JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER has hit nail right on the head with his Pakistan comment. The Pakistanis have no intention of going after the Taliban. They neither have the strategy in place, nor the will get the job done.

The inner circle of the Pakistan leadership junta is itself a part and parcel of the fundamentalist mafia.

Although the writer's assertion that the offensive in South Waziristan is not even at the Taliban is common knowledge, it is not often that we come across such statements in the media.

Al-Qaeda will stay on in Pakistan and in the region elsewhere. Depending on Pakistan to deal with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is putting money on the wrong horse.

To make a meaningful US victory possible, Washington will need to 'reset' the AfPak policy. Policymakers are obviously dealing with an impossible situation. It is not easy to deal with the conditions on the ground, we know that and those running the affairs understand that better than anyone else.

The Pakistanis want to protect the extremists. They've done so for decades and will keep doing so in the future as well. They have their mutual integral interests involved. Those who have been hurt by this paradigm are cognizant of how the mechanism works. The Pakistanis know how to accept the US money but one is not sure if they are headed in the right direction with respect to doing their own part of the deal.

Superb analysis. He is absolutely right as more than U.S it is the immediate neighbours, including Iran, India, Central Asia, Russia & even China will be more affected by rise of Taliban & Al-Qaeda. However, Pakistan will choose to do nothing except extract more military & financial aid from West. To buy more time U.S & NATO can carry out surgical strikes against Al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan and destroy all poppy fields in South Afghanistan and leave Afghanistan. Regional players will pitch in to maintain a military balance between North & South Afghanistan.

Bill Moyers: Restoring Accountability for Washington’s Wars

http://america-hijacked.com/2009/11/02/bill-moyers-restoring-accountability-for-washingtons-wars/

Additional at http://AMERICA-HIJACKED.COM

While I have been largely on the fence on this issue for some time now, and agree with much of Mearsheimer's analysis, there is one point that I feel gets me off the fence and in support of increasing our commitment in Afghanistan. That is, if the US proves that it is willing to put in the necessary effort in Afghanistan for the long-haul, it could have a substantial effect on Pakistan’s strategic calculus.

Until very recently, the Pakistani’s had as strong case and incentive for hedging their bets. The US was putting in minimal effort in Afghanistan, largely distracted by the War in Iraq. The strategy in Afghanistan was non-existent or at least contradictory and counterproductive, at best. Why would Pakistan risk its own existence to fight the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda, when the US was trying to win the war on Afghanistan on the cheap? If the US was not willing to put in the resources and attention that Afghanistan needed to really turn the situation around, it was in Pakistan’s interests to wait it out and keep friendly relations with an inevitable re-installation of the Taliban regime.

On the other hand, if the US commits whole-heartedly to Afghanistan, it could change Pakistan’s outlook drastically. If Pakistan starts to see that a Taliban regime, far from inevitable, is actually increasingly unlikely given the US’ commitment to reducing corruption, protecting the population, and “flipping” key insurgent factions and leaders, Pakistan may indeed find it in its interest to help the US fight the Afghan Taliban.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like the US has enough political will or the available resources to really get the job done. Although policymakers are balking at the idea of sending an additional 40K troops, most informed observes know that 40K probably isn’t going to cut it in the long-term. Either the US goes all in or it is simply prolonging its own demise, in which case it should leave now.

So where does that leave me? Back on the fence.

Citing the battle of Lam Son 719 in 1971, at best hardly won by communist forces, and concluding the incapability of the South Vietnamese army to stand on its own is the quintessence of hollowness. This writing clearly betrays the formation quality and dishonors both the West Point academy and the University of Chicago. The author's ignorance in logistics is criminal. With nearly a million of SEATO troops involved, with the naval blockade and air raids by the 7th Fleet, by squadrons of B-52s, the U.S. could hardly convince the North communists to seat down in Paris and sign a perfunctory peace treaty that they immediately thrashed away. Yet with no significant involvment of U.S. troops, the South Vietnamese infantry with inferior weapons (no anti-tank weapons, no 7th Fleet support) was able to defeat overwhelming commnist forces at the battle of An Loc (4/1972) and at the battle of Quang Tri (6/1972). South Vietnam was no less an outpost to contain communism than West Germany or South Korea, and certainly, these outposts must be maintained as long as U.S. values and interests are threatened, with or without U.S. troops. They are mandatory and indefinite expenses that must be budgeted into any nation's defense. Nowadays, even without the threat of a communist superpower, U.S. troops are still being deployed in Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc.... Yet, on her "brink" of victory, the abandonment of South Vietnam by the U.S. was inhumanly orchestrated. Why such a devastated and unconscionable treatment of an ally? When did this thought of disengagement start? The answer lies in the battle of Khe Sanh in 1968. After the Khe Sanh victory, U.S. strategists reveled in the discovery of their logistics superiority, even allied forces (U.S. Marines and ARVN paratroopers) were outnumbered by the Viet Cong who tried in vain to repeat Dien Bien Phu. The Khe Sanh battle destroyed the invincible myth of the Soviet bloc and Chinese war machine where its logistics showed the first signs of distress but Khe Sanh was never reinforced to become a strategic chokepoint of this war machine's logistics and infiltration. Instead, Khe Sanh was hastily abandoned and its victory was immediately downplayed into oblivion until 41 years later. Back home in the USSR, famine and long lines in front of collective food stores were rampant. Advancing its war machine into a couple more countries, Angola, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan, overreached USSR imploded. Khe Sanh now stands its place on the honor row with Concord, Gettysburg, and Normandie (Ref. Obama's 2009 inaugural speech) in the history of the U.S. but the Vietnam War was never declared as an astute, calculated tactic to achieve a strategic victory and destruction of the USSR. Let the uninformed parrot it a suffering defeat shuns the guilt of the nation.

VNExodus
A boat people

There's always been a case to be made in cautioning against America''s waging land wars in Asia. As fate would have it in recent history it was Democratic presidents who took us in there and Republicans who negotiated us out. But, in a sense, going in there, though harvesting us
what Mr. Mearsheimer classifies as defeats, in the longer run kept the domnoes not only from toppling but crowned us with a halation of dominance and power unmatched by any nation. One of the quirky results of this is that currently we are financially siaemsed with the Chinese, and have
caused democracy to take solid root in Japan, South Korea, and at least a germination of it n Indonesia--all three of them outstandingly important Asian states. Were it not that we are broke-- even Louis XIV eventually ran out of money-- I'd be all for toughing it out in Afpak. Maybe Obama can take up a collection?

Thank you.

We need to listen to the views of our founding fathers who cautioned against meddling overseas.

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

-J. Madison

Obama’s crucial decisions on Afghanistan --- and ‘Beyond Afghanistan’ --- on EMPIRE.

All the media talk is about the crucial decision that Obama faces in Afghanistan. Whether to give in to the generals, and allow the war to expand.

But while the intense speculation regarding Obama’s decision about expanding the Afghanistan War, the designed-to-be-expanded ‘Global War on Terrorism’, into a likely AfPak war is on everyone’s front-burner, Obama has a multiplicity of other policy decisions.

Has any leader ever had such a problem in dealing with critical domestic issues that mean so much to him, and yet had such risks to his plans and hopes caused by a foreign war he would rather not have to speak about?

Like Obama, Rev. Martin Luther King was confronted with a similar monumental decision about whether to speak-out against the imperialist war ‘abroad’, that was grinding up the working-class sons of both black and white Americans, or to continue focusing on his most heart-felt problem ‘at home’ of inequality and racism.

For more than a year, Rev. King kept his focus on the racial battle at home, and would not be detoured by addressing the combination of multiple issues that would inevitably spring from taking-on the crimes of imperialist foreign war, domestic racism, and the ‘class-warfare’ that linked these crimes of Empire.

Finally, on April 4th, 1967, and at the Riverside Church, Dr. King decided that it was “A Time to Break Silence” not only about Vietnam, but Beyond Vietnam, and to speak the truth about the nature of Empire and the class-war that Empire always uses to maintain its unfair, unjust, and un-democratic control over the indivisible political-economics of power both ‘abroad’ and ‘at home’.

Hopefully, Obama will reach the same monumental decision as Dr. King – and even more hopefully, average Americans of all colors will respond to a seminal 'outing' of Empire by recognizing their common humanity, their common-wealth, their common ‘public interest’ in democracy (against the ‘private interest’ of Empire), and by treating a 21st century messenger and leader against Empire, and for democracy, differently than Dr. King was treated.

I hope that Obama is benefiting, in his time of decision, from taking the time to re-read King’s Riverside speech:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm

King noted, “The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit”

And today, hopefully, Obama will take note that, “The war in [fill in the blank____________] is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit”

King continued:

“It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

Finally, King concludes with, “If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.”

I hope that Obama, in preparing to make his choice, recognizes that the multiplicity of those “jangling discords of our world”, those pressing problems ‘abroad’ and ‘at home’ are but the uniform fingerprints of one thing ---- EMPIRE.

I hope that Obama recognizes that those “giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism” are really the shadow of EMPIRE --- even if it is presented under the veil of sweet sounding speeches and through the facade of 'Vichy' democracy.

I can only hope that Obama recognizes that what makes peaceful revolution impossible is EMPIRE, and that he soon shares this terrible truth with the American people --- that the Empire is posing as us, the U.S.

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

I think an overlooked argument is where Vietnam is today. I've no expertise on the human rights situation there, but the country is an economic miracle over the last 20 years. Is that because of or in spite of the US presence in the war? Not that one would expect Afghanistan to follow that path, but it shows that a country can get it done by its own ambition and if that ambition is lacking can we do any good?

The one signal denominator missed in the press is religion and culture. East Asian countries, steeped in the myths of vengeful gods, blood oaths, and oral histories of imagined times past, cannot - ever, accept the western view of reality. It is undoable.
In so far as Vietnam is concerned; the Vietnamese are doing quite well. Seagate Technology recently opened a 600-million dollar high-tech plant near Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), and things there are if the Americans were never there – yet the Yanks are back in force. Not with guns / but investment.
There may be a lesson here.

I found your article a little hard to follow and quite complicated. However, if I read your article correctly, your argument is that the US should pull out of Afghanistan because the conflict is essentially unwinnable. I agree with your thesis if you and the American people do not support the conflict in Afghanistan then it will be lost.

To strengthen your argument you bring similarities between the Vietnam War and the Afghanistan conflict. Specifically the relationship that the Democrats and the Republicans have in the past conflicts. Eventually, stating that soldiers are dying for no good reason. I disagree with your argument.

Arguably, the Vietnam strategy was wrong. You could also make a good argument that the current strategy is not correct in Afghanistan. However, I believe it is wrong to leap that our troops die in vain in Afghanistan.
President Obama does have a dilemma on his hands. The mid-term elections are in one year and it does not look good for the Democrats. They will lose seats in Congress. Dependent on if the Republicans can get their act together Obama could be a one-term president too. However, it will not be because of the Afghanistan conflict, but likely over the economy.

Yes, the US public is getting war weary but unlike the Vietnam War, the public will support its Commander-in-Chief and troops even if the strategy is not entirely correct. We may be able to agree that the support of the US population will only go so far, and that this is the Achilles heel of a defeat in Afghanistan. Maybe around the next presidential election a “Nixon” type candidate will pledge to take us out of the Afghanistan conflict. However, by then I am sure that politicians will cry that the conflict is won.

If you are against the Afghanistan conflict then a better strategy for you to use would be to ask where the Marshall type plan is for Afghanistan? Is there a 5 or 10 year plan for Afghanistan (it may be hard to find a 1-year plan!).
Then again, this question is more for the Democrats to answer, than the Republicans. After all, the Democrats are controlling the purse strings and are in charge, and they are the ones that should be implementing a winnable strategy.

Although I enjoyed your article, I thought it was too complicated and a little one-sided. It would be better to make it simpler and more balanced.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/vietnam-vis-a-vis-iraq-in_b_44950.html

Back in 2007, I noticed that the Congressional debate on Iraq was already lining up according to how one felt about Vietnam being a good or bad war. Congressional leaders who were Vietnam vets were splitting depending upon their past (and highly emotional) experiences from Vietnam with the warhawk contingent talking about its memories of denied glory and deep psychological wounds after losing the "love and support" of the public during the Vietnam War. The rest of Congress and regular people chose their sides this way too. After the new wars began in Afghanistan and Iraq, the poll that had been conducted every five years measuring people's feelings about Vietnam, which had reflected, up to that point, a fairly stable consensus for over 30 years that Vietnam was a mistake, began to shift dramatically.