Those Who Compare Afghanistan to Vietnam Risk Their Credibility

[berni_mccoy]

Vietnam war was a Cold War military conflict, waged between two great powers of a greatly divided world. After eight years of conflict, there were 1.2 million soldiers enaged on the Anti-Communist side and half a million on the Communist side. The US had more than 500 thousand boots on the ground and after 8 years we'd lost more than 36 thousand US soldiers, most who were drafted into service.

Against the U.S. and North Vietnam were North Vietnam, Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, Pathet Lao, China, the Soviet Union and North Korea.

With the U.S. were South Vietnam, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Laos and Thailand.

By stark contrast...

The War in Afghanistan is an anti-terrorism conflict, waged between the world and a two extremist groups: The Taliban and Al Qaeda. After eight years of conflict, there are 860 US soldiers dead and approximately 25 thousand Taliban/Al Qaeda forces killed in Afghanistan.

Against the U.S. and the World: Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who have approximately 25 thousand remaining active members.

With the U.S.: the UN commanded force of ISAF with more than 75,000 troops and more than 66 thousand troops from non-US troops as members of Operation Enduring Freedom, including countries like Pakistan (who just last week sent 30 thousand troops to the border to flush out any Al Qaeda presence) and old Cold War enemies like Russia and China providing necessary support roles.

I understand the anti-war sentiment to draw such a comparison, and given that Bush allowed Afghanistan to become dangerous has drawn the conflict out into unnecessary years. That is about to be changed. The focus is on Afghanistan and completing the mission of fully removing the Taliban forces and ensuring that Afghanistan and Pakistan are not a safe harbors for Al Qaeda. Pakistan and Afghanistan are at the table, fully engaged in this effort.

There is no comparison of these two conflicts that makes reasonable sense and those who do so are risking their intellectual credibility.

[wtmusic]

1. +1 nt

[BeGoodDoGood]

26. They are alike enough

They are alike in that no matter how long we stay or what we do, the old order will reassert itself as soon as we leave.

Walt

[NYC_SKP]

2. +2 nt

[ixion]

3. Here's a comparison for you:

We should never have invaded either country.

Like Vietnam, we will leave with our tail between our legs. Granted, this is a speculative call, but I feel safe in making it. Hostile occupiers never fare well.

so, it's not exactly apples and oranges. There are differences, sure, but there are plenty of similarities.

Oh, and way to adopt the 'war' on terror rhetoric. Double choco-rations for you!

[berni_mccoy]

4. Afghanistan was a justified invasion, as declared by the UN. Vietnam on the otherhand

well, that was wrong.

[ixion]

14. again, you rely on Bush era rhetoric

the ONLY reason it was UN sanctioned was because the US rigged it that way. They used every bit of sympathy for the (oh, so convenient) attacks on the WTC.

Justified, it was not. Afghanistan had not attacked us, nor were they a threat.

[berni_mccoy]

15. No, I rely on UN Resolutions and the fact that they command a force of more than 75k troops

Presently stabilizing regions of Afghanistan.

[cliffordu]

5. K&R - I see the ignorance ueber alles brigade has been busy unreccing....

pucking futzes.

[lapfog_1]

Unfortunately, the "conventional wisdom" here at DU is the opposite.

Of course, the majority is often wrong.

K&R.

[Johonny]

6. then again it has the same problem

The US is relying on a shambled together foreign government that lacks the will of its own people to somehow become a real, stable and popular government. In that fact Afghanistan is very much just like Vietnam. Just like in Vietnam there is no sign after all this time the Afghanistan government can form a coherent power structure in its own country to actually be worth the US fighting for it. We are at the mercy of yet another failed government. Whee!

[berni_mccoy]

13. By that logic, people dying are enough of a similarity to compare the two.

[EFerrari]

27. No, the poster is right. Once again we are propping up a corrupt

unpopular government that had to steal its way to office and training a national army where no nation exists. It didn't work in Viet Nam and it won't work in Afghanistan.

[mdmc]

125. yupyup

well said my friend..

[EFerrari]

7. Proxy wars in fact and quagmire on the ground. Seems clear enough to me.

And my "intellectual credibility" is not worried, thanks.

[berni_mccoy]

10. Tell me, who is the Taliban and Al Qaeda a Proxy for?

[EFerrari]

21. The Taliban and AQ are different organizations with different goals.

And which Taliban are you talking about, the Afghans or the Pakistanis?

Elements of the Pakistani government have at war with each other IN Afghanistan and India has been supporting some actions in Afghanistan and some in Pakistan. The United States has been attacking all three groups WHILE they try to manipulate the collaborating elements in Pakistan and India WHILE it angles for local resources.

This whole "War on Terra" slogan is just an overlay for what is going on in that region. If flag wavers are disappointed, well, I'm sorry.

[berni_mccoy]

23. Can't come up with who they are a Proxy for eh? Don't change the topic to nonsense.

[EFerrari]

28. Can you read?

[berni_mccoy]

34. Can you comprehend?

You are still avoiding the question.

[EFerrari]

60. No, I didn't. I pointed out that your question doesn't even begin to encompass

the situation and then ran down for you all the players that are using both the Afghan and the Pakistani Talibans. AQ is another matter no matter how often the credulous or the disingenuous lump them together.

[berni_mccoy]

62. Here's a link for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7172386&mesg_id=7172506

[EFerrari]

71. That's pretty lame, berni. The Afghan "war" is a proxy war

between mostly Pakistan and India with the United States attempting to mediate the conflict while positioning itself to control resources. The Saudis and the Russians and probably others dip their oars in but those are the three agents that use the Talibans in both Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

Now that's a third time you will have to ignore my response to you.

[berni_mccoy]

73. ...because you say it is.... got it.

[EFerrari]

76. No, because regional experts that are not paid puppets of our government

agree that it is. Get it? Ahmed Rashid is the easiest to understand and I've posted links to his reports over and over.

[berni_mccoy]

83. Post some facts about who AQ and the Taliban are a proxy for. You don't have any.

[EFerrari]

87. Here it is in pictures with a transcript, berni:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/206063-1

It's the clearest exposition of the facts on the ground that is around.

[berni_mccoy]

95. WTF dude, this guy is saying the US should have done what Obama is doing

He is saying that the US should have kept with the warlords and tribes to get them to hunt down Al Qeada which we did at first, but then stopped once Bush went to Iraq.

Furthermore, he only mentions "proxy" one place during the video and the proxy is terrorists being used by extremist militant Muslim factions. If that's a proxy, then it's like saying the US is a proxy when we are actually there to fight the extremists.

This guy is all about focusing the war to eradicate Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

He says AQ and the Taliban are real threats and should be hunted down and killed. He also says we *should* be nation-building in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[EFerrari]

102. You can't understand what he's saying by searching "proxy", berni.

Maybe try watching it when you have more time.

[berni_mccoy]

104. Oh, I did more than that. You on the other hand have still provided no evidence of this being

a proxy war.

[EFerrari]

131. Good night, berni. n/t

[BeFree]

8. Correct

And this time we have a religious flavor. Some even call it a crusade.

But hey, give it time. The Chinese and the Ruskies may get involved and if we decide Pakistan needs our help, too, we may just get the war the MIC is striving for.

Given the success the MIC has made so far, and given their power, they may just make it a war we can all look back at like we do Vietnam.

[EFerrari]

80. There was a "religious flavor" in Viet Nam, too, when we tried to impose

a Catholic president in what was then a Buddhist nation. But the godless Commie part had to be emphasized so all that was elided.

And as far as I can tell, this war has always been about Pakistan -- who was too big to help -- just as Viet Nam was about China and the Soviets -- also too big to "help".

/oops

[BeFree]

89. You're right

Never thought of it that way.....

I guess the similarities just keep coming?

Ya know, I wish someone in the government had the balls to just come out and say just why it is that we need to be over there killing people again.

Sure they say it is for our security. And that they need us. But do they ever say anything about the oil, and China and loose nukes and all that jazz?

[EFerrari]

101. I think the problem is, there are two different problems

one is regional instability (Talibans and their sponsors) and the other is AQ (or whatever you want to call people who train terrorists). Neither is really threat to our national security any more than it is a threat to anyone's national security -- one is threat to the region and the other is a threat to any government or people.

I guess it's too hard to undo the story as Bush told it to America and explain the situation as it is. :shrug:

[BeFree]

105. Yeah

But that is what we all wanted, wasn't it?

Truth. We just want to be told the truth. They haven't even tried as far as I can tell. But then the truth about Vietnam has never been tried either? The only truth I've seen about Vietnam is on the Wall.

After seeing that Wall, again, I vowed to do what I could to see that America never again saw the need for another Wall like that.

[bigtree]

9. It's not just 'sentiment' that sparks the comparisons

There are many legitimate points of similarity which are relevant to the escalation debate. One important one has to do with the efficacy of expecting political progress from an embattled regime behind the force of the U.S. military. It doesn't take much searching to read some very interesting and challenging comparisons and cautions. No matter that you've found differences between the conflicts, your broad swipe at the analogies misses the very valid points expressed by folks who were there and involved in the political battles to end it by a mile.

[cbdo2007]

11. Agree....comparing the wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam is a knee jerk reaction to try

to make those of us who support Obama and the surge guilty of also supporting Vietnam.

Of course, the comparison is ridiculous as you've explained and people who see similarities need to do some more research, but it's almost useless trying to argue any aspect of this anyways.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

12. yup, Helen Thomas is sure a fool!

You sure told her!

[berni_mccoy]

17. Putting words in my mouth only makes you look foolish.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. It wouldn't be the first time she stuck her foot in her mouth.

[atreides1]

16. Good points

But, while we know who the players on the stage are, we don't know whose behind the curtain?

Unless AQ and the Taliban have a magic money tree in a cave in Tora Bora, how do they keep getting reinforcements and replenishment of equipment?

Yes we know that the heroin trade has gotten back to the pre-Taliban government, but the transport of drugs to customers, and the availability of much cash would indicate that AQ and the Taliban are not alone in their efforts!

[MindPilot]

18. Vietnam and Afghanistan are thousands of miles apart!

The people speak another language and don't even look the same. One is a coastal jungle and the other is a mountainous desert. They are completely different places! One is a war we should not have been involved in decades ago, and one is happening now. There are no similarities. None.

[donco6]

136. And -

Vietnam looks like this



While Afghanistan looks like this



No comparison at all. One is kinda fat and blobby, while the other is long and thin and has a flag.

[Bjorn Against]

19. Like Vietnam this is a war that can not be won

No one has defined any clear mission in Afghanistan, we don't even know what we are trying to achieve over there aside from some vague notion of "stopping the Taliban and Al Qaeda". No one can tell us how we will know when the Taliban and Al Qaeda are defeated, there will always be some Taliban and Al Qaeda because they are constantly recruiting more people and the fact that we are pissing off a lot of people in the region by killing their family members does not exactly hurt Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts.

Like Vietnam we are fighting a war that has no exit strategy, Obama tried to distract us from that fact by telling us he was going to BEGIN to withdraw troops in eighteen months but gave no clue as to how long it would take to withdraw. Just a few days later he had his Secretary of Defense go on the air and tell us that withdrawal would only amount to a "small handful" of troops.

The people who risk their credibility are not the ones who compare this war to Vietnam, the people who risk their credibility are the ones calling for victory when they can not even explain what victory is.

[berni_mccoy]

22. Again, this is a strawman argument that has been strongly refuted here.

Obama has laid out specific goals (here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/852 ) and it is clear that the World, not just the U.S. is committed to achieving these goals. If you have fun saying it can't be won, keep on saying it though.

[Bjorn Against]

42. That is not a "strong refutation"...

I mentioned the only goal we were given was some vague notion of "stopping the Taliban and Al Qaeda", the link you provided does not get any more specific than I mentioned in my previous post. Your link said Obama's goal was "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just." But that does not answer my question as to how we will know when al Qaeda has been dismantled and defeated, they are constantly recruiting more people and no one can expect that they will ever be shut down completely.

Explain to me how will we know when al Qaeda is defeated, and if you expect them to be stopped completely then give me a plan for stopping them completely at a time when they are continuing to recruit new members. If you can not give that plan then you do not know a path to victory.

[berni_mccoy]

48. The argument is that it's not winnable, and yet you don't define "win"

Obama lays out goals and how to achieve them and you deny that it is a refutation of your ridiculous point. Purely strawman. Purely dishonest.

[Bjorn Against]

58. I can not define how to win in a war that can not be won

If you want to convince me that this war can be won then YOU have to define what it means to win, and you are clearly not doing that. It is not a strawman to ask you to define victory and tell us the path to achieving that victory, your link did not even come close to doing that and Obama's words are extremely vague. There was no realistic path to victory laid out, al Qaeda continues to recruit people and the inevitable killing of civilians by American forces is not going to hurt their recruitment efforts.

[leeroysphitz]

57. He can't explain it to you. He is just a cheer leader mouthing Bush era talking points.

and for some reason he thinks of himself as a democrat.

[berni_mccoy]

123. When you have no facts, resort to calling people names. That's such an intellectual approach

:sarcasm:

[ShamelessHussy]

43. Only time will tell but with history, both near and far, the odds don't look good at all

I don't think we can 'win' anything over there, and with the huge economic crisis we face at home it is a criminal waste of money and lives.

Time will tell.

[bvar22]

20. Those who insist there is NO comparison....

...have no credibility.

[berni_mccoy]

25. If you say so. Such an informative response, full of facts and credibility.

[bvar22]

44. Are you seriously going to argue...

...that there are NO valid points of comparison?

Please.

[berni_mccoy]

100. I never said that, now or in my OP. But comparing them to say they are the same thing

as a reason to end it is, as I say, a credibility challenge. People die in wars too. For some, even here, that is enough of a comparison.

[bvar22]

107. I have NEVER read on DU ANYONE claiming...

..that Viet Nam and Afghanistan are the same exact thing.
YOU built THAT Strawman.

Knock yourself out.


EVERYONE knows that they are different countries and different cultures.
Most are claiming that they enough alike to learn from History.

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia"
---advice given by General Douglas MacArthur to President John F. Kennedy

[berni_mccoy]

113. Then you aren't reading enough. Search DU for Vietnam or Vietghanistan.

[Le Taz Hot]

32. +1

[Orsino]

36. +1. I recommend comparisons to every other goddamned war ever fought.

Similarities and differences may be equally instructive.

[leftstreet]

74. +1

[DrDan]

24. "With the U.S. were North Vietnam . . . "

and you are challenging the "intellectual credibility" of others . . .

[berni_mccoy]

30. Yeah, a typo is such credibility challenge.

[berni_mccoy]

31. delete

dupe.

[DrDan]

37. well . . . "Nouth" vs "North"is a typo

"North" vs "South" - not so much

[berni_mccoy]

40. Explains a lot about your limited vision

Did it ever occur to you that the Spell checker will turn Nouth into North?

[bvar22]

94. You are going to claim that another poster has "limited vision"..

...while continuing to INSIST there are no valid comparisons between Afghanistan and Viet Nam?

Oh My.

Here is a valid comparison.

Viet Nam and Afghanistan are BOTH Land Wars in Asia.

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia"
---advice given by General Douglas MacArthur to President John F. Kennedy

[berni_mccoy]

99. Did I say there were *no* comparisons? Lot's of people like putting words in my OP

that aren't there.

You're one of them.

People die in wars too. Is that enough to compare them to defend your position?

[Javaman]

29. So calling Afghanistan: Viet Nam, is now like using the Hitler canard when comparing leaders?

oy vey.

Just remember, history doesn't repeat, it rhymes.

[berni_mccoy]

33. Your words, not mine. But thanks for playing.

[Javaman]

35. So calling Afghanistan: Viet Nam, is now like using the Hitler canard when comparing leaders?

Oy vey.

History doesn't repeat, it rhymes.

[tekisui]

38. I maintain that no comparison is needed. Afghanistan is its own updated

version of militarism and Imperialism fucking up.

One civilian death is one too many. One soldier killed for a lost cause is one too many. We don't have to reach the numbers of dead in Vietnam for this to be a fool's errand and a lost cause.

Throwing good troops at a bad war and a bad strategy stands on it's own as a mistake.

[mitchum]

39. Folly is folly and dead is dead

[Subdivisions]

41. 'The War in Afghanistan is an anti-terrorism conflict'

That's where you nearly lost me but I decided to finish reading your post. The "war" in Afghanistan is NOT about terrorism and never was. I do not, however, dispute the issue you have with comparisons to Vietnam. The two situations, though each finds us in similar circumstances, are completely different at their root. I agree with your comments about the Vietnam war. However, the "wars" we've been waging in Iran and Afghanistan are about energy resources. The Taliban and Al Qeada merely provide a convenient proxy excuse for being there.

[berni_mccoy]

45. "The "war" in Afghanistan is NOT about terrorism and never was."

That's where you lost me, and the majority of the world. What conspiracy do you ascribe to regarding Afghanistan? Drugs? Pipeline? Yes, these are all issues, but we didn't invade because of them, and the UN certainly would not have invaded with ISAF for those reasons. Tell me, for what reason did the UN decide to send more than 75 thousand troops to Afghanistan?

[Major Hogwash]

50. Are you a Vietnam veteran, berni?

Or a veteran at all?

[berni_mccoy]

59. Not sure what that has to do with it, but

I served and was discharged between conflicts, so I'm not a vet. My father is retired military and veteran as is my older sister. My brother is currently in the reserves and is a vet and my nephew is active duty, 4 tours in Iraq.

[Major Hogwash]

66. It has everything to do with it. You didn't get shot at or shoot at anyone in your whole life.

There's a big difference between waving the flag in a parade and fighting in a battle, berni.

Vietnam is to Afghanistan as Cambodia is to Pakistan - it's an escalation of an unnecessary war into a bordering country.
And we're making the same stupid mistakes we made in Vietnam.

[berni_mccoy]

69. Thanks for being judgmental without knowing dick.

You have no idea the sacrifice me or my family has made. GFY.

[Major Hogwash]

79. I am judgmental - you're acting like a warmonger, plain and simple.

You're telling other people to fight and die in battles you won't fight in - and that is the very definition of a warmonger.

[berni_mccoy]

97. You've got nothing substantial but insults and labels. Got it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. It's more like a 19th century colonial war. "Picking up the White Man's Burden"

And, leading the benighted natives to Jesus and Democracy whether they want it or not.

[zipplewrath]

47. Half empty, half full

All metaphores are wrong, because there are always differences. You are focused upon certain issues which you find important, and ignore those which others consider more significant to the comparions.

I would dispute the "cold war conflict" nature of your assertion. Yes, it was a place where we entered under cold war "domino" assumptions. The degree to which the USSR was necessary or critical has always been under dispute. The predominate problem for the US was the degree of infiltration into South Vietnam by the northern forces. The vast majority of the war compared very closely to an insurgency. Even West Point recongnizes this.

We had 500,000 troops, but a huge portion of those were "jobs" which are now handled by "military contractors". So the numbers in Afghanistan are much higher if those positions are included. Our total numbers there will achive "Vietnam like" numbers quite soon, although never reach the peak that the Vietnam war did. Also, becareful about comparing casualties because our ability to prevent deaths is much greater today, and does not include those "military contractors".

But the issue I'd take up most with you is a statement like; "Pakistan and Afghanistan are at the table, fully engaged in this effort" Pakistan has a large number of Taliban sympathizers within their governmental structure. And their commitment currently is to fighting them well away from the Afghan border. There is no singular "Afhanistan" in any functional sense, much of it still is ruled by various factions that are in conflict with each other. The primary concern amongst many is that, much like Vietnam, the actor (Karzi) with whom we intend upon building a government, doesn't clearly have the control and authority we will need. Much of this, like Vietnam, includes the problems of extensive corruption within the government itself.

The parts you left out were the attempts in Vietnam to "win their hearts and minds" and the "Vietnamization" of the war. The same strategy being used here is the one that failed so miserably there. You are also negating the extensive corrosive effect of the drug trade out of Vietnam at the time and the similar problem in Afghanistan today.

[berni_mccoy]

53. When it comes to War, you have to compare what is important

And that is, Casualties on both sides, Who is on what side, why there is a conflict and what the end-game is.

Those are the important points. And none of these points are even close to similar.

[zipplewrath]

65. The war college wouldn't agree with you

I'd be curious where you built such an assertion?

Most militarist focus upon tactics in these comparisons.

This is a classic, asymmetric, insurgency base conflict with us acting as the external force attempting to control what is in essence a civil war between relatively indigenous peoples.

The economics have some similarities as well. Look into the Taliban sources of funding and they have the kinds of external governmental connections that the N. Vietnamize had.

[madrchsod]

49. this is the cost of the carter /reagan doctrine

this does`t include the first gulf war and bush`s and obama`s mercenary army.


http://costofwar.com/



vietnam was about the "domino theory". today communist china and communist vietnam are our trading partners.


the iraq-afganistan war is`t about ideas it`s about oil and gas pipelines to europe ,india,and china.

[spoony]

51. Credibility with whom?

Hawks and the GOP? Who gives a fuck.

[berni_mccoy]

55. Yourself to begin with.

[spoony]

61. Lol, what?

*turns to self* Have I lost credibility with you? No? Then what is this...oh, yeah I know. Totally. It's ridiculous. Just a sec...

Excuse me, Berni, having a private moment here...

[havocmom]

52. yep

[HughMoran]

56. I agree for the most part

In the sense that Afghanistan may end up being a waste of human life for nothing of substance in return, there is something to that argument. The fact that so little else compares between the two conflicts makes it a poor parallel in my opinion. Picking our "worst folly" as a comparison for Iraq and now Afghanistan is not that much different than playing the "Nazi" card - it does little for one's credibility.

[Sebastian Doyle]

63. Well, at least the VietCong actually existed

They were never a threat to America, or anyone else. But at least they weren't a nearly entirely fictional entity like "Al Qaeda".

[Canuckistanian]

64. Afghanistan is an escalating, long-term and ultimately unwinnable war.

So to me, It's EXACTLY like Vietnam in all important respects. The only differences are details.

[GodlessBiker]

67. So, we've killed half of all Taliban/Al Qaeda members?

25,000 dead and 25,000 remaining members?

[AngryAmish]

68. This is so true

I have had both Afghani and Vietnamese food. While I like a kabob as much as the next joe, there is not comparison to the depth and sophistication of the cuisine in Vietnam.

[Forkboy]

70. With who? You?

If so I think I'll survive.

[berni_mccoy]

72. If it's no concern to you, why'd you bother to respond?

[Forkboy]

78. Because maybe the answer was different.

[David Zephyr]

75. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana, 1905

berni_mccoy, darling. Now, you are becoming a war apologist in the worst possible way.

Drawing comparisons between American wars fought in foreign occupied lands where we should have never gone in the first place does not "risk the credibility" of those who do so regardless of how many times you may say it does.

Your transparent and weak attempt to discourage those that compare the idiotic venture in Vietnam with those in Iraq and Afghanistan only reveals how desperate the pro-war faction of the Democratic Party has become.

LBJ would be proud of your attempt, but then he's dead, oops, there's another historical comparison that you so disdain, isn't it?

You write that "The focus is on Afghanistan and completing the mission of fully removing the Taliban forces."

I hate to tell you this, but that is not President Obama's focus: removing the Taliban from Afghanistan. That would be an impossibility. He's already dealing with them.

You'd better ring up the White House and inform them that Obama's focus doesn't match what you've stated it is.

You can not justify these wars.

Give it a rest.

You are the one risking your credibility.

[berni_mccoy]

77. There is a difference between drawing a comparison and using it to defend your position

And you know that's what I mean. Those who call Afghanistan the same as Vietnam are the ones who I am talking about, and from recent posts that should be clear without explanation.

Disputing an argument does not make one an apologist, as you say.

And furthermore, I'm not the one calling the war justified, the UN did that.

[mmonk]

81. Insults will get you nowhere with people, especially those

that do in fact see some similarities.

[berni_mccoy]

84. The truth and facts are insults now? hmmm

[mmonk]

86. All knowing are you?

[mmonk]

93. Your OP has no depth and reads like it was put out by the government

or a think tank in support of current policy.

[bvar22]

98. ..or put out by the White House "Message Discipline" Program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/rahm-emanuels-think-tanke_b_185203.html

[mmonk]

126. Yes, it sure seems that program is in use.

[joeybee12]

82. And the comparison of going to a country we know little about and even

less about its people ISN'T a valid comparison. What a stupid OP.

[berni_mccoy]

85. Any war can be compared on simple surface facts. People die in war.

Is that enough to call all wars the same?

In some people's eyes, that would be the case.

[joeybee12]

88. I don'tunderstand your response at all...I just threw something off the

top of my head...it's not like going to France or Germany, a place we are familiar with...this is a fundamental difference between WWI and Vietnam, and a fundamental similarity between Vietnam and Afghanistan...your pompoms are working overtime today.

[berni_mccoy]

109. You say things you have no facts to support.

Saying we don't "know" Afghanistan is one of them.

We know Afghanistan more deeply than is publicly known. We *did* use Afghanistan as a proxy war during the 80's. That's when the CIA was funding and supporting OBL to fight the Soviet invasion.

So, not only was it a bad point on the grounds that it's equivalent to saying people die in war, therefore we can compare every conflict where people die, your point was factually incorrect.

[arcadian]

90. Intellectually dishonest tripe.

You did graduate from high school, I'm assuming?

[berni_mccoy]

96. Insults and no facts, the typical response from you.

[arcadian]

108. False assertions and no facts, the typical response from you.

[berni_mccoy]

110. so you are saying "I'm rubber and you're glue.... nyah."?

[niceypoo]

91. Its the quagmire aspect

...that warrents comparison

[bridgit]

92. They are engaging in 'journalism by buzzword', even if that person is Helen Thomas...

The part about Afghanistan that is like Vietnam was seen, however, in that crazy spiderweb-on-cocaine operational flow chart Obama's joint chiefs produced the other day. What a mess! It seemed to be indicating some pathway between regional municipal entities that should be friendly after we compensate them with money and free Viagra, farmers that grow melons that need them at market cause the Afghan economy is important so - ya'gotta have melons, and plenty of relatively safe green areas where McChrystal can get his jog in and that's the part that seems the most like Vietnam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA-ksOHP0bY

In that Afghanistan has been handed over to career military: ca-ree-er milli-tary where many they *want* endless war so they can justify all that polish for their brass; systems administrators, math & computer theorists (so just manipulate the body count already that will soften the news), and on-bid crony war profiteers and when called upon to justify their efforts and internal ops you get reams of these spidery, convoluted in ways they hope you do not understand, highly stylized graphics indicating a huge bureaucracy sitting right there in plain sight attempting to monitor everything from the cigars whiskey bullets and blood products on the battlefield down to the Ball Park Franks on someone's BBQ grill in Des Moines

Though as a practical matter: Afghanistan and Vietnam may as well be like trying to compare rotten red apples to rotten green apples w/nasty worms

[bvar22]

103. "The 10 signs of Intellectual Honesty"..NJmaverick

Have you read this post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7170545

Why don't you jump over there,
give it a quick read,
come back here,
and tell us all how your OP qualifies (or not).

That would be a good exercise in Compare and Contrast.

Here is the link again:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7170545

:hi:

[berni_mccoy]

106. Why don't you tell me how saying Afghanistan = Vietnam is Intellectually Honest. Then get back to me

Since you seem to be the self-proclaimed resident expert at Intellectual Honesty. At least I have compared the two on the important facts. What points have I missed? That people die in war? That war is murder? What else is there to compare on these two conflicts to equate them?

[bvar22]

111. Afghanistan = Vietnam is a Strawman YOU built.

Please provide links to posts claiming that they are the exact same thing.

Most are claiming that there are enough points of comparison to provide a Historical lesson.


"Since you seem to be the self-proclaimed resident expert at Intellectual Honesty."

I made no such claim.
NJmaverick made that claim,
and I agree with most of his points.
Finding myself agreeing with that poster and WAR HAWK is more than a little shocking.

I see you failed to take me up on the challenge.
You could use a little work on the Compare & Contrast thing.
You did OK on the Contrast part,
but get a big, red "F" on the Compare part.

I think BOTH parts are necessary for "Intellectual Honesty".

[berni_mccoy]

112. You're asking me to violate the rules by calling out posts on DU.

But there are plenty. Just search on Vietnam or Vietghanistan. It's not hard.

And sorry, I thought you were the one who made that post. I mistook that for your post.

But still, I offer you the challenge to show how saying Vietnam = Afghanistan is intellectually honest.

[bullwinkle428]

114. How about comparing the Soviet Union's Afghanistan adventure

with what the U.S. is currently doing?

[berni_mccoy]

116. That was indeed a proxy war. The US was funding OBL and his Mujahideen

and was much more similar to the Vietnam conflict, with the Soviets taking it on the chin like the U.S. did in Vietnam.

This current conflict is nothing like that however. There is no one but extremists on the side of the Taliban and AQ.

[berni_mccoy]

117. Delete.

Dupe.

[Bluebear]

115. Helen sure got under your skin, didn't she? lol

[berni_mccoy]

118. Not at all. Am I getting under yours?

[Bluebear]

129. Oh yes, unknown anonymous internet poster, you sure are. hahaha

[berni_mccoy]

134. Wouldn't be the first time you got all flabergasted, won't be the last

[Bluebear]

135. You flatter yourself. Now go write another chapter of nothing.

[berni_mccoy]

138. Lol, yup, you are exactly what you've accused others of being.

:rofl: :rofl:

And you're transparent as a glass of water.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Bluebear]

140. i'm going to finally /ignore this idiocy which clutters up the joint. bye bye now

[WilliamPitt]

119. With respect

I find fault with your reasoning.

I have written several times over the last few years - most recently here - about how America has moved back into a Cold War conflict mentality regarding terrorism. As with Vietnam, that mentality has created a situation where we are fighting open-ended wars against what we are told is a monolithic enemy, one we are told is so fierce and terrifying that we must be in a permanent state of conflict to thwart and defeat it. That mentality allowed the Vietnam war to burn for more than 20 years, and is the mindset that has kept us in Afghanistan and Iraq for the better part of ten years.

Never mind the fact that we are in Afghanistan precisely because of the Cold War, and because (imho) it is the gateway for the final establishment of a new Cold War, which you dismiss as merely "anti-terror." It is a permanent state of conflict, just like Vietnam.

Personally, I think the parallel is grimly appropriate.

[berni_mccoy]

120. Who is on the other side of the "new Cold War"? I see what you are saying.

That Terrorism = the new Communism. I can see why that conclusion is drawn.

You are saying that for keeping the US people supportive of eternal conflict, our government is using the fear of Terrorism to keep them supportive, as was done during the Cold War, is this a correct assessment of your argument?

If so, two questions: Is terrorism a real threat and was the Soviet Union a real threat?

I believe our answers are different to these questions.

[WilliamPitt]

121. "Is terrorism a real threat and was the Soviet Union a real threat?"

Of course, but this begs the question: does the existence of a threat justify the masive expenditure of open-ended conflict? Was there a better way to challenge Soviet-style communism, and is there a better way to challenge terrorism?

Whatever the answer may be, it still does not take away from the fact that Vietnam and Afghanistan are very close cousins.

Cheers.

[berni_mccoy]

122. I don't disagree that there are better ways. But I doubt they would ever be sought.

I think an extremely small minority would have supported Bush had he decided not to invade Afghanistan and instead opened up diplomatic relations with AQ. I doubt even a Democratic President short of Kucinich would have done differently. I do believe that a Democratic President would have fully destroyed AQ by now and would have captured or killed OBL at Tora Bora.

In the case of the Cold War, existence of the threat meant that everyone on the planet could die from an itchy trigger finger.

In the case of terrorism, many thousands have died all over the world at the hands of terrorists. The U.S. is a relative newcomer with respect to dealing with terrorism against our people. I believe the International Community is pretty well sick of it and that is why the U.S. is not alone in it's mission in Afghanistan. I also believe the contrast between the threat of Communism during the Cold War with a deeply divided World and the threat of Terrorism with a much more United World is much larger than the similarity of these two concepts of fear you've drawn.

And I totally agree with you that Hussein and OBL are products of our own involvement in the Cold War. No doubt, the chickens have come home to roost.

[mdmc]

124. I will take that risk my friend

:toast:

[omega minimo]

127. We have always been at war with Iraq/Iran/Nam/anistan.

[DutchLiberal]

128. People who say "the US and the world against terrorists" risk their credibility...

There are only approximately 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. (The others operate from Pakistan.) Osama bin Laden probably is dead already, or else long gone from that area.

The Taliban was never a priority for the US when they ruled between 1990-2001, when the US gave them billions of dollars in "aid". The Taliban even was invited to visit the US when Clinton was president! They got driven out of power after the invasion in 2001, not because they hosted the attackers of 9/11. (That would have to be Saudi-Arabia, where 15 hijackers came from, and which also paid for the 9/11 attacks.) The Taliban were driven out because Bush had to install his long time friend and business associate Hamid Karzai president of Afghanistan, so he could green-light the gas pipeline Bush's Unocal-buddies wanted so bad.

So to paint it like a "US against the terrorists" is very naive (and frankly, sounds a lot like Bush). Similarly naive is it to paint Vietnam as "communist" versus "anti-communist". It was nothing but an ordinary war about influence in the world. The Vietcong of Ho Chi Minh, who fought with the US against the Japanese during WW II, was a movement which fought for independence from France (it was a colony of France before WW II). Ho Chi Minh pleaded with Truman to pressure France into giving them Independence, but Truman ignored his pleas. The French took over control again, against which the Vietcong resisted. The Soviets did back Ho in his struggle. The Americans simply took over a colonial war from the French. All because of power-politics and influence.

In Afghanistan, it's just the same, plus the resources.

[branders seine]

130. People who claim

"The War in Afghanistan is an anti-terrorism conflict" with a straight face risk their credibility, in the first place.

In the second place, this is a straw man argument that ignores the potential for quagmire, which is the central point of most such comparisons.

(Commies and Terrorists are just two boogie-man brand names used by the same oligarchs for much the same reasons.)

[RetroLounge]

132. Coming from you there is no risk

You cheerleaders are a joke.

RL

[RetroLounge]

133. Oh, and unrec...

:eyes:

RL

[gleaner]

137. I think you need to review your history ....

It was not quite the way it is stated in the post. The US went in alone at first. For periods of time Australia sent troops, but withdrew them when it became obvious that the war was a quagmire. Other countries made sure that troops they sent in acted behind the lines only and did not see combat. The other cold war powers, Russia and China, griped condemned and threatened but did nothing to upset the delicate nuclear standoff which had been achieved through treaty and diplomacy. China was rumored to have sent troops to Viet Nam to fight against the US, but no one was ever able to produce them or prove it. China being one of a series of countries to have invaded Viet Nam itself over the course of time was not eager to go back

Laos did not pursue active hostilities against the US. They had a monarchy and the Prince, named Siahnouk tried desperately to balance Russia and the US to keep his country out of the hostilities. That ended when Nixon invaded Laos and bombed the tar out of them. The Khmer Rouge did not take power until after the monarchy was abolished in 1975 and its members fled the country. Here is a link to a history of the Khmer Rouge. http//:www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/khmeryears/index.html They turned away from the outside world and began a program of mass genocide against their own people which very nearly destroyed Laos. There were rumors that the US helped keep them in power to avoid a leftist government. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were anti communist. They never fought against us. The war was over by then. The people they hurt the most were their own. Read "The Killing Fields," for an even better history.

The two wars are very much alike. The political dynamic may be different, but they are both guerrilla wars fought on foreign soil without the consent of their populace who are basically on the side of whomever the US is opposing because they want us gone.

Please read some of the time lines of Viet Nam. Read about the actual participation with the US of the countries you listed as allies and enemies and you will see that your presentation of the facts and circumstances is not accurate. I can link you to the others if you want, but I'm sure that you can find out what you need to know on your own. Other than mixing everything up you have written an intelligent post and I'm sure you are an intelligent poster.

If you are slanting a bit to make a point, please don't. There are enough of us here who lived through Viet Nam to contradict the slant and point out to you just how similar the two conflicts are. The US never went it alone in Afghanistan and Iraq. There were troops from the UK, Australia, Italy and other smaller nations. Even the Russians showed up to help out. Bush botched this one big time and there is no point to Obama following in his footsteps. Whatever terrorists there were are long gone; dead or escaped into Pakistan which is no longer an ally as it was when Bush was president. Ask the Pakistanis who have lost loved ones to drone attacks and who despised the regime which cooperated with Bush and remember they have nukes to drop on our troops if the US keeps pushing them. There is no good reason for any of this. Inaccurate information on the situation doesn't change anything.

Edited to insert link.

[berni_mccoy]

139. I've done my research

And I'm discussing the state of the war after 8 years of time. Khmer Rouge did not become an official state late into the game, but the government that became Khmer Rouge was indeed involved in the conflict. The same is true of many other states involved in the conflict. I am being inclusive to show that the world was indeed divided about the conflict in Vietnam which that can not be refuted. There is no doubt Vietnam, as well as Korea were proxies of the Cold War. That is what makes today's conflict in Afghanistan distinctly different from Vietnam.

I assure you, I'm slanting nothing by stating facts of the war and a failed argument that has been made by many in the anti-war movement because it would be a powerful argument to make. If it were valid.

[gleaner]

141. OK, Link me to your research .....

Because it did not happen the way you say it did. I would really like to read your sources. Being "inclusive" may be an attempt to be considerate, but it doesn't make you correct. Khmer Rouge was an outcropping of the failed monarchy in Cambodia. The monarchy was leftist, but not communist. Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was supported by the Nixon government. That is one reason why the genocide committed by Khmer Rouge was such big news here when it was exposed. Another similarity between the two wars. Saddam was an "asset" of the CIA who helped him stay in power because he fought a war against Iran.

There are pictures of a young Saddam with Papa Bush and Donald Rumsfeld which I would link you to, except I doubt that you would look at them. Suffice it say, they were all smiling and shaking hands. The Domino theory was about as valid as saying that everyone in the US will have ten terrorists waiting to attack their bathrooms if the war in Afghanistan is not escalated.

The world was divided against Viet Nam. Most other nations were against it. Most other nations are against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is another thing they have in common. Thank you for making that point for me.

I assure you we are capable of understanding facts without being spoon fed by someone who wants us to see things only a certain way. I had friends who died in Viet Nam. My husband enlisted in the Air Force during Viet Nam though he served stateside. It is not too likely that I am going to forget anything that happened or when it happened. Flexi Facts don't serve any purpose in stifling ideas and thoughts. All they do is present one point of view which is not to me, a correct point of view.

The "antiwar movement" is not a lump of indivisible paper cutouts which are all exactly alike. We are as individual as those who support the war and our arguments are based on the facts as we know them and see them. I don't find it necessary to make the facts "inclusive" to get my point across. It speaks for itself in what we see and hear happening in the mid east. The political theories may be different, but seeing how Communism collapsed all by itself the Cold War was a long waste of time poised on the brink of a nuclear winter. So is this. The thing about wars is they never, ever do anything except destroy on some level both those who attack and those who are attacked. And since were on the subject of the antiwar movement, let me ask you an pesky antiwar question. Have you ever served in the military? Is that where you are getting your information? If not and you are able bodied and young enough and care enough to try to emphasize its importance to you, why haven't you enlisted in the military? They need volunteers desperately.

[TexasObserver]

142. Unrecommend

If you weren't such a remorseless cheerleader, your opinion might matter.