Afghanistan: The New Vietnam | by George McGovern

[bigtree]

December 13, 2009

AS a United States senator during the 1960s, I agonized over the badly mistaken war in Vietnam. After doing all I could to save our troops and the Vietnamese people from a senseless conflict, I finally took my case to the public in my presidential campaign in 1972. Speaking across the nation, I told audiences that the only upside of the tragedy in Vietnam was that its enormous cost in lives and dollars would keep any future administration from going down that road again.

I was wrong. Today, I am astounded at the Obama administration’s decision to escalate the equally mistaken war in Afghanistan, and as I listen to our talented young president explain why he is adding 30,000 troops — beyond the 21,000 he had added already — I can only think: another Vietnam. I hope I am incorrect, but history tells me otherwise.

Presidents John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all believed that the best way to save the government in Saigon and defeat Ho Chi Minh and his Vietcong insurgents was to send in US troops. But the insurgency only grew stronger, even after we had more than 500,000 troops fighting in Vietnam.

We have had tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan for several years, and we have employed an even larger number of mercenaries (or “contractors,” as they’re called these days). As in Vietnam, the insurgent forces are stronger than ever, and the Afghan government is as corrupt as the one we backed in Saigon.

Why do we send young Americans to risk life and limb on behalf of such worthless regimes? The administration says we need to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the major Al Qaeda forces are in Pakistan.

The insurgency in Afghanistan is led by the Taliban. Its target is its own government, not our government. Its only quarrel with us is that its members see us using our troops to prop up a government they despise. Adding more US forces will fuel the Taliban further . . .


read more: http://thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/afghanistan-the-new-vietnam/347166

[unhappycamper]

1. k&r n/t

[unhappycamper]

2. That's pretty impressive that you've picked up at least two unrecs.

I guess the Afghanistan word twitches them to unrec.

[bigtree]

4. what I find interesting and disturbing

. . . are the arguments in favor of the president's escalation coming from folks who identify themselves as Democrats. I do realize that it's a natural thing to support your party's president, and I think the support for his actions have a lot to do with that expected loyalty. I think many of the unrecs are coming from folks concerned about the president's image. It's a hard thing to declare the president wrong with so much belief that went into folks' votes for him. It's unfortunate, but I think that time will tell for them.

[Goldstein1984]

26. In cases like this, unrecs

should probably be considered a compliment.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jwirr]

3. I love George McGovern.

[bigtree]

5. he always has an aura of truthfulness

. . . and wisdom. Good to have him around.

[change_notfinetuning]

9. 1972 was my first election, and I've yet to be presented with a better

major party, presidential candidate to vote for. Unfortunately, Americans have an aversion to doing the right thing. Then, when we do get it right, we get blindsided.

One thing for sure. George McGovern would not have done a 180.

[Earth_First]

6. Jesus Christ!

I thought that Iraq was the new Vietnam? :shrug:

[bigtree]

7. the times they are a-changin'

There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.

[flyarm]

24. hey, Vietnam wasn't "just Vietnam" it was Laos, and Cambodia..

it was a military engagement in Indochina and southeast Asia...but you knew that ..didn't you?? ..or did you???????:eyes: :sarcasm:


But remember..much was kept from the American people..just like now!!

[chill_wind]

8. K & R. n/t

[PuraVidaDreamin]

10. kick to read later

off to teach yoga now

[AzDar]

11. " Hey, Hey , BHO....How Many More Will Have To Go?"

[Goldstein1984]

27. With a small change, that could catch on!

Hey, Ho, BHO, how many more will have to go.

EVERYBODY!...

[TexasObserver]

12. Recommend

[tekisui]

14. knr.

[mmonk]

15. Some here have said that anyone who compares the Afghanistan

conflict with Vietnam has no credibility.

[Mithreal]

22. so

[flyarm]

25. and some here have no credibility because they are armchair internet warriors!

with little knowledge of the Vietnam war and how it started and how it was escalated!

and who profited..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. McGovern is obviously part of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy and an Obama Hater. K&R

And, he certainly doesn't understand that Afghanistan is a "necessary" war that will protect us from the Taliban and their mighty navy now being prepared to send assault ships to invade Kansas.

[bigtree]

20. he likely doesn't understand the wisdom behind

. . . propping up a corrupt regime as a defense against an ideology.

[Hatchling]

17. My first Presidential vote.

What a hell of a good President he would have made.

[robdogbucky]

18. Add Congressman Obey

to the DU geniuses' list of those with no intellectual credibility.

He seems to agree with McGovern:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/us/politics/13obey.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

Legislator Sees Echoes of Vietnam in Afghan War

WASHINGTON — David R. Obey has served in Congress since Barack Obama was in grade school. He does not waste time with pleasantries, and he does not mince words. So when President Obama called Representative Obey recently to talk about Afghanistan, the congressman raised a topic sure to make the young commander in chief uncomfortable: Vietnam.

“I came here in ’69, and I determined that I would give Nixon a year to see what he could do, because he had inherited the war, so I bit my tongue for a year,” Mr. Obey said, recounting how he reminded the current president of the mistakes of that earlier war. “I said the same thing with Obama.”

In fact, Mr. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, did not wait quite a year — Mr. Obama has been in office just 11 months. And his is not an isolated complaint. As the third-most senior member of the House, Mr. Obey gives voice to what Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the “serious unrest” in her caucus over Mr. Obama’s troop buildup plan for Afghanistan. And as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which controls how tax money is spent, he is in a position to constrain the president through the power of the purse.

With the president estimating that the buildup will cost $30 billion, Mr. Obey is proposing a “war surtax.” The idea is unlikely to pass, but it is already reminding the nation of the high cost of an increasingly unpopular war. At the White House, officials are bracing for the president’s first real battle with fellow Democrats.



Where are the DU geniuses on this issue now?

Who's fracturing the Party/DU Board?

And why?



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Jackpine Radical]

19. Obey is generally on the right (by which I mean left) side of the issues.

A lot of people are still pissed at him for not backing impeachment, but he had concluded that the effort was doomed to fail and would end up doing more harm than good. I don't know if he was right, but I know that his decision was based on his view of reality, however much he despised Bush (and it was obvious that he did despise Bush).

[leftstreet]

21. K&R

[Vidar]

23. K&R.

[immoderate]

28. They should have listened to McGovern, the smartest man who ...

never got to be president.

--imm