Stop the War Now

by YankeeJim | November 26, 2009 at 06:00 am

234 views | 72 Recommendations | 25 comments

Sitting on my bunk at Ft. Polk Louisiana in 1969, I was reading China on the Eve of Communist Takeover, Arthur Doak Barnett, Praeger, 1963, a book that I was assigned to read in Political Science class before being called to Army infantry training duty. A sergeant walked by on this Sunday and asked, “Hey private, are you some sort of Communist reading that?”

Not being a wise ass, I had no reply which was probably more of an admission than saying, “Yes, I qualify because I can read.” I wanted to understand China and how the country to which we were an ally in WW II became our communist enemy. Arthur Doak Barnett was a journalist who followed the retreat of Chiang Kai-shek from the agrarian country side to the big city of Shanghai. He documented Mao’s strategy to encircle the city population centers and to cut off the food supply from the farmlands. People in the cities became unmanageable and ripe for harvest by communist insurgents.

It takes little extrapolation to compare the possible dynamics between China and Afghanistan as Americans are encouraging the UN to follow them on such a strategy. Taliban enemies can attack supply lines and retreat to the countryside where there will never be sufficient forces to stop them.

“In 1966 he was the principal witness for an extensive review of China policy conducted by Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At the time China was regarded as an implacable enemy of the United States, a supporter of the North Vietnamese war effort and a virulent force seeking to topple democratic governments like so many dominoes.’

‘Mr. Barnett quietly encouraged both President Lyndon B. Johnson and President Richard M. Nixon to end China's isolation. And it was Mr. Barnett who coined the formula '’containment without isolation’ to describe a diplomatic opening that still recognized China's danger.” New York Times, March 19, 1999 (on his death)

What were the lessons from Vietnam that apply here? From the television series, Frontline, Lessons of Vietnam: A Conversation with Major H. R. McMaster by Rick Young:

“Why did Johnson's ‘middle-course’ strategy in Vietnam--graduated pressure and constrained attacks--represent no strategy at all? Is warfare by political consensus doomed to fail?’

‘Johnson's strategy assumed, with no thought for the nature of the war, that any military action would constitute progress in the war effort. Without defining a strategic objective, he told the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Spring of 1965 to ‘kill more Viet Cong,’ a tactical mission. Meanwhile, the air campaign against the North and in the South continued. It remained unclear how bombing targets in North Vietnam and using massive airstrikes in the South against an enemy who was intertwined with the noncombatant population would help to establish conditions conducive to ending the war.”

I can tell you from an average citizen’s judgment, the Obama strategy in Afghanistan, even with 10,000 UN troops added to a surge of American commitment will not win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Only when the Islamic nations of the region mature to a higher state with the prospect of coexistence will there be a desirable outcome. That is too big a bite for the US to swallow now.

Bring the troops home.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 07:55 on November 26th, 2009

Good story and a good comparison. Thanks for this.

Amy Judd

at 10:18 on November 26th, 2009

Good story, I enjoyed the personal perspective.

YankeeJim

at 14:12 on November 26th, 2009

I think your editorial direction can help me improve my work.

Rory Cripps

at 10:32 on November 26th, 2009

Interesting perspective. Prior to the Fort Hood massacre, I was behind General McChrystal's approach. However due to the revelations (that were not revelations at all for many of us) that have come out in the wake of the massacre, and especially due to the government's statements regarding the incident, I agree with you 100%--bring the troops home. They don't have a bloody chance given the PC mindset of the U.S. military brass and the present administration.

Roy C

at 10:49 on November 26th, 2009

What about the Taliban and a possible takeover of Pakistan?

This is a lot realer than the so-called "domino theory" whereby the fall of Vietnam would set up Cambodia and Laos (which it did!) and then onto Burma, Thailand, "East Paksistan" (now Bengladesh) and then India.

There are limits to the projection of power. Vietnam was our limit, especially given Westmoreland's "war of attrition" strategy. We won every major battle and lost the war because we lost the "hearts and minds" of our own people.

The questions to ask are: Are you all going to be happy with the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan? What further security policies and programs do we have to implement here to prevent another 9/11? What is necessary and what are the legal and political problems of strict border control, airport security, etc.?

We left Vietnam and it did not bring about peace, but the killing of a million innocents in Cambodia. Don't tell me that we had no responsibility there. We did.

What will we be responsible for now, good and evil? Let's not BS me with no "side-effects", no "collateral damage", no "downside" to a pullout.

Rory Cripps

at 12:41 on November 26th, 2009

Roy:

"We won every major battle and lost the war because we lost the "hearts and minds" of our own people."

That about sums it up!

YankeeJim

at 13:52 on November 26th, 2009

Your comments and observations are true. I guess if the Taliban win control of a nation, war can be declared against a nation state and it can be obliterated. Is that the upside you are seeking?

Today, we are trading again with Vietnam. True is that it operates a lot like China to which America owes graitude and a whole lot more as our economic lives depend on them.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 11:01 on November 26th, 2009

Roy a pullout will result in the status quo prior to 9/11 being restored to Afghanistan. What people have to ask themselves is:

Are we ok with the pre 9/11 status quo?

Are we ok with the Taliban's revenge on the Afghan people when they take control over the country back?

Are we willing to make any more sacrifices in a failed state?

Have the 800 some sacrifices justified the end?

How many more are we willing to accept?

Yes Roy there is a downside to a pull out, the question is are we willing to accept it?

Roy C

at 11:21 on November 26th, 2009

ACP, I do have those things in mind.

My question is: what will happen? Pre-9/11 is not good. We won't have it anyway.

So, we pull out and then we move to our borders. We hyper-patrol the airports. We totally look at all imams in the US and deport those who would foster another act of terror.

We end all immigration from Muslim countries?

What are the precautions necessary to counter-balance the resurrection of the Al Qada base with the Taliban?

YankeeJim

at 13:54 on November 26th, 2009

Muslim country immigration control is a real concern and issue.

Al Qaeda remains an enemy, all 300 left in Pakistan.

Rory Cripps

at 13:53 on November 26th, 2009

ACP: Everything that you say seems to make sense! And I'd be 100% behind you if I were convinced that the Obama Administration shared your sentiments and asked the same questions.

But in my opinion, the Obama administration lacks the will and the necessary tools to take care of business in Afghanistan. Obama has been dicking around for months in order to come up with an Afghanistan war strategy. And in the mean time American and NATO troops continue to die. What makes anyone think that things will be any different in years to come other than the increased death toll?

All the PC talk about winning hearts and minds is just that--talk! That dog don't hunt and never will. America tried the "hearts and minds" approach in Vietnam and it was an utter and abject failure. It got over 50,000 Americans killed, thousands more Americans wounded both physically, mentally, and emotionally, and divided the country to such an extent that we're still experiencing the repercussions.

It also paved the way for Pol Pot--a mass murdering ideologue--to achieve the ultimate goal of all ideologues; namely to purge and purify the masses so that there is no question in the collective minds of the masses as to the rectitude of the ideology that they are subjected to.

The only way for America to win hearts and minds (at least in the short run) is to do precisely what Muslim terrorists and all other ideologues do: Instill terror into the hearts and minds of all those that oppose and resist its ideology. Of course that will never occur, and as a result, I see no way for America and the rest of the "free world" to not ultimately fall under Muslim domination within the next century or perhaps within the latter part of this century.

stejeb

at 11:11 on November 26th, 2009

One of the things that does worry me about a pull-out of allied forces is, if the Taliban gain enough support and get control of Pakistan, they will then have nuclear weapons at their disposal. I don't know what the answer is now, perhaps if the west had stopped to think about consequences before trying to ram "Christian values" and "democracy" down the throats of muslim countries, we might not have all the bad feelings and mistrust now?

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 11:42 on November 26th, 2009

That is one of the concerns and scary on its own. What happens if India feels threatened the whole place start lighting up like a fireball? There are a lot of issues at work here and really need thinking through.

Whether any of this can be avoided with the troops there is another question? None of the options seem good ones.

YankeeJim

at 13:56 on November 26th, 2009

Hillary Clinton and her scientist friends need to have a discussion with Pakistan and India to discuss the effect of fallout to both countries. The same discussion should be had with Iran with Russia being a faciliator. Get a grip. When the fuse is ignited, global warming becomes a hot reality.

Barbara McPherson

at 12:58 on November 26th, 2009

This is NP at its best. A polite, considered debate about a very serious subject!

Cindy Merrill (not verified)

at 13:55 on November 26th, 2009

The soviet union (USSR) occupied Afghanistan for ten years and look where it got them; were they able to crush the lucrative cocaine trade? NO. Did it make the USSR any safer? NO. Even though the KGB's torture tactics would make even the most toughest, callous US interogator toss his lunch, the Taliban survived, raising yet another generation of wife-beaters and terrorists. Containment is the only answer: spike the water so they're all sterile, and the bloodshed should end quietly in about 30 years or so. Bring our troops home.

stejeb

at 14:07 on November 26th, 2009

spike the water so they're all sterile, and the bloodshed should end quietly in about 30 years or so. Bring our troops home.

Although I agree with some of your comment about the USSR, and have felt that your end answer would be a wonderful solution to our house of lords, drunken football supporters, traffic wardens and a whole raft of other annoyances, I don't really think it's a civilized or rational, nor necessary answer there, the end solution may well rest with someone who grows up there and sees a better way, so give them a chance.

YankeeJim

at 15:05 on November 26th, 2009

Let's see, that would be WMD!

the Cult of the Endorphin (not verified)

at 14:21 on November 26th, 2009

Bring all the troops home all over and get on the natural highs... see NY Times article on "The Religious Gene" and you will see there is scientific evidence that the key to a healthy society is healthy individuals- "religion"used to involve more of a physical practice than an ideological one... it was the addictive chemical the endorphin (stimulated through physical activity) that provides the good feeling and the obvious result is: stronger people = stronger minds = stronger society. Let's get back to basics... you can get that good feeling by getting on the dance floor, taking a class at the gym- places where people are doing something good for themselves and there is a communal feeling of support. xoxo the cult leader

YankeeJim

at 14:31 on November 26th, 2009

Thank you my hippie daughter.

xxoo

Rory Cripps

at 14:32 on November 26th, 2009

Cindy Merrill (not verified):

"Containment is the only answer: spike the water so they're all sterile, [did you mean not sterile?] and the bloodshed should end quietly in about 30 years or so. Bring our troops home."

The sense and logic to your statement is beyond reproach. And it's amazing that there are so many other simple and practical approaches to "winning hearts and minds" throughout the radical Muslim World.

But unfortunately American politicians such as Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! BHO, and the rest of the big boys, as it were, are more concerned with the sensibilities of those that want to choke the life blood out of every American and render the American Republic null and void.

merlingraycat

at 16:12 on November 26th, 2009

Let us bring the troops home and save their lives and the Afgan peoples ' lives. And with the money saved help our own economy. Evidently, President Obama is listening to the wrong people. I thought Congress was supposed to be in on this decision.