The real tragedy of Vietnam
is not that the United
States lost, but that it became involved in
the first place. It pains me to say this as someone who served in the American
military from 1965 to 1975, but the anti-war movement was right: It did not
matter to U.S. security
whether North Vietnam
conquered the south and unified that country under communist rule. More
than 58,000 American soldiers and more than 2 million Vietnamese died in an
unnecessary and foolish war.
A similar logic applies today with regard to Afghanistan. The Republicans
and General McChrystal claim that it is absolutely necessary to win the war in Afghanistan for the simple reason that a Taliban
victory will allow al Qaeda to re-establish a sanctuary in Afghanistan. And
we all know what happened the last time Osama bin Laden was free to scheme and
plot against the United States
from Afghanistan:
September 11. The fatal flaw in this argument is that al Qaeda has a sanctuary
next door in Pakistan from
which it has been operating since it was driven out of Afghanistan in
Dec. 2001. It does not need a sanctuary in Afghanistan. Stephen Biddle, a
senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who helped General McChrystal
formulate his strategy for Afghanistan,
recently told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Pakistan is "superior in important ways to Afghanistan" because it is "richer and far
better connected to the outside world than is primitive, land-locked Afghanistan
with its minimal communications and transportation systems."
But what if the Pakistani army eliminates al Qaeda's sanctuary in western Pakistan? Isn't
its current offensive in South Waziristan a
major step toward that end? Unfortunately, no. Pakistan has no intention of
rolling up al Qaeda, in good part because it does not have the capability to
police those areas where the terrorists are hiding. The offensive in South Waziristan is not even aimed at the Afghan
Taliban, much less at al Qaeda. This means that al Qaeda will have a sanctuary
in Pakistan no matter what
happens in Afghanistan,
which means that the American military cannot win a meaningful victory there.
In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, it simply does not matter whether the United States
wins or loses. It makes no sense for the Obama administration to expend
more blood and treasure to vanquish the Taliban. The United States should accept defeat and
immediately begin to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan.
Of course, President Obama will never do such a thing. Instead, he will
increase the American commitment to Afghanistan,
just as Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam
in 1965. The driving force in both cases is domestic
politics. Johnson felt that he had to escalate the fight in Vietnam because otherwise the Republicans would
lambaste him for "losing Vietnam,"
the same way they accused President Harry Truman of "losing China" in the
late 1940s.
Obama and his fellow Democrats know full well that if the United States walks away from Afghanistan
now, the Republicans will accuse them of capitulating to terrorism and
undermining our security. And this charge will be leveled at them for
decades to come, harming Democrats at the polls come election time. The
Democrats have no intention of letting that happen.
The United States is in Afghanistan for the long haul. As was the case in Vietnam, more American soldiers and many more civilians are going to die in Afghanistan. And for no good reason.
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE