Obama debunks claim that Afghanistan=Vietnam

[mcablue]

During today's speech, Obama made a very good point:

Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaida from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaida, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Transcript of the speech here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02prexy.text.html?pagewanted=4

[FrenchieCat]

1. and unlike Vietnam, this is not going to be an open ended war

anymore. No escape from rooftops at the 11th hour for us.....

and unlike Vietnam, there is no draft.

so he's correct; it ain't the same.

[VMI Dem]

2. Hell, if thats the case LBJ debunked claims that Vietnam=Vietnam.

LOL

[FrenchieCat]

3. How's that?

what was LBJ's withdrawal timeline?

[rug]

37. NH primary.

[avaistheone1]

13. Amen.

:spray: :rofl: :rofl:

[EFerrari]

4. Did Obama poll the South Vietnamese?

And, I forget, how many Afghans were on those planes?

[Cant trust em]

8. The citizenship of the attackers isn't really a priority, IMO.

If an Afghan government enabled their attack, it is the Afghan government that needs to be held accountable. This could have been in Botswana, the Philippines or France. The strategy would need to be nuanced, but someone must be held accountable.

[EFerrari]

14. You miss the point. The Taliban was a small group that managed

to control some part of Afghaistan and mostly through the auspices of the ISI.

They were not a national government in the way that ours is, or that France's is.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Taliban were in on 9/11, that they signed off on it or even knew about it.

[Cant trust em]

15. Let's assume that that's true.

Wouldn't we want to put in a government that could keep track of that kind of thing happening? Sounds like a great reason for us to occupy the country.

[EFerrari]

18. You can't occupy Afghanistan. And the whole area is organized

in tribes.

You can't "put in a government" because the US will never be able to stay in charge of their haggling. To think we can is simply arrogant folly.

[Cant trust em]

19. So then how do we ensure that the territory is not continually used to train people to attack us?

We need to have someone in the area that we can work with?

What's the solution?

I honestly don't know. I don't pretend to know.

[EFerrari]

21. First of all, Afghanistan is not special. There are sites all over the world

that determined people can use to train to attack us.

The solution for that is to make it unpopular to attack us.

Seoond, the Afghan people gave us a number of years to show them that we wanted to help them with infrastructure, with jobs. We failed and have lost their trust. Sending in thousands of more troops will not regain that trust.

[Cant trust em]

29. I'm picking up about half of what you're laying down.

Afghanistan is not special. True, but it does seem popular. Since al-Qaeda has apparently picked it and Pakistan as its training ground, why not disrupt them there? If they go somewhere else then we'll have to go where that intelligence leads us. If they're found next in Indonesia, we'll have to do something about that. Like I said previously, tactics will have to be changed, but action will be necessitated.

As for making it unpopular to attack us, I totally agree. That is the long-term solution to this whole mess. However, I do see it as a long-term change in our foreign policy that will likely take longer than this president has. In the meantime, how do we get the people who do want to attack us to not attack us? Part of that will necessitate being better global citizens. Part of that will also wind up being military.

[EFerrari]

34. Now you are eliding Afghanistan into Pakistan.

AQ is not in Afghanistan.

[Cant trust em]

35. It's a pretty porous border region. The two can barely be separated in this context. nt

[EFerrari]

38. AQ is not training in Afghanistan.

[Cant trust em]

39. Right. It's Waziristan, just across that porous border in Pakistan.

They're connected.

That's why the president spent so much time talking about Pakistan in the speech.

[EFerrari]

42. But the problem is not the porous border, which cannot be hardened

or even patrolled very well. The problem is support for AQ in the tribal regions and a support most likely winked at by some elements of the Pakistani military establishment.

[Cant trust em]

43. Which I believe is why Obama sought additional aid to Pakistan

to fight al-Qaeda.

BTW, I'm not really in support of a surge. Up until I read all of the reports, I was really hoping that Obama's decision would have been to begin a phased withdrawal. Now that the decision has been made, I'm trying to come to grips with it and at least understand the mindset. I think I'm just trying to think through both sides of the argument. Going through this exercise has been really draining. I can't imagine what the President must have gone through. I appreciate your perspectives on this.

[Odin2005]

5. Maybe my youth is showing but I am fucking sick of Vietnam used as a talking point.

Some people's reality is stuck firmly in 1973.

[EFerrari]

11. Maybe it is your youth. Some of us have heard all this stuff before.

About how there is immanent risk, about all the fabulous things we will do, blah, about how America shows leadership defending human rights with our army (yeah, like that EVER happens) blah, blah, blah blah. The facts just don't support the argument.

I'm not stuck in 1973 but the memory I have of those years is part of the experience I bring to bear on this issue.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Word...and nostalgia passes for "wisdom of history"

They think everything looks like exactly the same thing. The whole Santayana quote has a downside. Sure, those who forget history are condemned to repeat it, but those who see every thing as nothing but repetition are condemned to miss the singular in history. Both are equally bad. It's why I always preferred Marx: "Hegel said that all great world historical events appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." Marx is asking us to remember our history, but also to attend to the difference of history, to the new. It's a much smarter maxim than Santayana's, if you ask me.

[Odin2005]

32. I like the Marx quote!

:)

[Cha]

23. Especially when that all it is..a vapid talking point that

has nothing to do with the current reality in Afghanistan.

[MichiganVote]

6. For a smart man he lies pretty damn bad.

[billyoc]

9. He knows how dumb his audience is.

[MichiganVote]

12. Tis true

[Cha]

27. He expects people to be smart and talks to them like they are.

[Cha]

25. You can call him a liar all you want but that doesn't make it so.

[Clio the Leo]

7. He debunked all kinds of claims.

Unfortunately, I dont think the people who needed to hear him were listening.

[EFerrari]

17. Well, no, he didn't.

And unfortunately, a lot of us were not only listening, we took notes.

He smooshed the Taliban into AQ just like Bush did.

He claimed we have vital national interests in Afghanistan without supporting that assertion in any way.

He claimed that AQ wanted to overthrow the Afghan government when AQ is gone from there and it's just warlords duking it out.

After he gratuitously invoked our war dead, he elided the difference between the challenges in Pakistan, where AQ really is, and Afghanistan.

He said the days of the blank check to Afghanistan are over when most of that money went to non-Afghani US contractors.

He said that AQ spreads like a cancer which is ridiculous and only meant to scare people.

He said we have to deprive terrorists of safe haven. I agree with that and I hope he gets right to work on the terrorists we are protecting right here on US soil.

He said we were supported by a broad coalition when our European allies are lining up to say no to this escalation.

He said we would train the Afghan army when in reality, they should be training our troops in how to survive there.

I don't know who this speech was for. Maybe it was for you. It certainly wasn't for anyone who has any clue about what is going on in that area.

[PM Martin]

20. There are many around here

who will do as Obama wants, as opposed to following their ideals.

[Cha]

24. You don't know what my ideals are.

[Cha]

26. "Claimed" "claimed" "claimed"..I have more confidence

in what President Obama has to say about what he's been working on than I do someone on the internet.

[EFerrari]

33. You can go verify my summary at the CSPAN archives.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/290349-1

And maybe it would serve you better to stop having confidence in people and to start using your faculty of reason.

[Cant trust em]

10. That was a good example. The other two were awful

It was like listening to George Bush tell me that Poland had joined our coalition.

[IndianaGreen]

22. What a crock of mendacity!

The only thing debunked here is what little credibility Obama has left.

[LittleBlue]

28. Indeed. These are lies: there is popular support in southern Afghanistan for the Taliban

just like there was popular support in parts of Vietnam for the VC.

What a pack of lies.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Well, it was always a pretty dumb analogy to begin with.

It's like Godwin's law when it comes to military action. Everything gets compared to Vietnam.

[TexasObserver]

31. NO, he didn't debunk it. He proved he doesn't understand either place.

[girl gone mad]

36. This was one of the weakest points in his speech.

I have never heard anyone compare Afghanistan to Vietnam on the basis that both faced popular insurgency or both initially attacked us. People draw a comparison between these wars because of weak public support, confusing and unclear goals, the perception that we are unpopular foreign invaders, etc.

Obama simply built up rhetorical straw men to knock down as a means to avoid addressing the very real and very valid comparisons, which he can't seem to dismiss so easily.

[jgraz]

40. And unlike Vietnam, it ends in an 'N', not an 'M'

That's a whole letter different!!

[neshanic still]

41. Really. I suppose when they came knocking on the door telling me

that my brother-in-law was blown up in Vietnam, you will have the comfort knowing that yours, if fighting was blown up in Afghanistan and that will make all the world of difference.

But what's a war worth if you can't have it be generational. It's wholesome family fun.

[Better Believe It]

44. It's not a carbon copy of Vietnam. This is worse!

[tekisui]

45. It doesn't have to equal Vietnam to be a horrible, stupid war.