In Afghanistan, we’re heading down the same road as Vietnam
Published: September 19, 2009
Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
For some, I am preaching to the choir, but others seem to have forgotten the mistakes we have made in a number of international arenas.
In this space last week, I wrote of what I see as the similarities of gradual deepening of involvement in the internal affairs of an independent nation. We have done it time and again.
One of our great presidents, James Monroe, gave us the Monroe Doctrine, which said, in essence, to the rest of the world “stay the hell out of the affairs here in the western hemisphere.”
We should follow that advice with the respect to the affairs elsewhere. But should any other nation dare to attack our people, our embassies or the legal interests of our citizens, then we should take whatever action is necessary to inflict maximum punishment on them, and we needn’t waste time with the United Nations.
What I see is a parallelism, by our involvement in Afghanistan, with our mistakes in Vietnam.
Let us briefly look at the Vietnam era:
We became overtly involved in 1962 when President Kennedy established the Military Assistance Command of Vietnam (MACV) and sent 1,000 military advisers to aid the South Vietnamese. Within a year that force grew to 15,000.
In 1963, we were misled about the success we were having, and in August 1963, we (the CIA and the U.S. ambassador in Saigon) secretly plotted to overthrow the existing government of South Vietnam.
That overthrow occurred in November.
After President Kennedy’s assassination, President Johnson vowed to keep Kennedy’s efforts going. He replaced Gen. Paul Harkins as commander of MACV with Gen. William Westmoreland, who pushed for an additional 200,000 troops.
However, Johnson kept the status quo until it was reported that two U.S. destroyers were attacked by North Vietnamese gunboats in the Gulf of Tonkin (gunboats against destroyers?).
Johnson asked Congress for authority (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) to “take all necessary actions to protect US interests in Vietnam.” Congress passed the resolution with only two dissenting votes out of the 535 members.
In the elections of the fall of 1964, Johnson pledged that “American boys would not be called upon to do the job that Asian boys should do.” But by June 1965, we had 75,000 troops there, and the next month another 100,000 were sent, and another 100,000 were approved to go in the following year.
Westmoreland embarked on a program of “seek and destroy,” believing he could wear down the North Vietnamese through attrition. When your supply base is half a world away, believing in attrition of the enemy seems a folly. We became the victims of attrition in Vietnam and at home.
It seems we are on a similar course in Afghanistan. We started with advisers, then a few troops, then we replaced the commanding general. (Maybe it was the right call; I just hope it was a military decision and not a political one). We’ve doubled the troops, and the new commander is saying he needs more troops.
Today, it is reported that Adm. Mullin (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff) is lobbying for yet another increase in troops. I see the same mistakes being made again.
Bayne’s column runs every Sunday on the editorial page.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Mr. Bayne- It has become popular to equate Vietnam and Afghanistan. I suppose there are some similarities but there are far more differences. Foremost is the number of US soldiers fighting and dying. Vietnam topped out around 600,000 with 58,000 dying. Afghanistan’s numbers are far less.
As far as national security, the reasons for going into Vietnam look pretty hazy about now. In fact, I think if in 1960, we’d have known that Vietnam would have turned out as the trading partner that they have become, we would have been fine to never enter at all. There was no domino. But even if our greatest fears had been realized, it is hard to make the case that the US was as directly threatened as it was by al Qaeda having safe haven in Afghanistan.
Are you content to allow Afghanistan to return to pre-9-11 status?
Mr. Beckett, take a look at Mr. Byane’s column (not article). See all those spaces. Those are paragraph breaks. They make it much easier to read.
Now to your content. I agree with you about what the US military is best at- invading other countries and killing and displacing enemy soldiers.
But you imply that the war could have been won in 6 months if we had invaded North Vietnam.
Sure. We probably could have run our tanks in and held the territory. What then? The North would have laid down their arms? What about China? Russia? What would have been their reaction? How long would you want to occupy the North? What makes you think we still wouldn’t be there?
But in closing, I won’t agree that 1/2 of Congress needs to suit up for war- they are mostly too old and fat anyway. But perhaps if their kids were fighting that would do the trick. Perhaps bringing back the draft would help in that regard.
Well said Mr Bayne and Mr. Beckett.
Good article Mr. Bayne. The MSR “main supply route” was never the problem for the American Soldiers in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong knew they could never win the war militarily. That was proven after the first conventional battle with the 7th Cavalry(they were expecting a French styled enemy), and subsequent slaughter of the enemy during Tet of 1968. Anytime the NVA or VC went head to head in a conventional battle with the American Soldiers, the enemy was decimated. Every combat soldier who spent two days on the ground in Vietnam knew that if we were allowed to go North, the war would have ended in six months. The thing that was lacking was the will of the politicians to win this war and that was the true “folly” of the Vietnam War. American Soldiers are neither diplomats nor politicians. When diplomacy and politics fail, then send the American Soldiers and allow them to accomplish what they are trained to do. American Soldiers are trained for one purpose and one purpose only, to close with and destroy the enemy. If you do not wish that to happen, do not deploy them. There are parallels and instead of Cambodia being a safe haven, Pakistan is now the safe haven. The other most noticeable parallel is the same brand and style of gutless and dishonorable politicians who are willing to deploy honorable men and women in harms way, have themselves never “rucked up” in the defense of our country. Let there be no doubt, the American Soldier never lost the war in Vietnam. The American Soldiers fought with honor and valiantly to overcome the disadvantages that was placed on them by the very politicians that sent them there. The last and the biggest parallel is there is no will to win this war, therefore, bring them out of Afgan before further lives are lost needlessly. If I were King, first, war must be declared, 2nd, one third of the Senate and one half of the Congress would have to don a uniform and lead, lastly, the Commander-In-Chief must take up a leadership position to the front of his Army to display his love of country and true leadership. I bet there would be fewer wars, and the ones that were fought would be with the intent to win. Jerry R. Beckett
Advertisement