IsAfganistan Obama's Vietnam.

I am old enough to remember Vietnam quite well. I remember that we made our goal to support a corrupt regime and to keep the battle contained in very limited geographical boundaries. I remember that battlefield tactics were determined in the Oval Office rather or the Pentagon, rather than on the battle field. I am also old enough to remember the botched rescue attempt of our hostages in Iran, while President Carter ran the operation from the Oval Office. Now some are asking if Afghanistan is Obama's Vietnam, whether it is a lost cause.I submit that the reason Vietnam was lost was because of an unsuccessful strategy that is typical of the way Post-World War II democratic administrations prosecution wars. If Afghanistan fails it will be because the President's strategy is flawed.

Beginning with Harry democratic Truman Presidents have fought wars for political expedience and then sought what they have called "exit strategies," which is euphemism for easiest way to end. When Harry Truman sent troops to Korea he was unwilling to pursue the war into China, as a result we ended in a literal half-victory. A divided peninsula where democracy and capitalism have produce a free, prosperous peace loving, people in the south, and a tyrannized, starving people to the North who are threat to all of our lives. It is by the way the socialistic nation to the North that threatens the free world a generation later. Now we have a war that has never been concluded and peace that has never been secured. All because we were unwilling to pay the price for victory.

Next was the Kennedy-Johnson debacle called Vietnam. There are legitimate question about how President Kennedy would have prosecuted the had he lived. One thing is certain like our relations with Cuba, he would have run the war from the Oval office, which is what created Johnson's failure. In Vietnam policy and strategy was dictated from the White House and the Pentagon. It resulted in convoluted understanding of war. First, victory was defined by the casualty count rather than by objectives obtained. Every night on TV we were given the death toll for our side, the death toll for the other side. The side with the most men standing was reported to be the winner. In War death tolls and casualties are terrible and should be considered in military planning. Later when the Tet Offensive came although our military objectives were fully acheived the media reported it as defeat because of the death count. What if after Iowa Jima we had turned the island back over the Japanese because our death toll was so much higher. This not to ignore the death toll. Death tolls are terrible. And certainly for the immediate family of the dead it is no consolation that the soldiers operation was a success. Military planner should not be careless with human life. But toconfuse death toll with victory, you misunderstand war. Secondly, running the war from oval office confused military victory with political victory. One of the problems we had in Vietnman was that the South Vietnamese government may have been as corrupt as the North's, so the average South Vietnamese citizen saw themselves as no better off with than they would have been with the communist. So Johnson tried to engineer government change. What we should have done was made it clear that victory came with the appointment of a new government that we approved of. Third, running the war from Washington causes failure in the field. The White House and Congress adopted a defensive strategy. Creating a demilitarized zone beyond which we could not fight. Opposing the bombing of Saig0n and pursuing our enemiens into Laos and Cambodia. (When President Nixon did these things they resulted in military success, but Congress went crazy because all they wanted was an "exit strategy." ) After Congress cut off funding we did get an exit strategy, which is a euphemism for withdrawl

The next time we saw a military operation fail was President Carter's attempted rescue of Iranian hostages. Carter's Pentagon experts planned the operation, despite reservation from his joint cheifs. Carter gave the orders via radio from the White House and it was a disaster. Today we remain at enmity with Iran and they threaten the entire region.

Notice the stark contrast of the Way Republican's prosecute Wars. Regan called the military to specific military operation to liberate students being held hostage by a despot in Grenada. He got out of the way and let his admirals and general fight the War. The students were rescued. George H. W. Bush pursued the apprehension of Manuel Noreiga and the liberation of Panama from drug lords. He gave the orders, let his military acheive there purpose.

Due to failure to learn the lesson of history Barak Obama's Afghanistan strategy will fail. I never quite understood why Barak Obama felt we need to "change strategy" in the war on Terror. Although we acknowledge that Bush's standing on an aircraft carrier declaring "mission accomplished" was way premature, and there was a period that were bogged down. Saddam was overthrown the regeim has been change. However fragile, there is a democracy in Iraq. Our strategy in Afghanistan was working the Taliban had left, a new government was in place. The war is being lost now because the strategy has change.

He took his eye off the ball. Denying a war on terror even exist, he made about capturing Osama Ben Laden. Obama has now even said, some limited involvement of the Taliban is acceptable. He runs the war from the White House and seldom consults his generals. It will not be long before we are told, the Taliban cannot be defeated the task his is too hard. We need an "exit strategy," which is a euphemism for surrender. We will leave with our foes in place. Blood will have been spilled nothing will have been accomplished. The fact is President Bush understood that Afghanistan was one small theatre in the war on terror. The threats from Iran and Pakistan had to be dealt with. To pull back from a broader war on terror would result in the Taliban regaining control, a resurgence of Al Queda, and a destablized middle east.

There is only one exit strategy that will work in Afghanistan: victory. If we pursue victory the Afghan people will help us as they Iraquis did. What we have working for us that the Russians did not, is that the United States has a history as liberators rather than as conquerors. We spill our blood for other people's freedoms, then we let them go. The democracies, in Asian and Eastern Europe are testimonies to this. All the Afghan people have to do is look to their south to see that we are not an imperialist people. The Russians failed because they came as conguorers. The United States will only succeed if our military objective is liberation and our success is measured by victory.

Do you remeber the picture of the women with the purple fingers after the early victories in Afghanistan? Do you remember the shocking numbers of people who went to polls? It is clear the people of Afghanistan want what all people want -- liberty and peace. However, it is not clear whether this President is willing to pay the cost for either. He can make a great speech though.