To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
It is almost as if yesterday's death of Robert McNamara was a
warning to President Obama. The defense secretary for Presidents
Kennedy and Johnson during the Vietnam War passed away at 93, with his
legacy forever tarnished by the conflict that claimed 58,000 American
soldiers and more than 3 million Vietnamese. McNamara would finally
say, in his 1995 memoir "Retrospect'': "We were wrong. We were terribly
wrong.''
It is almost as if yesterday's death of Robert McNamara was a
warning to President Obama. The defense secretary for Presidents
Kennedy and Johnson during the Vietnam War passed away at 93, with his
legacy forever tarnished by the conflict that claimed 58,000 American
soldiers and more than 3 million Vietnamese. McNamara would finally
say, in his 1995 memoir "Retrospect'': "We were wrong. We were terribly
wrong.''
With no small irony, Obama won the White House by running to a
noticeable degree against McNamara's legacy, in the form of President
Bush's invasion of Iraq, an invasion launched on false pretenses, false
promises of quick victory, and no strategy for prolonged chaos. On the
campaign trail, Obama invoked the great code word of Vietnam,
criticizing Republican rival John McCain with, "So far, all he's done
is follow George Bush into the quagmire of Iraq.''
But questions are emerging as to whether Obama is slipping slowly
into his own quagmire, in another guerrilla war. Obama is taking combat
troops out of Iraq, but increasing them in Afghanistan, with questions
arising as to whether there is a concrete end to our involvement. The
21,000 troops that Obama is adding brings the total of troops in
Afghanistan to 68,000. The Washington Post
reported last week that one senior military officer believes that a
successful counterinsurgency to root out the Taliban will require more
than 100,000 soldiers. The Post reported that Marine Brigadier General
Lawrence Nicholson said he was "a little light'' in troop strength in a
meeting with national security adviser James Jones.
The official stance of the Obama administration is that it will be
stingy with additional troops. Obama told Newsweek in May that "My
strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on
more and more troops. The Soviets tried that; it didn't work out too
well for them. The British tried it; it didn't work. We have to see our
military action in the context of a broader effort to stabilize
security in the country.''
At the same time, the Obama administration is awaiting a midsummer
assessment from Afghanistan commander Stanley McChrystal. Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen said in another Post story
that he told McChrystal "there are no preconditions'' to the
assessment. "In this assessment you come back and ask for what you
need.''
The assessment is getting more complicated as Afghanistan, by most
accounts, appears to not be moving as fast as it should to build its
own security force. Yet, anti-US resentment is building in Afghanistan
after air strikes and firefights in which American forces are killing
many innocent civilians. The US military said that in one incident in
May, 26 civilians were killed, but local human rights groups and
officials said the death toll was much higher, between 86 and 140. A
United Nations report found that the killing of 828 civilians by US and
Afghan forces last year is not all that far behind the 1,160 civilian
deaths attributed to Taliban.
That makes it a very tricky moment. Two-thirds of the civilian
deaths caused by the US were from air strikes. Reducing air strikes
invariably means a longer-term effort on the ground. McChrystal
admitted as much in June when he said: "Traditionally, American forces
are designed for conventional, high-intensity combat. In my mind what
we've really got to do is make a cultural shift.''
It also means the temptation to call for more troops. In a conflict
where definitions of stability, let alone victory, are a fleeting
thing, one of the most important moments in this first year of the
Obama administration will be to take the hardest look possible at any
assessment beyond the 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. A New York Times
story last week reported a district council leader in Helmand Province
as saying, "People are hostages of the Taliban, but they look at the
coalition also as the enemy because they have not seen anything good
from them in seven or eight years.'' That terrible tension is straight
out of the legacy of Robert McNamara.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
It is almost as if yesterday's death of Robert McNamara was a
warning to President Obama. The defense secretary for Presidents
Kennedy and Johnson during the Vietnam War passed away at 93, with his
legacy forever tarnished by the conflict that claimed 58,000 American
soldiers and more than 3 million Vietnamese. McNamara would finally
say, in his 1995 memoir "Retrospect'': "We were wrong. We were terribly
wrong.''
With no small irony, Obama won the White House by running to a
noticeable degree against McNamara's legacy, in the form of President
Bush's invasion of Iraq, an invasion launched on false pretenses, false
promises of quick victory, and no strategy for prolonged chaos. On the
campaign trail, Obama invoked the great code word of Vietnam,
criticizing Republican rival John McCain with, "So far, all he's done
is follow George Bush into the quagmire of Iraq.''
But questions are emerging as to whether Obama is slipping slowly
into his own quagmire, in another guerrilla war. Obama is taking combat
troops out of Iraq, but increasing them in Afghanistan, with questions
arising as to whether there is a concrete end to our involvement. The
21,000 troops that Obama is adding brings the total of troops in
Afghanistan to 68,000. The Washington Post
reported last week that one senior military officer believes that a
successful counterinsurgency to root out the Taliban will require more
than 100,000 soldiers. The Post reported that Marine Brigadier General
Lawrence Nicholson said he was "a little light'' in troop strength in a
meeting with national security adviser James Jones.
The official stance of the Obama administration is that it will be
stingy with additional troops. Obama told Newsweek in May that "My
strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on
more and more troops. The Soviets tried that; it didn't work out too
well for them. The British tried it; it didn't work. We have to see our
military action in the context of a broader effort to stabilize
security in the country.''
At the same time, the Obama administration is awaiting a midsummer
assessment from Afghanistan commander Stanley McChrystal. Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen said in another Post story
that he told McChrystal "there are no preconditions'' to the
assessment. "In this assessment you come back and ask for what you
need.''
The assessment is getting more complicated as Afghanistan, by most
accounts, appears to not be moving as fast as it should to build its
own security force. Yet, anti-US resentment is building in Afghanistan
after air strikes and firefights in which American forces are killing
many innocent civilians. The US military said that in one incident in
May, 26 civilians were killed, but local human rights groups and
officials said the death toll was much higher, between 86 and 140. A
United Nations report found that the killing of 828 civilians by US and
Afghan forces last year is not all that far behind the 1,160 civilian
deaths attributed to Taliban.
That makes it a very tricky moment. Two-thirds of the civilian
deaths caused by the US were from air strikes. Reducing air strikes
invariably means a longer-term effort on the ground. McChrystal
admitted as much in June when he said: "Traditionally, American forces
are designed for conventional, high-intensity combat. In my mind what
we've really got to do is make a cultural shift.''
It also means the temptation to call for more troops. In a conflict
where definitions of stability, let alone victory, are a fleeting
thing, one of the most important moments in this first year of the
Obama administration will be to take the hardest look possible at any
assessment beyond the 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. A New York Times
story last week reported a district council leader in Helmand Province
as saying, "People are hostages of the Taliban, but they look at the
coalition also as the enemy because they have not seen anything good
from them in seven or eight years.'' That terrible tension is straight
out of the legacy of Robert McNamara.
It is almost as if yesterday's death of Robert McNamara was a
warning to President Obama. The defense secretary for Presidents
Kennedy and Johnson during the Vietnam War passed away at 93, with his
legacy forever tarnished by the conflict that claimed 58,000 American
soldiers and more than 3 million Vietnamese. McNamara would finally
say, in his 1995 memoir "Retrospect'': "We were wrong. We were terribly
wrong.''
With no small irony, Obama won the White House by running to a
noticeable degree against McNamara's legacy, in the form of President
Bush's invasion of Iraq, an invasion launched on false pretenses, false
promises of quick victory, and no strategy for prolonged chaos. On the
campaign trail, Obama invoked the great code word of Vietnam,
criticizing Republican rival John McCain with, "So far, all he's done
is follow George Bush into the quagmire of Iraq.''
But questions are emerging as to whether Obama is slipping slowly
into his own quagmire, in another guerrilla war. Obama is taking combat
troops out of Iraq, but increasing them in Afghanistan, with questions
arising as to whether there is a concrete end to our involvement. The
21,000 troops that Obama is adding brings the total of troops in
Afghanistan to 68,000. The Washington Post
reported last week that one senior military officer believes that a
successful counterinsurgency to root out the Taliban will require more
than 100,000 soldiers. The Post reported that Marine Brigadier General
Lawrence Nicholson said he was "a little light'' in troop strength in a
meeting with national security adviser James Jones.
The official stance of the Obama administration is that it will be
stingy with additional troops. Obama told Newsweek in May that "My
strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on
more and more troops. The Soviets tried that; it didn't work out too
well for them. The British tried it; it didn't work. We have to see our
military action in the context of a broader effort to stabilize
security in the country.''
At the same time, the Obama administration is awaiting a midsummer
assessment from Afghanistan commander Stanley McChrystal. Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen said in another Post story
that he told McChrystal "there are no preconditions'' to the
assessment. "In this assessment you come back and ask for what you
need.''
The assessment is getting more complicated as Afghanistan, by most
accounts, appears to not be moving as fast as it should to build its
own security force. Yet, anti-US resentment is building in Afghanistan
after air strikes and firefights in which American forces are killing
many innocent civilians. The US military said that in one incident in
May, 26 civilians were killed, but local human rights groups and
officials said the death toll was much higher, between 86 and 140. A
United Nations report found that the killing of 828 civilians by US and
Afghan forces last year is not all that far behind the 1,160 civilian
deaths attributed to Taliban.
That makes it a very tricky moment. Two-thirds of the civilian
deaths caused by the US were from air strikes. Reducing air strikes
invariably means a longer-term effort on the ground. McChrystal
admitted as much in June when he said: "Traditionally, American forces
are designed for conventional, high-intensity combat. In my mind what
we've really got to do is make a cultural shift.''
It also means the temptation to call for more troops. In a conflict
where definitions of stability, let alone victory, are a fleeting
thing, one of the most important moments in this first year of the
Obama administration will be to take the hardest look possible at any
assessment beyond the 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. A New York Times
story last week reported a district council leader in Helmand Province
as saying, "People are hostages of the Taliban, but they look at the
coalition also as the enemy because they have not seen anything good
from them in seven or eight years.'' That terrible tension is straight
out of the legacy of Robert McNamara.