

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
I had a flashback recently when I read a Washington Post news story
about how the U.S. commander in Afghanistan thinks he may need many
thousands more troops to win the war.
Shades of Vietnam. Do we ever learn?
It brought back memories of the late Gen. William C. Westmoreland,
the U.S. commander in Southeast Asia, who kept escalating the troop
numbers after the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam. His strategy produced
a debacle for us.
Fast forward to Afghanistan, 2009.
Now seven years into the war there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new
U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is in the middle of a 60-day assessment
of the war, due next month. But a Washington Post article says he has
been giving Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates weekly updates about the
need to bolster the size of the Afghan army and police force and the
likely deployment of thousands more U.S. trainers and advisers.
The present Pentagon plan calls for about 68,000 U.S. troops to be in Afghanistan by late this year.
Afghanistan, which once harbored Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida training
camps, has been on Obama's agenda since his presidential campaign. Now
it's his war -- big time -- even as it takes on the appearance of
another quagmire for U.S. forces in their effort to quell the Taliban
and Al-Qaida fighters.
Gates is expected to go along with whatever McChrystal concludes is
necessary. So is Obama, a neophyte who has taken on the mission defined
by the Bush administration, apparently without hesitation.
Maybe the president should have asked the Russians on his recent
journey to Moscow how it was that a superpower like the Soviet Union
could have been forced to retreat from Afghanistan in the 1980s,
despite its modern military might.
Granted the United States was supporting the Afghans with arms and
training but the war proved to be too much for the Soviet forces.
The late Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in the Kennedy and
Johnson eras delivered public mea culpas in the aftermath of the
Vietnam War. I don't expect the same kind of acknowledgement from the
neoconservatives who got us into Iraq. That would be the day.
Nor will former President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick
Cheney or their hawkish team of architects show any remorse for their
terrible mistake in attacking Iraq.
The buck now stops with Obama, who is making a big deal about how he doesn't want to look back at past mistakes.
He could end up repeating those mistakes.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
I had a flashback recently when I read a Washington Post news story
about how the U.S. commander in Afghanistan thinks he may need many
thousands more troops to win the war.
Shades of Vietnam. Do we ever learn?
It brought back memories of the late Gen. William C. Westmoreland,
the U.S. commander in Southeast Asia, who kept escalating the troop
numbers after the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam. His strategy produced
a debacle for us.
Fast forward to Afghanistan, 2009.
Now seven years into the war there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new
U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is in the middle of a 60-day assessment
of the war, due next month. But a Washington Post article says he has
been giving Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates weekly updates about the
need to bolster the size of the Afghan army and police force and the
likely deployment of thousands more U.S. trainers and advisers.
The present Pentagon plan calls for about 68,000 U.S. troops to be in Afghanistan by late this year.
Afghanistan, which once harbored Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida training
camps, has been on Obama's agenda since his presidential campaign. Now
it's his war -- big time -- even as it takes on the appearance of
another quagmire for U.S. forces in their effort to quell the Taliban
and Al-Qaida fighters.
Gates is expected to go along with whatever McChrystal concludes is
necessary. So is Obama, a neophyte who has taken on the mission defined
by the Bush administration, apparently without hesitation.
Maybe the president should have asked the Russians on his recent
journey to Moscow how it was that a superpower like the Soviet Union
could have been forced to retreat from Afghanistan in the 1980s,
despite its modern military might.
Granted the United States was supporting the Afghans with arms and
training but the war proved to be too much for the Soviet forces.
The late Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in the Kennedy and
Johnson eras delivered public mea culpas in the aftermath of the
Vietnam War. I don't expect the same kind of acknowledgement from the
neoconservatives who got us into Iraq. That would be the day.
Nor will former President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick
Cheney or their hawkish team of architects show any remorse for their
terrible mistake in attacking Iraq.
The buck now stops with Obama, who is making a big deal about how he doesn't want to look back at past mistakes.
He could end up repeating those mistakes.
I had a flashback recently when I read a Washington Post news story
about how the U.S. commander in Afghanistan thinks he may need many
thousands more troops to win the war.
Shades of Vietnam. Do we ever learn?
It brought back memories of the late Gen. William C. Westmoreland,
the U.S. commander in Southeast Asia, who kept escalating the troop
numbers after the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam. His strategy produced
a debacle for us.
Fast forward to Afghanistan, 2009.
Now seven years into the war there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new
U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is in the middle of a 60-day assessment
of the war, due next month. But a Washington Post article says he has
been giving Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates weekly updates about the
need to bolster the size of the Afghan army and police force and the
likely deployment of thousands more U.S. trainers and advisers.
The present Pentagon plan calls for about 68,000 U.S. troops to be in Afghanistan by late this year.
Afghanistan, which once harbored Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida training
camps, has been on Obama's agenda since his presidential campaign. Now
it's his war -- big time -- even as it takes on the appearance of
another quagmire for U.S. forces in their effort to quell the Taliban
and Al-Qaida fighters.
Gates is expected to go along with whatever McChrystal concludes is
necessary. So is Obama, a neophyte who has taken on the mission defined
by the Bush administration, apparently without hesitation.
Maybe the president should have asked the Russians on his recent
journey to Moscow how it was that a superpower like the Soviet Union
could have been forced to retreat from Afghanistan in the 1980s,
despite its modern military might.
Granted the United States was supporting the Afghans with arms and
training but the war proved to be too much for the Soviet forces.
The late Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in the Kennedy and
Johnson eras delivered public mea culpas in the aftermath of the
Vietnam War. I don't expect the same kind of acknowledgement from the
neoconservatives who got us into Iraq. That would be the day.
Nor will former President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick
Cheney or their hawkish team of architects show any remorse for their
terrible mistake in attacking Iraq.
The buck now stops with Obama, who is making a big deal about how he doesn't want to look back at past mistakes.
He could end up repeating those mistakes.