will the chinese.
SE962582C
To quote quote ” … , India will not allow this to trickle … ” and unquote.
The Ultimate and the Supreme Indian and Hindustani Delusion of Grandeur indeed, as as yet and as of yet I am or one is yet to see even, EVEN, one and a single Indian and Hindustani Jawans-Soldiers in Combat, in the Offensive and in the Attack in Afghanistan.
THE Vale and THE Valley are not, and have never and NEVER been doing very well at all; are they and have they?!
terry
One theme presented by supporters of the American empire is the U.S. military is invincible and can never lose unless stabbed in the back by impatient politicians. They claim the U.S. military never lost a battle during the entire Vietnam war. This was disputed by America’s most decorated officer of that war, Col. David Hackworth, in his book “About Face.” The U.S. military had every advantage, yet mistakes were made and battles lost. Internet research turns up these 20 lost battles of the Vietnam war:
http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm
ASEAN
Some of the battles were peculiar with the NVA attacked only to withdraw after so many of their own KIA. Of course, there were US casualties, but one would hardly consider that a victory. Just like the number of B-52s that were shot down comparing to the total number used and the total number of sorties, which were in the thousands. Shooting down a dozen planes out of thousands of trips is hardly a victory, considering the B-52s were loaded heavily and flew slowly, making them perfect targets for the fast flying Mig-21s and Soviet supply SAMs.
Perhaps, the best conclusion would be that US forces had always won battalion-sized battles. As typical with communist fighting doctrine, the NVA/Vietcong would rarely attack a US encampment or troops out on patrol unless they could muster the numerical advantage of 3 to 1, often times it was more.
However, the most enduring myth of the Vietnam War was that the Vietcong/NVA were just a bunch of ragtag soldiers fighting a powerful, technologically advanced US military. Most people don’t realize that the VC/NVA had the AK-47s long before US and later South Vietnamese forces received their M-16s. Their anti-tank/armor weapons were better than the US. So was their anti-aircrat weapons, i.e. SAMs.
But what does all of this have to do with the topic at hand? What’s going on in Afghanistan today is far different from back then in Vietnam. Calling it so would only make it sensational to say the least.
ASEAN
Afghanistan is not the same as Vietnam. They are two totally different kind of war fought for very different reasons. The American people largely backed the current war. Only the media left seems to think otherwise.
Furthermore, the scale of commitment and force involvements are nothing like the Vietnam War. The stupid few who have never been to war or lived through war seemed to always think they know better. Get off your comfort chair and get a life.
By the way, the Vietnamese military is cozying up to the US military. They just paid another visit to the USS George Washington, which incidently is parking outside of Danang after recent war game with South Korea military. In restropect, the shameful media left got it so wrong about Vietnam War as well.
SE962582C
Had you had actually been as a Soldier, as a Military Seaman and/or as a Military Airman in Viet-Nam, in the Nam, at at least one side of either sides?! Or were you a little bit far too young back then?! I think that, one thinks that, and we would think that we ought to be told.
The Wars were, WERE, over and OVER by the year 1979 (but perhaps not by the year 1975), may I or may one remind you?!
bellicus_pium
Yes, Afghanistan is Vietman because the media and the left (one in the same) want it that way.
Bring yourself to Afghanistan and see first hand what’s going on before you rant and rave from the comforts of your liberal ivory tower.
Terrorists who are/were Ismalic Extremists staged attacks from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq — yes Saddam and his sociopathic sons helped them — on American soil and killed 3,000 people in New York.
NATO forces are killing hundreds of insurgents weekly in spite of your uninformed blogs.
You WANT America to fail; You NEED America to fail. And YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
ilyas
There is one sure prediction that can be made regarding the ongoing war in Afghanistan.It is that the strategic importance of Pakistan shall be on the ascendary as long as the foreign military presence continues in that country.
They can put this to good use if they choose to find some other objective for existence than to checkmate India.South Asia is an area where the potential for
prosperity and catasrophe go hand in hand(Gould).Not only military prosperity but also the kind of political modernization, the kinds such as EU has presented shall be required for the Asians to really lead the way.Asian could have found out modernizing shotcuts had they closely followed international history,the way Nehru did it.
Asmar Asmarani
The US citizens would not assimile the reality in Afghanistan.Us war is against Islam not Afghanitan people. Wikileaks disclosure put the finger on the right bloody blessure and showed that this war had no sens no reason, just done to kill armless ,meserable , poor leaving in mountains in very tough conditions muslim people .Bringing too many soldiers ,coming just to Kill innocents without any clemence.Afghanistan will be another Vietnam because Afghan fighters are fighting with faith , reason and for their country , US or NATO warriers are just filling an administrative postion by pushing a certain button to Kill innocents and get salary by the end of the month .Afghan peoeple have GOD with them and they will winn this bloody war.
Afghanis Love USA
Are you trying to tie the Taliban to the people of Afghanistan? Such proverbial B.S. is so common. The Taliban are the same ones who cut off that girl’s nose as shown on the current Time magazine. So cut the crap and go clean up the cave and leave civilization to those who deserve it.
S P Dudley
The Taliban is part and parcel a creation of the Pakistani intelligence service, having been formed in the 90s to facilitate a proxy takeover of Afghanistan in the wake of the Russian withdrawl. The ties between the two parties have never been severed, but clearly Pakistan has never been forced to admit responsibility for their creation and continuing existense.
We’re never going to get anywhere in Afghanistan until we deny sanctuary to the enemy. The Pakistani’s make constant show of their efforts against terror but it’s all for our consumption and not for effect. Honest recognition of this and where the true enemy center of gravity is is necessary for the war effort to be successful, otherwise we are at a pattern like the Vietnam War where LBJ was fighting it with hands tied behind our backs. To that extent, the conflicts parallel each other.
The author is correct in that India is the actual key to a successful, victorious policy in the region. However that means choosing sides in the India-Pakistan conflict, something which American policymakers are still very reluctant to do. They need get over this, as India is our best friend in this war and the sooner we realize it the better.