Wed 2 Dec 2009
Obama’s Vietnam?
Posted by Canada / Pat Morin under Balkers
[16] Comments
The press had it leaked last week, but last night U.S. president Obama gave a speech in front of West Point military cadets, telling them that around 34,000 more of their type will be going to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Those cadets are all officer prospects and will not bear the brunt of hostile fire if I have that correct. But the point is he is sending more, on a claim of vital national interests.
And when he says that he is talking about the western world and NATO countries also. He said pressure is being applied to allies for more troops, even while Canada is backing out. I get and can pretty much agree with the argument, that it’s protection for the west to defeat or weaken gihad crazies. This is the invasion westerners first backed, before Bush crazies attacked Iraq. Letting the Taliban get back into power in Kabul or remain around Kandahar in force gives them more ability to train and operate their terror networks with a carte blanche. But there are several similar things to the U.S. war in Vietnam to be worried about:
- historically resistant to invaders
- corrupt and illegitimate government in power
- guerilla enemy on it’s home turf, able to attack and disappear
- strategy of limited engagement, supposed to hand off war later to government forces that are inept so far
- pretty much of a quagmire already
But Obama went out of his way also to point out differences to Vietnam. He pointed out it is a coalition war of 40 someodd nations. (He left out that most of those are in for a pittance only, of a few hundred soldiers maybe). He did make some sense about the lack of support of the Taliban by Afghanis, who are mostly terrified and oppressed by them. The North Vietnamese communist army was strongly supported by a lot of the Vietnamese people. They were looking for a fair deal after decades of poverty and exploitation by Western colonial powers.
This kind of dilemma is the reason most of us should be glad to never be in that job of POTUS. I would not pretend to know what course is right. Except I know this one feels different than the Iraq invasion. To me that one was no actual dilemma at all, but instead a manufactured attack by war mongers Bush and Cheney.
Hello Jeff. Iraq is where people in western countries really turned against U.S. military policies and Bush especially. Most westerners supported the Afghanistan war before that. Even a lot of moderate Islamics did.
Violent extremism with a Marxist base has been defeated in South America. But the violence in Afghanistan has nothing to do with sharing the wealth. It is about following an orthodox interpretation of the Koran. Infidels are given a choice of conversion or death. There is no middle ground. Keeping the proper distance from a violent extremist is a safe solution.
This man called Obama was elected to end this war, and not to prolong it. It seems that nothing has changed, and the old bush policies are still in force. I believe that people are beginning to wonder that the actors have been changed, but the story is still the same.
There have not been any concrete efforts to bring these people to a conference table, and work for a peaceful settlement, through open communications, and come to the root of this terrorism.
It gives me the impression that these wars are benefitting many financially speaking, while innocent lives are being lost each day.
The big question is: Do the natives want foreign forces to intervene in their domestic problems?
And if these wars are not internal domestic problems that should be settled by the natives themselves. Why does not the international community support fully, and I mean fully, these illegal wars that were bestowed upon the American people by the past administrations.
Is the United States the Savior of this planet, while the other nations but out.
Or maybe other nations are wiser not to intervene into other’s domestic problems,
and are waiting on the sidelines watching this spectacle, and probably making profits by selling some of their wares to the restless natives, supporting terrorism underhanded to see the destruction of America.
Like the fellow poster stated: That in Viet Nam 40 nations participated, but only with very small numbers of soldiers, just to make an appearance, as a white wash, while Americans fought all the war, at a great loss of human lives. And I mean human lives, because even the enemies were humans
I believe that it is time that governments work constructively, and not destructively for humanity. And surely this would be the lethal arm against world terrorism. Free healthcare world-wide, eradicate famine, and making sure that people have a roof over their heads, a full world intergration, creating employment where people could earn a decent living and not being subject to government hand-outs or living on charity. Because even the lowest of the animal species has a certain degree of pride.
Sammy from Sicily
Welcome back Sammy, and welcome to B/P melpol!
It was reported here yesterday that Karzai made his first official statement about the troop surge, with an obligatory approval but also calling for negotiations with the Taliban. I don’t see that he’s managed any of that thus far in his years in office however. Obama’s admin are reported to be offering concessions to those who will relinquish their Taliban allegiances. We shall see.
I agree with Pat’s observation that a big problem is the illegitimacy of the Karzai regime. Trying to prop up such a government was indeed a large
part of the mistake made by Kennedy & Johnson in Vietnam. They were so focused on a perceived threat to the free world in the form of communism spreading across Asia, that they didn’t pay an (essential) regard for what they were backing in terms of a corrupted Nguyen Van Thieu government (former South Vietnam).
If you don’t actually have popular support for your occupation & nation building, simply go home.
In the Afghanistan instance, neither side appears to have that support.
This is a moment for John Kerry. For the surge, but yet against it…
I’m a Clinton(s) backer as the B/P readership well knows. Yet I thought her appearance at the Karzai inauguration (read, anointment), was completely ill-conceived. She went with a message of pressure and requirements on the Karzai government, but the pictures just said to the world, “supporter”.
Her worst moment yet, in an already effective stint as U.S. Secretary of State. Hillary, Richard Holbrooke and Obama all put considerable effort in trying to get a legitimate election held in Afghanistan. One that would probably put Abdullah Abdullah in office, and then maybe you have some road paved to build the nation in democratic or quasi-democratic, non-Taliban form.
Not getting that and going ahead with it anyway – married to Karzai – is very precarious IMO.
In the broader sense it’s obvious that the 1-2 combination of Obama
and Hillary are exponentially better received, than the illegitimate and incompetent George W. Bush was – both by allies and non-allies. On Tuesday Obama rolls out a new Quick War strategy, by Friday Hillary
has 7000 troops tossed in by 25 nations. See this;
—–
At least 7,000 fresh NATO troops to bolster war
By ROBERT BURNS (AP) – 41 minutes ago
BRUSSELS — NATO allies will bolster the American troop surge in Afghanistan by sending at least 7,000 soldiers of their own, officials said Friday in pledges that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton described as crucial to turning the tide in the stalemated war.
The promised increase came as U.S. Marines and Afghan troops launched the first offensive since President Barack Obama announced a 30,000-troop American increase. The Marines and Afghan forces struck Taliban communications and supply lines Friday in an insurgent stronghold in southern Afghanistan.
In yet another war development, U.S. officials said the Obama administration may expand missile strikes on al-Qaida and the Taliban inside Pakistan and will focus on training Pakistan’s forces in a border area where militants have been aiding the Afghan insurgency.
The Marine Corps offensive was part of preparations for the arrival of the 30,000 U.S. reinforcements, Gen. David Petraeus told The Associated Press. The top general in charge of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars said the military has been working for months to extend what he called “the envelope of security” around key towns in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.
Hundreds of Marines were dropped by helicopter and MV-22 Osprey aircraft behind Taliban lines in the northern end of the Now Zad Valley of Helmand province, scene of heavy fighting last summer, according to Marine spokesman Maj. William Pelletier.
In Brussels, Clinton told allied foreign ministers that it was essential that contributions to the war effort be provided as quickly as possible. She thanked Italy for its announcement that it will send an additional 1,000 troops and Britain for its pledge of another 500, but she said nonmilitary assistance is equally important.
“The need for additional forces is urgent, but their presence will not be indefinite,” she told the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s highest political group.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark told reporters at the organization’s headquarters that still further NATO forces might be in the offing, suggesting there would be “more to come.”
Also, Adm. James Stavridis, the top NATO and U.S. commander in Europe, said in an Associated Press interview that he expects several thousand more non-U.S. troops might be added to the 7,000.
“What we are all underlining to potential troop contributors is that we are truly asking for emphasis in the training area,” Stavridis said.
The transformation of Afghanistan’s army and police is critical to fulfill Obama’s intention to begin pulling out American units 18 months from now.
According to a copy of Clinton’s prepared remarks to the closed-door NATO meeting, she told the ministers that “the pace, size and scope of the drawdown will be predicated on the situation on the ground.”
“If things are going well, a larger number of forces could be removed from more areas,” she said. “If not, the size and speed of the drawdown will be adjusted accordingly.”
No one was saying a quick pullout.
Said Fogh Rasmussen: “Transition (to Afghan control) does not mean exit.”
Afghanistan’s security forces have been hobbled by a lack of training and resources, but U.S. officials hope to bolster their ability by sending them out with American and allied troops into battle zones.
At least 150 Afghan troops joined about 1,000 Marines in Friday’s offensive in Helmand province, said a spokesman for the Afghan governor there, Daood Ahmadi. He said the bodies of four slain Taliban had been recovered and more than 300 mines and roadside bombs turned up by Friday evening.
The new offensive aims to cut off the Taliban communication routes through Helmand and disrupt their supply lines, especially those providing explosives for the numerous lethal roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices, that litter the area, known by Marines as “IED Alley.”
In Washington, there has been growing discussion of a need to expand the use of airborne missile-equipped drones in volatile regions of Pakistan, Afghanistan’s neighbor.
The CIA has already accelerated the pace of its drone attacks in Pakistan’s federally administered tribal areas this year.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Don’t repost on Balkingpoints…
Let us take into consideration that these two illegal wars, that were started by previous US
administrations which have been under the political influence of the military industrial complex
have not had the complete support of the American people as well as all freedom loving people
throughout this planet.
Many foreign countries that have participated by sending troops, have been arm-twisted by this
military industrial complex that has had control of the American political economy, as well as
the present world economy.
And those
countries that have sent their troops to support these illegal wars, have not had the full consensus
of their people. Because their soldiers have been sent in many cases by bully leaders that have abused
their political power of their country. In many cases to satisfy their personal political and economic holdings.
Or have been blackmailed in doing so. If we remember the case when France did not participated in Bush’s
Iraq, and there was immidiately placed an embargo on French wines, and the funny thing was that they
wanted to change the name of the “French fries” to “Freedom Fries” and so on with other countries that did not
wanted to participate.
Jumping into this illegal bandwagen that should fight the spreading of presumed terrorism is a way to
promote disharmony in this planet’s political climate, by the use of fear which helps to enfore terrorism, rather
then defuse it. Infact the treatment of the detainnies in Guantanamo, Abu Graib, and all those presumed hidden
terrorist jails, have contributed to the rise, and to promote more terrorism.
In which it has been greatly magnified by the mass-media to promote this terrorism scare, and to support these
illegal wars in which many international concepts have not been upheld to bring some of these human abuses to
the International Criminal Court, and apply the rule of our international laws that form our civilized societies to
guarantee each individual, and nation their freedom to choose their way of life without outside interference.
It has been clearly evidenced that the people of these countries that have been invaded by foreign troops
do not want them, And who knows! if they are the supporter of terrorists, and are double crossing those who are
there that want to liberate them. It seems that in reality they do not want to be liberated, and support
terrorists groups to have the invaders leave their country.
Sammy from Sicily
The pacification of Afghanistan by soldiers seen as Infidels and Kafirs is possible. The bad guys who make up 10% of the population have to be disarmed. This will leave the good guys with all the guns. It is strange that the good guys cannot defend themselves even if they outnumber the bad guys by 9 to 1.
The Bush administration hyped up the terrorist threat like they were just around every corner in America and Canada. Each terrible attack they have done though, makes them real all over again. The way they have been striking innocents in Pakistan recently has been shocking.
There were less countries involved in the Iraq invasion and I too think most were likely pressured. They all ended up leaving it however even the UK. The Afghanistan was supported by westerners at first. Then it dragged on and America sent nearly all it’s troops to Iraq and let the Taliban reorganize. Now many seem to just want it done and over with. A lot of leaders are on the hook now if Obama’s plan doesn’t work out.
Rape in Afghanistan must be stopped. Millions of women are forced to have sex with violent extremists. Sexual predators must be painfully castrated. The job of arresting and castrating those that forcefully penetrate a women’s private parts is dangerous, many violent extremists are heavily armed. A rape hotline has to be established where SWAT teams will rescue ladies in distress. A women’s right to choose her sexual partner has to be rigidly enforced.
Corruption and greed must be ended in Afghanistan. New friends in the battle against violent extremism cannot be won unless the Karzai led government shares some of its wealth with dissidents. It is now impossible to purchase the support of every Afghan, unless an estimated 500 billion yearly is donated by democratic nations. Peace in Afghanistan comes at a high price, but saving lives is worth its costs.
It would cost much less to open up immigration for the Afgani to settle in the USA. So that in this way they could produce some of the tax money that the US sends to their country to support their corrupted government.
Maybe in this way these Afghani immigrants could communicate to their fellow countrymen, that they must earn their money, and not live by blackmailing others to live an easy live.
Sammy from Sicily
Sammy, why not let Afghan’s into Sicily!! Let you deal with the terrorists that take advantage of your heart!!!
You know I love when people suggest others do the work and they sit back!!!
IN fact with the exception of the UK, Europe overall has been pretty useless in Afghan too afraid to go into the difficult spots!! I know the Dutch have done some great work, but, where are the rest of you guys??? I know, sunning on the beach while others give their lives!
We in Sicily during the centuries have been invaded by various groups of people, and somehow we have still survived. So I believe that dealing with terrorists would not be a difficult problem, after all.
This terrorist element is to impose fear upon others, and at the same time to benefit those who thrive with this powerful arm, that is a ticket to promote their evil for financial gains.
Many drastic changes are being made in our daily lives to protect us from terroism, or possible terrorist attacks, which in many cases has and is destroying many world economies, in adopting these very costly changes to safeguard against terrorism. But benefitting some industries in the tecnological sector that develop anti-terrorist apparatus.
The comical aspect is: That when the terrorism scare is at a low ebb. Out comes that caveman (Bin Ladin) with some film that tries to impose more fear to keep this terrorist ballgame going.
Many countries that have wise leaders, have not joined this terrorism ballgame that is being fueled by financial speculators, and war related industries that are benefitting financially, and at the sametime, destroying the American economy.
This clearly indicates the incomptence of those administrators that promoted these useless wars upon the American people.
As I have read: Many countries were arm-twisted to join these useless wars, that were promoted by the previous administration upon the American people. But the countries that participated, in most cases did not have the full support of their people, and for this reason almost all have withdrawn their troops. Because of political, and moral pressure, in realizing that this is an unjust, and needless war, that is being waged to benefit, war related industries, oil producing countries, and international speculators, who have war contracts with security agencies, that in most cases have done more harm than good. Mercinaries who have killed innocent people and have not been punished for it.
We in Sicily have many immigrants, from various nations, and we have no trouble with them. Mind you I said in Sicily. But not in the rest of Italy. Because there is a lot of difference.
The Sicilian is multi-racial and knows how to intergrate with others. But unfortunately I cannot speak for the rest of Italy, where in some cases they have problems to adapt themselves to people of different etnic groups, thinking that they would be inferior to their higher cultural standards.
Sammy from Sicily
These remarks display how the proper response to terrorism can be held differently amongst even Westerners. I see this dichotomy continually in the UK, with a quite divided citizenry on these questions.
Yet it only underpins how democratic nations must form coordinated responses and work in cooperation, rather than at odds that yield a divided front. The threat posed has spread to Asian nations as well and force alone will not prevail. You’ve got to get at social reforms in the breeding ground nations as well.
You cannot standardize the world, and bring social reforms to all nations. Because we must
realize that each nation has its traditions, mores, and culture differences. And these differences
must be respected if we want to live in peace with each other in harmony.
But the essential part is: That there must be an agreement to respect the dignity of the person.
His right to live, his freedom to speak, and to choose, his way to worship, or not to worship. Having
a complete separation between religion and state. No death penalty, no corporal punishment, and
most important freedom of choice without outside interference.
As far as imposing nations to fight against organized terrorism. I believe that this falls in the category
of freedom of choice, and each nation is free to adopt its own defense when it is attacked with terrorism,
because this is an internal problem of each nation to resolve for themselves. And you cannot standardize
the fight against terrorism, and globalize the war on terrorism. Because it will become a psychosis imposed
upon all the people in this planet by those who promote it.
Many nations have not had any terrorist activities, while others have. It could be that their foreign policies
have something to do to stimulate, or incite these terrorists activities as a retaliation for mistreating others,
or imposing their culture, as well as interfering in their domestic affairs. I believe that terrorism is a retaliation
for something that obstructs other people’s way of life. And to keep others from meddling in their domestic affairs.
In which nowadays it is very common, and at the same time people’s personal liberties are at stake, through
this generalized war on terrorism, which is being magnified by the controlled mass-media for speculative
financial, and commercial purposes in most cases.
Sammy From Sicily
I see your point Sammy. I don’t mean to suggest that free nations be homogenized, but I do say that getting at root social causes in nations that spawn much of the terrorist crop, needs be a component of the eventual resolution. Perhaps it is a financial racket for al Queada leadership, but it appears that those youth who join up to attack innocents, are driven by extremist religious fervor and propaganda.
They’ve struck indiscriminately at many targets around the world. In Bali, twice no less. By taking a multi-footed approach which as well employs diplomacy and aid incentives, more nations sign on to anti-terrorism efforts. And that should produce a more effective strategy than only trying to bash a non-stop flow of brainwashed youth with military. (Which was how the Bush and Blair governments lost support.)