Top US officials have reached out to a leading Vietnam war scholar to discuss the similarities of that conflict 40 years ago with American involvement in Afghanistan, where the US is seeking ways to isolate an elusive guerrilla force and win over a skeptical local population. The overture to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Stanley Karnow, who opposes the Afghan war, comes as the US is evaluating its strategy there.
President Barack Obama has doubled the size of the US force to curb a burgeoning Taliban insurgency and bolster the Afghan government. He has tasked Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander, to conduct a strategic review of the fight against Taliban guerrillas and draft a detailed proposal for victory.
McChrystal and Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to the country, telephoned Karnow on July 27 in an apparent effort to apply the lessons of Vietnam to the Afghan war, which started in 2001 when US-led forces ousted the Taliban regime in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Among the concerns voiced by historians is the credibility of President Hamid Karzai's government, which is widely perceived as being plagued by graft and corruption. They draw a parallel between Afghanistan's presidential election on Aug. 20 and the failed effort in Vietnam to legitimize a military regime lacking broad popular support through an imposed presidential election in 1967...
More at Mercury News.
Also see:
SWJ's Vietnam Section in our Reference Library.
Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow
Comments
Hello, thanks for the…
Hello, thanks for the information. Now I am really sad to know that the Taliban again started the war against Afganistan. I have found your post while searching about lemonade stand business plan online and I would never know that this topic will start again in the future.
<b>Boatspace</b>
Well, perhaps as you say "<i>war was extended for political reasons under Nixon. Something that won't be an issue with Afghanistan."</i> That's probably true and one can hope -- but given the US political system, I wouldn't bet too much on it...
On the government of Afghanistan, I think the problem is in what one expects that government to resemble -- my suspicion is that it will not resemble much of anything except the government of Afghanistan. Thus if someone has delusions of 'decent government and the rule pf law' in the western sense, then perhaps a look at Karnow is merited in order to forestall disappointment. Anyone looking at it realistically, not much in the two wars to compare.
Excellent reply Ken, thank you. Bravo Zulu - you do know who General Time is. Forgive my "edge" to my original post.
A few additional comments however: on my final tour in RVN with the Naval Advisory Group, it was apparent to many of us that time was a factor, and was running-out on Vietnamization.
Nixon's peace proposal was little differant than LBJs was to North Vietnam and the war was extended for political reasons under Nixon. Something that won't be an issue with Afghanistan.
That said, what our congress did in the end was aggregious - agreed, but you can draw a parallel from an isolated government in Saigon to one currently in Kabul which Karnow would point out, whether he has that silver bullet on anything else may be debateable, but it's worth a look see at least?
Again, thank you - I'l give you the benefit of the doubt next time!
<b>Boatspace</b>
My ad hom was targeted directly at yours -- stupid way to do business, if you have a serious comment, make it. I'd also suggest that your comment "<i>If neither of you have noticed, I'll let you in on a little secret.</i>" presumed that only you were bright enough to realize the time problem; a highly unlikely possibility. My response obfuscates nothing. I merely contended that I do not consider Karnow an authority on much of anything. As an aside, I'll see your 26, raise you one and bump that with 18 years of DAC time for the same club. Perhaps now we can both quit posturing like a couple of teenagers. Don't know about you but I'm a little old for it...
Obviously time is an issue but to compare Afghanistan to Viet Nam is incorrect. Time did not run out in Viet Nam, Nixon was elected on a platform of getting out of Viet Nam, did what he said -- and that effort was largely concluded reasonably satisfactorily.
Then Viet Nam was, two years later, over run in a conventional war at least partly due to the failure of a pusillanimous Congress to fund fuel and ammo promised by the US Government. That failure to honor a promise hurt us around the world and arguably contributed to attacks against US interests worldwide in later years and thus indirectly led to Afghanistan -- and Iraq.
I believe it important that we not again renege on a promise -- I did not think staying in Afghanistan was wise but they didn't ask me and we elected to do that and we told the Afghans and the world we would do so. That statement on behalf of the US needs to be honored.
The issue then becomes "What would that take?" Eye of beholder, I believe. I very much doubt that a strong central government is possible in the amount of time we're likely to be willing to donate, we're not going to stop what some call corruption and the Afghans call doing business in time honored fashion, we're not going to be able to undo tribalism. We can probably leave it a little better than we found it and not much more. The COIN myth and foolishness not withstanding, one can only accomplish so much.
My guess would be a good effort for another couple of years ( ± ) and then disengage. We'll see. A far greater concern than Afghanistan -- that's on its way to being over, either way -- is the future. Looking ahead, we do not do this interference in other nations thing at all well for many reasons, not least our impatience (time, again...), so we really need to back off this idea of it being the wave of the future. That will be true only if we make it so.
We should not.
Ken, perhaps my initial response was too terse, but your ad hominem reply only obfuscates the issue and doesn't refute the fact that time is working against us in Afghanistan just as it did in Vietnam - though a better case can be made for our entry into Afghanistan as opposed to RVN.
I would like to see a better outcome this time around and it's encouraging to see at least some, although obviously not all, have an open mind to those with differing views looking into the windows of the institution. An institution I once belonged to for 26 years as part of this Nation's premier gun club.
<b>Boatspace</b>
That's fascinating. I always enjoy parables. Especially the silly ones which are cute and make no valid point. Oh -- and those lessons, that other war -- that author drew the ones he wished to from it. I probably spent more time there than he did in a rather different field of endeavor and I drew quite different lessons.
I searched AKO for General Time; Couldn't find him. Then I Googled and found him at this <a href=http://www.amatteroffax.com/itempagey_invid_1312484_d_general-time-corp…; LINK</a>. I'm not sure I understand the connection.
Well gentlemen, everyone squandered a great deal of valuable time reinventing the wheel with counter-insurgency - oops - I mean COIN.
If neither of you have noticed, I'll let you in on a little secret: we're up against a most daunting general in Afghanistan. His name is General Time. And time is not on our side as we continue to prosecute this conflict on a credit card, only paying interest on the debt.
It may be advantageous to listen to a historian concerning a war, in which lessons learned were forgotten and could have paid dividends in Iraq early on.
Whether the author agrees with our adventure in Afghanistan or not isn't the point - something not lost on LtGen McChrystal, but obviously annoys some who continue to wear rose tinted glasses.
Anecdotally, we can't talk with Sun Tzu either, however, "In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."
I've got a better idea than any of those; All the mentioned names had or have agendas, all would provide information on another war in different terrain with quite different people.
So to ask any of them for any tips other than basic how to do it anywhere would be foolish. Holbrook is dangerous but is unlikely to affect much. Eikenberry, McChrystal and Rodriguez are smart guys, they'll work it out; they have consulted and will consult others but in the end they'll make their own decisions.