SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam?
Sep 29, 2009
There's a rapidly growing discussion here in the US about "what to
do in Afghanistan." Some of it is thoughtful, well-informed, and
serious. Like this piece by Rajiv Chandrasekaran in today's WaPo, which argues that the two best options look to be "Go all-in, or fold."
(Actually, that's only one choice, since the US citizenry andbudget
are quite incapable of doing what would be needed to "go all-in" in
that very distant and logistically intimidating country.)
I note that one aspect of the way path forward that just about
nobody in the US discourse has yet started talking/writing about is the
idea, that I consider crucial, that it does not have to be, indeed
should not be, the US that dominates all decisionmaking and
international action regarding Afghanistan, going forward.
Members of the US commentatoriat are so US-centric! It still
boggles my mind. I suppose that right now, this is still part of the
legacy of the 1990s, when the US was the sole and uncontested
Uber-power in the world...
Anyway, that caveat notwithstanding, Frank Rich had a fascinating piece
in last Sunday's NYT in which he noted a new aspect of the strong relevance
the Vietnam precedent has for the decisions Obama currently faces over
Afghanistan.
Rich noted that George Stephanopoulos recently blogged that the latest "must-read book" for members of Obama's "war team" is Lessons in Disaster,
a book published last year about a guy called McGeorge Bundy and "the
path to war in Vietnam." Bundy was John Kennedy's national security
adviser.
Underscoring the book's relevance, Rich notes that when it came out
last year, no less a person than Richard Holbrooke, now Obama's chief
emissary for Afghanistan and Pakistan, reviewed it (in late November)
in the NYT.
Holbrooke's review
is well worth reading. He gives some helpful info about the background
to the writing of the book. He also refers to a much earlier essay he
himself had written about Bundy that he had titled, ""The Smartest Man
in the Room Is Not Always Right", noting that, having known Bundy a
little bit, he had had him in mind when he wrote it.
Holbrooke concluded the review with this:
- Bundy never believed in negotiations with the Vietcong or the
North Vietnamese. This, coupled with his enduring faith in the value of
military force in almost any terrain or circumstance, were his greatest
errors. They contributed to a tragic failure. With the nation now about
to inaugurate a new president committed to withdraw combat troops from
Iraq and succeed in Afghanistan, the lessons of Vietnam are still
relevant.
These two little insights into the mind of Richard Holbrooke belie
an awareness of the limitations of being "the smartest man" and of the
value of military force that I, for one, find a little reassuring.
Much of the current analogizing between the US in Vietnam and the
US in Afghanistan focuses on the decisions Kennedy faced in 1961. Other
commentaors have focused on decisions faced by his successor, Lyndon
Johnson, in 1964.
Last week, I had a couple of good conversations with Dr Jeffrey Record,
a very thoughtful guy who teaches at the US Air War College in
Montgomery, Alabama, who has written a lot of good studies of the big
mistakes the Bush administration made in Iraq.
Record has also studied the US performance in Vietnam very closely.
As we talked last week, he explored the 1964-2009 analogy a bit. He
noted that in 1964, Johnson faced much the same kind of "big" decision
Obama now faces-- whether to increase the US force commitment
substantially, or find a way to ramp it down...
And like Obama today, Record said, Johnson was concerned both about
trying to win some serious, big-picture reforms in domestic social
policy and about the possibility of a political backlash inside the US
if he should be seen as "backing down" from the confrontation in
Vietnam.
In 1964, Johnson made the fateful decision to escalate. Rather than
investing his domestic political capital in defending a decision to
de-escalate in Vietnam, he invested it in pushing through a number of
important "Great Society" social reforms at home, instead.
Later, the Vietnam part of that decision would come back to haunt him badly...
On balance, then, it seems good that Obama and his people are all
reading what sounds to be an excellent study of the decisionmaking of
those earlier years.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
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 |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Helena Cobban
Helena Cobban is a writer and researcher on global affairs. She is a Contributing Editor of Boston Review, and writes weekly news analysis on Middle East affairs for Inter-Press service. Her blog can be enjoyed at Just World News.
There's a rapidly growing discussion here in the US about "what to
do in Afghanistan." Some of it is thoughtful, well-informed, and
serious. Like this piece by Rajiv Chandrasekaran in today's WaPo, which argues that the two best options look to be "Go all-in, or fold."
(Actually, that's only one choice, since the US citizenry andbudget
are quite incapable of doing what would be needed to "go all-in" in
that very distant and logistically intimidating country.)
I note that one aspect of the way path forward that just about
nobody in the US discourse has yet started talking/writing about is the
idea, that I consider crucial, that it does not have to be, indeed
should not be, the US that dominates all decisionmaking and
international action regarding Afghanistan, going forward.
Members of the US commentatoriat are so US-centric! It still
boggles my mind. I suppose that right now, this is still part of the
legacy of the 1990s, when the US was the sole and uncontested
Uber-power in the world...
Anyway, that caveat notwithstanding, Frank Rich had a fascinating piece
in last Sunday's NYT in which he noted a new aspect of the strong relevance
the Vietnam precedent has for the decisions Obama currently faces over
Afghanistan.
Rich noted that George Stephanopoulos recently blogged that the latest "must-read book" for members of Obama's "war team" is Lessons in Disaster,
a book published last year about a guy called McGeorge Bundy and "the
path to war in Vietnam." Bundy was John Kennedy's national security
adviser.
Underscoring the book's relevance, Rich notes that when it came out
last year, no less a person than Richard Holbrooke, now Obama's chief
emissary for Afghanistan and Pakistan, reviewed it (in late November)
in the NYT.
Holbrooke's review
is well worth reading. He gives some helpful info about the background
to the writing of the book. He also refers to a much earlier essay he
himself had written about Bundy that he had titled, ""The Smartest Man
in the Room Is Not Always Right", noting that, having known Bundy a
little bit, he had had him in mind when he wrote it.
Holbrooke concluded the review with this:
- Bundy never believed in negotiations with the Vietcong or the
North Vietnamese. This, coupled with his enduring faith in the value of
military force in almost any terrain or circumstance, were his greatest
errors. They contributed to a tragic failure. With the nation now about
to inaugurate a new president committed to withdraw combat troops from
Iraq and succeed in Afghanistan, the lessons of Vietnam are still
relevant.
These two little insights into the mind of Richard Holbrooke belie
an awareness of the limitations of being "the smartest man" and of the
value of military force that I, for one, find a little reassuring.
Much of the current analogizing between the US in Vietnam and the
US in Afghanistan focuses on the decisions Kennedy faced in 1961. Other
commentaors have focused on decisions faced by his successor, Lyndon
Johnson, in 1964.
Last week, I had a couple of good conversations with Dr Jeffrey Record,
a very thoughtful guy who teaches at the US Air War College in
Montgomery, Alabama, who has written a lot of good studies of the big
mistakes the Bush administration made in Iraq.
Record has also studied the US performance in Vietnam very closely.
As we talked last week, he explored the 1964-2009 analogy a bit. He
noted that in 1964, Johnson faced much the same kind of "big" decision
Obama now faces-- whether to increase the US force commitment
substantially, or find a way to ramp it down...
And like Obama today, Record said, Johnson was concerned both about
trying to win some serious, big-picture reforms in domestic social
policy and about the possibility of a political backlash inside the US
if he should be seen as "backing down" from the confrontation in
Vietnam.
In 1964, Johnson made the fateful decision to escalate. Rather than
investing his domestic political capital in defending a decision to
de-escalate in Vietnam, he invested it in pushing through a number of
important "Great Society" social reforms at home, instead.
Later, the Vietnam part of that decision would come back to haunt him badly...
On balance, then, it seems good that Obama and his people are all
reading what sounds to be an excellent study of the decisionmaking of
those earlier years.
Helena Cobban
Helena Cobban is a writer and researcher on global affairs. She is a Contributing Editor of Boston Review, and writes weekly news analysis on Middle East affairs for Inter-Press service. Her blog can be enjoyed at Just World News.
There's a rapidly growing discussion here in the US about "what to
do in Afghanistan." Some of it is thoughtful, well-informed, and
serious. Like this piece by Rajiv Chandrasekaran in today's WaPo, which argues that the two best options look to be "Go all-in, or fold."
(Actually, that's only one choice, since the US citizenry andbudget
are quite incapable of doing what would be needed to "go all-in" in
that very distant and logistically intimidating country.)
I note that one aspect of the way path forward that just about
nobody in the US discourse has yet started talking/writing about is the
idea, that I consider crucial, that it does not have to be, indeed
should not be, the US that dominates all decisionmaking and
international action regarding Afghanistan, going forward.
Members of the US commentatoriat are so US-centric! It still
boggles my mind. I suppose that right now, this is still part of the
legacy of the 1990s, when the US was the sole and uncontested
Uber-power in the world...
Anyway, that caveat notwithstanding, Frank Rich had a fascinating piece
in last Sunday's NYT in which he noted a new aspect of the strong relevance
the Vietnam precedent has for the decisions Obama currently faces over
Afghanistan.
Rich noted that George Stephanopoulos recently blogged that the latest "must-read book" for members of Obama's "war team" is Lessons in Disaster,
a book published last year about a guy called McGeorge Bundy and "the
path to war in Vietnam." Bundy was John Kennedy's national security
adviser.
Underscoring the book's relevance, Rich notes that when it came out
last year, no less a person than Richard Holbrooke, now Obama's chief
emissary for Afghanistan and Pakistan, reviewed it (in late November)
in the NYT.
Holbrooke's review
is well worth reading. He gives some helpful info about the background
to the writing of the book. He also refers to a much earlier essay he
himself had written about Bundy that he had titled, ""The Smartest Man
in the Room Is Not Always Right", noting that, having known Bundy a
little bit, he had had him in mind when he wrote it.
Holbrooke concluded the review with this:
- Bundy never believed in negotiations with the Vietcong or the
North Vietnamese. This, coupled with his enduring faith in the value of
military force in almost any terrain or circumstance, were his greatest
errors. They contributed to a tragic failure. With the nation now about
to inaugurate a new president committed to withdraw combat troops from
Iraq and succeed in Afghanistan, the lessons of Vietnam are still
relevant.
These two little insights into the mind of Richard Holbrooke belie
an awareness of the limitations of being "the smartest man" and of the
value of military force that I, for one, find a little reassuring.
Much of the current analogizing between the US in Vietnam and the
US in Afghanistan focuses on the decisions Kennedy faced in 1961. Other
commentaors have focused on decisions faced by his successor, Lyndon
Johnson, in 1964.
Last week, I had a couple of good conversations with Dr Jeffrey Record,
a very thoughtful guy who teaches at the US Air War College in
Montgomery, Alabama, who has written a lot of good studies of the big
mistakes the Bush administration made in Iraq.
Record has also studied the US performance in Vietnam very closely.
As we talked last week, he explored the 1964-2009 analogy a bit. He
noted that in 1964, Johnson faced much the same kind of "big" decision
Obama now faces-- whether to increase the US force commitment
substantially, or find a way to ramp it down...
And like Obama today, Record said, Johnson was concerned both about
trying to win some serious, big-picture reforms in domestic social
policy and about the possibility of a political backlash inside the US
if he should be seen as "backing down" from the confrontation in
Vietnam.
In 1964, Johnson made the fateful decision to escalate. Rather than
investing his domestic political capital in defending a decision to
de-escalate in Vietnam, he invested it in pushing through a number of
important "Great Society" social reforms at home, instead.
Later, the Vietnam part of that decision would come back to haunt him badly...
On balance, then, it seems good that Obama and his people are all
reading what sounds to be an excellent study of the decisionmaking of
those earlier years.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.