Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President-by Ray McGovern

[kpete]

Published on Saturday, March 28, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President

by Ray McGovern

....................

Obama and Kennedy

Can't say I actually KNEW Jack Kennedy, but it was he who got so many of us down here to Washington to explore what we might do for our country. Kennedy resisted the kind of pressures to which President Obama has now succumbed. (There are even some, like Jim Douglass in his book "JFK and the Unspeakable," who conclude that this is what got President Kennedy killed.)

Mr. Obama, you need to find some advisers who are not still wet behind the ears and who are not brown noses-preferably some who have lived Vietnam and Iraq and have an established record of responsible, fact-based analysis. You would also do well to read Douglass' book, and to page through the "Pentagon Papers," instead of trying to emulate the Lincoln portrayed in "Team of Rivals." I, too, am a big fan of Doris Kearns Goodwin, but Daniel Ellsberg is an author far more relevant and nourishing for this point in time. Read his "Secrets," and recognize the signs of the times.

There is still time to put the brakes on this disastrous policy. One key lesson of Vietnam is that an army trained and supplied by foreign occupiers can almost always be readily outmatched and out-waited in a guerilla war, no matter how many billions of dollars are pumped in.

Professor Martin van Creveld of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the only non-American military historian on the U.S. Army's list of required reading for officers, has accused former president George W. Bush of "launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them."

Please do not feel you have to compete with your predecessor for such laurels.

more at:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/28-5

[omega minimo]

1. kpete? Ray McGovern? DOUBLE KK/RR

:kick: :kick:

[cliffordu]

2. K&R

[immoderate]

3. KnR

--imm

[tekisui]

4. knr!~ A 21,000 troop surge. It's Obama's War now.

[bvar22]

21. Make that Obama's Quagmire now.

No Military Objective + No Exit Strategy = Another Quagmire

[Mari333]

5. k n r

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. But..but...like Nixon he "has a plan". K&R

[MadHound]

7. Nice to see somebody learned their lessons from Vietnam,

Hopefully Obama will learn them, and quickly.

[Matariki]

8. The first paragarph is chilling -

"I was wrong. I had been saying that it would be naïve to take too seriously presidential candidate Barack Obama's rhetoric regarding the need to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I kept thinking to myself that when he got briefed on the history of Afghanistan and the oft proven ability of Afghan "militants" to drive out foreign invaders-from Alexander the Great, to the Persians, the Mongolians, Indians, British, Russians-he would be sure to understand why they call mountainous Afghanistan the "graveyard of empires."

[leftchick]

9. Liquid war: Welcome to Pipelineistan

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KC26Ag01.html


Page 1 of 2
Liquid war: Welcome to Pipelineistan
By Pepe Escobar

What happens on the immense battlefield for the control of Eurasia will provide the ultimate plot line in the tumultuous rush towards a new, polycentric world order, also known as the New Great Game.

Our good ol' friend the nonsensical "global war on terror", which the Pentagon has slyly rebranded "the Long War", sports a far more important, if half-hidden, twin - a global energy war. I like to think of it as the Liquid War, because its bloodstream is the pipelines that crisscross the potential imperial battlefields of the planet. Put another way, if its crucial embattled frontier these days is the Caspian Basin, the whole of Eurasia is its chessboard. Think of it, geographically, as Pipelineistan.

All geopolitical junkies need a fix. Since the second half of the 1990s, I've been hooked on pipelines. I've crossed the Caspian in an Azeri cargo ship just to follow the $4 billion Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, better known in this chess game by its acronym, BTC, through the Caucasus. (Oh, by the way, the map of Pipelineistan is chicken-scratched with acronyms, so get used to them!)

I've also trekked various of the overlapping modern Silk Roads, or perhaps Silk Pipelines, of possible future energy flows from Shanghai to Istanbul, annotating my own do-it-yourself routes for LNG (liquefied natural gas). I used to avidly follow the adventures of that once-but-not-future Sun-King of Central Asia, the now deceased Turkmenbashi or "leader of the Turkmen", Saparmurat Niyazov, head of the immensely gas-rich Republic of Turkmenistan, as if he were a Conradian hero.

[Fumesucker]

10. "launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC

sent his legions into Germany and lost them"

:rofl:

I have to laugh or else I'll effin' scream.

[Thothmes]

30. No more foolish than President Johnsons

Launching of the VietNam war.

[Fumesucker]

49. Johnson escalated VietNam..

But he didn't start it..

And the Vietnamese were for the most part not religious fanatics with a thousand plus year history of blood feuds.

[Thothmes]

52. He turned it into a real war

When took office, there were 16,000 American advisors in Vietnam. While we were loosing men in combat, the numbers were very low. By the end of 1965, American strength was up close to a quarter of a million men. We became the major combatant force against the NVA and VC. Casualties shot up to dozens a week. It is of little consequence to the 35,000 dead and 200,000 wounded Americans who "started the war" They were killed or wounded because of his actions alone.

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. Thank you for yet another relevant post. I look forward to them always.

[G_j]

12. K&R

[mix]

13. it will be interesting in the coming months here @ DU

The Afghan-Pakistani Taliban are gearing up for a Spring/Summer offensive...there will be high American casualties and American citizens will be confronted with the truth of the war: it is one of national liberation against us.

How will Obama supporters react? It is clear that this issue divides us. I voted for Obama, but was never comfortable with his Afghanistan policies and reject more imperialism. I also reject the argument that "Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do." Why should that keep us quiet about bad policies? Or keep us from hoping that maybe if we are loud enough in our protests, the administration might see the folly of its ways in Central Asia?

If you support Obama's Afghanistan policy wholeheartedly, based on the belief that "he's doing exactly what he said he'd do," then you must also accept responsibility for the effects of empire, which will mean more poverty, violence, and repression, not to mention the wasting of American lives and treasure.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. knr

If you support Obama's Afghanistan policy wholeheartedly, based on the belief that "he's doing exactly what he said he'd do," then you must also accept responsibility for the effects of empire, which will mean more poverty, violence, and repression, not to mention the wasting of American lives and treasure. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[jwirr]

43. And you forgot the final lasting effect of empire - collapse of empire

due to overstretch and lack of resources. Anyone in doubt needs to read two books: The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires by Paul Kennedy and The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson. They outline perfectly where we are headed.

[QC]

31. How will they react?

Here's my guess: cheerleading and bullying, same as always.

[jody]

55. Those who "support Obama's Afghanistan policy wholeheartedly" should volunteer to fight Obama's war.

[omega minimo]

14. Obama determined to "Look Forward, Not Back"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5345808

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

16. Lol

:thumbsup:

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. Perfect!

:evilgrin:

[mix]

19. +1

excellent

[glitch]

20. Poutrage poutrage boo hoo hoo!

Sorry.

[geek tragedy]

22. Lots of people who want him to fail at DU too, apparently.

Rush has his doppelgangers.

[ima_sinnic]

35. add "you want him to fail" to the bag of asinine remarks aimed at "Obama haters"

sheesh. are you getting your posts off the back of cereal boxes? or do you occasionally think before you post?

how is pointing out bad policy--no, insane policy--"wanting" him to fail?

[geek tragedy]

39. People who trash him as a wall street sellout by definition

want him to fail.

[acmavm]

41. Do you go under the name Miss Cleo in your professional life?

[geek tragedy]

42. If you think he's a servant of wall street, how could you not

want him to fail?

[acmavm]

45. Oh shit, another waste of time but hell, I do a lot of that here anymore anyway.

It's not a matter or WANTING HIM TO FAIL. It is a matter of trying to show him that we do not accept the course he's put us on and that we need to do something new. Like not rewarding Wall Street for bleeding this country and several others dry by giving them what money we have left.

It's not a matter of wanting him to fail. It is a matter of him living up to the promises of his campaign. Did he lie when he said he would halt outsourcing? Or is he lying when he says we won't get those jobs back and they are low paying jobs that we don't need anyway?

<snip>

US doesn’t need outsourced jobs: Obama
Edited on Fri Mar-27-09 08:21 PM by OhioChick
27 Mar, 2009, 0930 hrs IST,IANS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=436641
<snip>

______________

Does he really believe that by upping the number of troops in Afganistan he is going to win the war on terra? Is that his war now? The one where al Quaeda is the main boogey man? Well, al Quaeda is NOT IN AFGANISTAN, THEY ARE ALL OVER THE MIDDLE EAST. He has made this war his now, and by extension it belongs to all democrats. I really really resent this. This 'war' in unwinnable and it doesn't even have a clear cut enemy. Just the same one we were fighting when the last adminstration was in office. Those pesky terraists, whoever and wherever and whatever the hell they are.

Now, I have something better to do than argue inanities with you but I want to ask first, did you never learn not to make false accusations? Or were you ever cautioned to think before you speak (or in this case type)?

[acmavm]

46. K&R

[ima_sinnic]

48. waste of time to argue with teh stupid

some people's logic skills are seriously lacking. They should be pitied, I suppose, as handicapped and not dealing from a full deck.

[bvar22]

23. Nailed It!

:toast:

[girl gone mad]

25. excellent..

[leftstreet]

27. omg

that graphic is pretty funny

[LWolf]

47. Best graphic I've seen in months.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Yukari Yakumo]

24. And the alternative is...? {nt}

[bottomtheweaver]

26. Declare victory and skedaddle.

Or just leave. Who would know the difference?

[bertman]

28. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't the old "warrior worship" syndrome in action. Men who

have not been in a war or in the military often seem to feel that they must glorify the military in order to show that they too can be tough. In this case, I think Obama is mostly in favor of the American empire meme and supports it because he thinks we might be able to "change" Afghanistan. But he could be trying to show he's not a wimp. Sad as that sounds.

On edit: by the way, thanks kpete and leftchick for the links.

We Americans are so sheltered and innocent about war that we have no idea the toll and the horror of it. You can watch Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan and get a feel for it but you can never experience the sheer brutality of war that is experienced by those upon whom it is wreaked. And now we don't even get to see the video of the dismembered civilians, the children burned alive, the families crushed and torn apart in their own homes like we did during Vietnam.

The wars we perpetrate on others are now being sanitized and digitized and propagandized so that, for most Americans, they are merely events that are taking place somewhere else. Even when our own veterans are being torn apart and are killing themselves by the thousands we are shielded from it by the collaboration of the media with the MIC.

[Mari333]

32. oh yes.

the chest beating, adolescent, arm pumping , dick slapping, juvenile behaviour of warmongers who advocate wars but are unwilling to participate in them anywhere but from the safe confines of their armchairs in their own homes. The same people who refuse to also let their own kids be involved in them. chickenhawks. they ran rampant during the bush yrs, and they are still all over the place.
even amongst dems. people who have NO clue as to what it means to see a 2 yr old child lying in a ditch with their arms blown off.
they live in some kind of fantasyland where they play safe video games blowing people up.
I think, if I can detest any group, this is the one I detest more then any of them.
The Obama campaign is making a huge mistake by jumping into the den of these kinds of scum. huge mistake if they are allying with chickenhawks.

[swilton]

36. The word for us veterans is 'chicken hawk'

You can count Evan Bayh and his ilk in the DLC among that elite club.

War is glamorized in this country through our culture - it's the movies, the toys, the video games, the list goes on. And this message is reinforced in our education system.

Although this is another subject, I think Obama's move to reform our education system emphasizes the wrong message - it's not the length of the school day that should be modified, it is the content. Rather than glorifyiing the hard sciences, we need to relook at how we teach the humanities. We should be teaching history not just through the memorization of the 'facts' but through living the experiences of Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans and the imperialism within our own countries. If we truly paid reparations to the minorities that we have expended in the interest of the American Empire, (ala Germany paying reparations to Israel) we would be walking on the earth with a lighter footprint and a humbler demeanor. :think: :rant:

[BlooInBloo]

37. Um, everybody uses the term "chickenhawk". Vets don't own it.

[empyreanisles]

53. Don't like the Afg. decision, but I'm willing to see if a new, focused strategy changes things.

This isn't just a "throw more troops at it" kind of solution. I don't even think it's an escalation. It's more of a course correction.

P.S. -
Don't hate on the President. He does not make decisions like this lightly.

[bertman]

56. I certainly do not hate the President, but I don't see how you can say this is not an

escalation. 17,000 more troops now with that amount scheduled for deployment in the not-too-distant future. That's a lot of non-escalation.

I don't know how old you are empyranisles, but back in the day I remember how American troops were being sent to Vietnam to help with pacification programs. Some actually did do great things for the local population but, after all was said and done they were just American military types in a foreign country and the vast majority of our troops were there to pacify the VC and NVA to death.

I'm too experienced to naively believe that any additional military action on our part in Afghanistan is just going to prolong the agony, serve as a recruitment tool for extremist anti-American groups, and waste hundreds of billions more of our dollars that could be used for other worthwhile causes such as bailing out impoverished Wall Street execs.

[Brother Buzz]

29. Robert McNamara is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps he is the key

I would be happy if the old man would whisper in Obama's ear.

[SylviaD]

33. Why is Obama making this mistake?

I'm confused and upset. More war??? This is what I voted for?

[earth mom]

34. K & R!

:kick:

[tomm2thumbs]

38. K&R Thanks for posting

[Overseas]

40. K&R !!

It really was chilling to hear about our plans to send more troops to do TRAINING, as though it were a new approach. Even though I was a child at the time, there was a lot of rather intense warfare after the "trainers" were sent to Vietnam.

If we still had non-privatized engineering and infrastructure services as part of our military, and our President was sending them in to help rebuild and extend infrastructure, I'd feel better. But after Dick Cheney's campaign to privatize military services through no-bid contracts to his preferred providers, our reputation for development has been severely tarnished. Privatized war profiteering really botched "Iraqi reconstruction," so we don't have an example to reassure the Afghani people that we would be doing something positive.

If we had an excellent alternative-energy network building team that could install utility systems that helped the Afghan people further develop their country in sustainable ways, that would be different. But the Cheney privatization has set our military back a couple of decades.

And quite often, the very presence of foreign troops on a country's soil is enough to fuel guerrilla warfare. Even if those troops have a benevolent purpose like doing infrastructure building, they can still become targets and recruiting tools.

[AzDar]

44. K & R

:kick:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

50. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[anaxarchos]

51. Augustus was being "non-partisan"

Sextus Quinctilius Varus, was a senator who opposed both Julius and Augustus Caesar and committed suicide after the Battle of Philippi. Despite this, his son, Publius Quinctilius Varus, was made Governor of Germania in 7 AD. In 9 AD, the younger Varus marched 3 Legions (20,000 men) into the Teutoburg Forest and was promptly wiped out to a man by the Germans under Arminius, his nominal "subjects". So complete was the victory, that the Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Legions never again appeared in the rolls of the Roman Army.

According to Suetonius and Gibbon, Augustus never got over the defeat. On hearing the news, he tore his clothing and refused to cut his hair. To his death, he was often found wandering the palace muttering, "Quintili Vare, legiones redde" - "Quinctilius Varus, give me back my Legions."

[jody]

54. "Operation Incoherence" is a worthy supplement to McGovern's article

Operation Incoherence

Fred Kaplan, the military analyst at Slate.com, sees the plan as an attempt to meld two probably incompatible approaches – counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. A counterterrorist approach, if I understand his description accurately, involves a fairly aggressive attempt to seek and destroy terrorist bands so that their capacity for creating disruption is neutralized.

A counterinsurgency approach, on the other hand, is a longer-term strategy calculated to make ordinary people in a contested territory safer and therefore less likely to support insurgents. Thus there’s an emphasis on building roads, electricity production, and the like, as well as buttressing the capacity to govern while keeping the local population secure from attacks. This is a more time-consuming approach, likely to take perhaps 10 years in a country like Afghanistan, which has never had – and may not want – a central government with much real authority beyond the capital of Kabul.

These are obviously different approaches, requiring different strategies and tactics and different deployments of different resources. Instead of choosing one or the other, however, the Obama team decided to incorporate elements of both.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Perhaps most significant, President Obama’s ostensible plan seems to make no operational distinction between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Yet the evidence is that the Taliban is essentially a {Pashtun} movement indigenous to Afghanistan, which, as Robert Kaplan explained in his invaluable book, Soldiers of God, because of Afghanistan’s long-term relative isolation from the rest of the world, practices a different brand of Islam from many other countries, one largely concerned with personal faith and behavior than with some larger goal of reestablishing an international caliphate. It is unlikely to disappear from the Afghan landscape. Al-Qaeda, in contrast, has an internationalist approach and, our experience sadly shows, is oriented toward attacking perceived centers of infidelity like the United States and to some extent Western Europe.