ianstone
10-04-2010, 09:29 AM
Our view on defeating al-Qaeda: Afghanistan echoes Vietnam, but the stakes are higherUpdated 13h 25m ago | Comments 42 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-04-editorial04_ST_N.htm#uslPageReturn)| Recommend 2 (http://javascript<b></b>:void('Recommend'))|
http://i.usatoday.net/news/opinion/_photos/2010/10/04/afghanistan04x.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:;)http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/clear.gifhttp://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/_inside/enlarge.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;) Enlarge (http://javascript<b></b>:;)By Jack Gruber, USA TODAYhttp://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/clear.gifMarine Sgt. John Ellis conducts searches in towns near a remote outpost in Afghanistan.
http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gifhttp://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gifhttp://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif USA TODAY OPINIONhttp://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gifAbout Editorials/Debate
Opinions expressed in USA TODAY's editorials are decided by its Editorial Board (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/USATODAY-editorial-board.htm), a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY's news staff.
Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board's point of view.
http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif
<LI id=sprite-nv>
<LI class="expandable lastExpandable" jQuery1286198643541="16">
Is the Afghanistan (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Places,+Geography/Countries/Afghanistan) war a rerun of Vietnam (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Events+and+Awards/War/Vietnam+War)?
Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who leaked the "Pentagon Papers" that exposed the government's bleak, secret assessment of the Vietnam War (http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/5858/ellsberg-afghanistan-obama-learn/), says that it is. Neil Sheehan, the war correspondent who wrote perhaps the most revealing history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, expressed a similar view Sunday in reviewing Bob Woodward's new book (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093005857.html), Obama's Wars, for The Washington Post. In the book itself, Vice President Biden tries to persuade Obama not add troops in Afghanistan lest he get "locked into Vietnam." Several other key Obama aides, without mentioning Vietnam, cast the Afghanistan effort as hopeless.
OPPOSING VIEW: Stick to the timetable (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-04-editorial04_ST1_N.htm)
Indeed, the parallels between the two wars are inescapable and disturbing: Now, as in Vietnam, the United States is trying to prop up an incompetent, corrupt regime in hopes it can create stability, hand over war fighting and leave. The immediate enemy — the Taliban (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Military+and+Paramilitary/Taliban) now, the Vietcong then — was fighting for years before U.S. forces arrived and is willing to fight for years after the U.S. leaves. Meanwhile, as the war has meandered, public support and political will are flagging.
If anything, the tribal nature of Afghanistan and the fact that the true enemy, al-Qaeda, has largely moved next door to Pakistan makes the current war tougher to fight.
There is, though, one obvious difference.
Win or lose in Vietnam, life for most Americans was not going to change. There was no al-Qaeda equivalent intent on attacking the United States.
Withdrawal today does not equal peace. At best, it equals a different form of war because leaving al-Qaeda alone to prepare its next attack is not a serious option.
In Woodward's account, you can feel Obama wrestling with that dilemma. The president is determined to avoid open-ended conflict, first resisting then reluctantly accepting his generals' demands for more troops. Ultimately, he orders an Iraq-like surge of 30,000 — 10,000 fewer than requested — but coupled to a withdrawal plan beginning next summer.
That equivocation and uncertainty is the most disturbing Vietnam echo of all — because partial commitment to war against determined enemies just doesn't work, and because it endangers troops without assuring them the means to succeed. By the time Obama's year-end strategy review arrives, he needs to make up his mind. Either the Afghanistan war is an essential part of the larger war to destroy al-Qaeda, or it is not.
If it is, Obama will have to accept what his generals keep trying to tell him — that successful counterinsurgency requires many years of military and civilian commitment. Obama plainly is frustrated by their advice, but that doesn't make it any less true.
If, on the other hand, he concludes that Afghanistan is, indeed, a rerun of Vietnam, he will need a wholly new plan for attaining the same ends: eliminating al-Qaeda in both Afghanistan and, more pointedly, nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Without troops on the ground in Afghanistan, that task would be greatly complicated. Intelligence, which appears much improved, would decline. Direct attacks, including Predator strikes on terrorist bases, would be more difficult. The Taliban certainly would gain power in at least part of the country, inviting an al-Qaeda return even if a way were found to eliminate its havens in Pakistan.
After 9/11, nearly all Americans knew this needed to be done. After the next successful terrorist attack, they will know again. For all the problems in Afghanistan, we are not reliving Vietnam (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-08-11-column11_ST_N.htm). This is something much, much worse.
http://i.usatoday.net/news/opinion/_photos/2010/10/04/afghanistan04x.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:;)http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/clear.gifhttp://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/_inside/enlarge.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:;) Enlarge (http://javascript<b></b>:;)By Jack Gruber, USA TODAYhttp://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/clear.gifMarine Sgt. John Ellis conducts searches in towns near a remote outpost in Afghanistan.
http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gifhttp://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gifhttp://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif USA TODAY OPINIONhttp://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gifAbout Editorials/Debate
Opinions expressed in USA TODAY's editorials are decided by its Editorial Board (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/USATODAY-editorial-board.htm), a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY's news staff.
Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board's point of view.
http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gif
<LI id=sprite-nv>
<LI class="expandable lastExpandable" jQuery1286198643541="16">
Is the Afghanistan (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Places,+Geography/Countries/Afghanistan) war a rerun of Vietnam (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Events+and+Awards/War/Vietnam+War)?
Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who leaked the "Pentagon Papers" that exposed the government's bleak, secret assessment of the Vietnam War (http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/5858/ellsberg-afghanistan-obama-learn/), says that it is. Neil Sheehan, the war correspondent who wrote perhaps the most revealing history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, expressed a similar view Sunday in reviewing Bob Woodward's new book (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093005857.html), Obama's Wars, for The Washington Post. In the book itself, Vice President Biden tries to persuade Obama not add troops in Afghanistan lest he get "locked into Vietnam." Several other key Obama aides, without mentioning Vietnam, cast the Afghanistan effort as hopeless.
OPPOSING VIEW: Stick to the timetable (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-10-04-editorial04_ST1_N.htm)
Indeed, the parallels between the two wars are inescapable and disturbing: Now, as in Vietnam, the United States is trying to prop up an incompetent, corrupt regime in hopes it can create stability, hand over war fighting and leave. The immediate enemy — the Taliban (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Military+and+Paramilitary/Taliban) now, the Vietcong then — was fighting for years before U.S. forces arrived and is willing to fight for years after the U.S. leaves. Meanwhile, as the war has meandered, public support and political will are flagging.
If anything, the tribal nature of Afghanistan and the fact that the true enemy, al-Qaeda, has largely moved next door to Pakistan makes the current war tougher to fight.
There is, though, one obvious difference.
Win or lose in Vietnam, life for most Americans was not going to change. There was no al-Qaeda equivalent intent on attacking the United States.
Withdrawal today does not equal peace. At best, it equals a different form of war because leaving al-Qaeda alone to prepare its next attack is not a serious option.
In Woodward's account, you can feel Obama wrestling with that dilemma. The president is determined to avoid open-ended conflict, first resisting then reluctantly accepting his generals' demands for more troops. Ultimately, he orders an Iraq-like surge of 30,000 — 10,000 fewer than requested — but coupled to a withdrawal plan beginning next summer.
That equivocation and uncertainty is the most disturbing Vietnam echo of all — because partial commitment to war against determined enemies just doesn't work, and because it endangers troops without assuring them the means to succeed. By the time Obama's year-end strategy review arrives, he needs to make up his mind. Either the Afghanistan war is an essential part of the larger war to destroy al-Qaeda, or it is not.
If it is, Obama will have to accept what his generals keep trying to tell him — that successful counterinsurgency requires many years of military and civilian commitment. Obama plainly is frustrated by their advice, but that doesn't make it any less true.
If, on the other hand, he concludes that Afghanistan is, indeed, a rerun of Vietnam, he will need a wholly new plan for attaining the same ends: eliminating al-Qaeda in both Afghanistan and, more pointedly, nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Without troops on the ground in Afghanistan, that task would be greatly complicated. Intelligence, which appears much improved, would decline. Direct attacks, including Predator strikes on terrorist bases, would be more difficult. The Taliban certainly would gain power in at least part of the country, inviting an al-Qaeda return even if a way were found to eliminate its havens in Pakistan.
After 9/11, nearly all Americans knew this needed to be done. After the next successful terrorist attack, they will know again. For all the problems in Afghanistan, we are not reliving Vietnam (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-08-11-column11_ST_N.htm). This is something much, much worse.