Obama: a more eloguent, more acceptable Bush:
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.
Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
There wasn’t one Afghan amongst the September 11 hijackers (but plenty of Saudi Arabians, plus some Egyptians and Lebanese), nor amongst the planners 9the chief of which was Kuwaiti). But you can bomb nice allied countries like Kuwait, Egypt or Saudi Arabia so poor Afghanistan was duly elected as America’s collective stress ball/punching bag; blowing up a few goatherds and wedding parties would make the country feel better about itself. A quick victory and then on to Iraq. But as per usual the Afghans didn’t take kindly to foreign “liberators” — trading in Taliban asshats hassling you about the length of your beard for foreigners just killing you at a checkpoint for stopping your car too slowly isn’t as great a bargain as you might think it is — and took up arms against them. So now Obama is stuck with a war that despite his protestations is eerily reminiscent of Vietnam (and an earlier generation of US politicians didn’t hesitate to call it that when it was the Russians who were bogged down there) and his coalition of the willing –to coin a phrase– doesn’t seem too keen to me to get involved more.
And why would they? At this point the only reason why “winning the war in Afghanistan” is so important because the US’ collective ego is so massively tangled up in it, just like it is in Iraq and was in Vietnam. America cannot lose another war so needs to bring things to a convenient stopping point and then get the hell out of Afghanistan (modulo some residual force remaining behind for a couple of decades or so, as is the plan in Iraq). Who would want to get more involved in that (apart from the Brits and the Dutch obviously, both striving to be teacher’s pet)?
You might argue Obama had this war forced on him by the decisions of the previous administration. Perhaps, but even before he was elected he had already show himself to be in favour of a increased effort in Afghanistan. The plan was always to de-emphasise Iraq and intensify the war on Afghanistan. And meanwhile demands have already been made for “strong action” against Iran…
Obama is another LBJ, a warmonger at heart only without the corresponding liberal domestic programmes.