Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter Worthington

GET UPDATES FROM Peter Worthington
 

Obama's Vietnam?

Posted: 05/06/2012 12:00 am

We've seen this before, and now we are seeing it again.

This time it was President Barack Obama's quick, unadvertised visit to Afghanistan to sign a partnership deal with President Hamid Karzai, and to assure U.S. troops and all Americans that "there is light on the horizon."

In other words, Obama is all but conceding defeat.

We saw it in Vietnam when then-President Richard Nixon assured that the withdrawal of American troops meant "peace with honour" -- and America's South Vietnamese allies were abandoned to the forces of Ho Chi Minh.

President Obama promises that U.S. forces will mostly be out of Afghanistan by 2014, except for those training the Afghan National Army. Already, negotiations are underway with the Taliban to "share power" while continuing to pursue al-Qaida.

The U.S. plans no permanent bases in Afghanistan.

There are several points that could be made from Obama's Afghanistan speech.

First of all, if one is intent on winning a war, or at least not guaranteeing one's own defeat, one does not give a timetable for leaving, and proclaiming that your fighting soldiers will cease fighting on such-and-such a given date.

Where, in that, is the incentive for the enemy to stop fighting?

And does one notice how Obama stresses that it's al-Qaida that is now the enemy and not the Taliban? While the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to rid the country of al-Qaida training camps, it was the Taliban who were the main enemy. And over most of the last decade, the casualties endured by American, and Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, were inflicted by the Taliban, not al-Qaida.

Again, the idea of "sharing" power with the Taliban, or even including the Taliban in some sort of regime of reconciliation, is nonsense. Of course the Taliban leaders may agree -- why not? Agreements mean little in that part f the world -- look at Syria where Bashar al-Assad assured the UN he'd halt killing Syrian citizens, and then continued killing Syrians.

The Taliban are capable of agreeing to anything that suits their interests, and then ignoring any deal, and grabbing all power. Little about the Taliban indicates willingness to share power. They want to win. Period.

It's understandable that President Obama wants the Afghan mission concluded, victory or no victory.

There have been some positive changes. A lot of money has been invested (or at least spent) in Afghanistan. But it's still a country where, if the Taliban have power, Sharia law will flourish, women will continue to be persecuted, niceties like amputations, stoning, honour killings and such will blossom.

Miscalculation has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ironically, Iraq (for which Obama blamed former President George Bush) has tamed down, while Afghanistan, which Obama adopted as "his" war, has become the disaster of the moment.

Perhaps "disaster" is too strong a word. Much of the country is pacified and has benefited from the presence of Western soldiers and aid agencies.

But positive gains are destined to fade if the Taliban again assumes power -- a reality to which President Obama (and certainly some Canadians) seem resigned after Alliance troops pull out, and leave the country to its own devices.

 
FOLLOW CANADA
We've seen this before, and now we are seeing it again. This time it was President Barack Obama's quick, unadvertised visit to Afghanistan to sign a partnership deal with President Hamid ...
We've seen this before, and now we are seeing it again. This time it was President Barack Obama's quick, unadvertised visit to Afghanistan to sign a partnership deal with President Hamid ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This comment has been removed.
03:33 PM on 05/06/2012
*shrug* In the sense that he has to end a unwinnable war he didn't start and will probally get blamed for it... yeah. Afganistan is Obamas Vietnam. Poltics is very rarely fair.

*And does one notice how Obama stresses that it's al-Qaida that is now the enemy and not the Taliban?*

Well...yeah. The Taliban are a rural government in exile, not international terrorists. Al Qada are the terrorists hat used Afganistan as a base. Our job was to topple the Taliban and destroy al Qaeda. So we can't force them to pick our dictator over their choice, even at gun point... I could've tod you that outcome a decade ago, if anyone bothered to ask me.

I`m also having a ahrd time believing that Worthington is comparing Iraq to Afganistan... (did he accidently publish the first draft?) the one is a stone age tribal dust hole who`s main export is suffering. The other was quite recently (until the insane invasion of Kuwait and backlash) the shining beacon of light for seccularism and technology in the middle east.

I don`t get it and I dont get the blame Obama crowd -you might a swell blame him for not personally diving down and plugging the BP oil leak. Can`t ask the impossible of a man and it`s not right to blame him if he fails in a impossible task.
02:32 PM on 05/06/2012
WOULDN'T IT BE HUMANE IF OTHER CIVILIZED COUNTRIES COULD MAKE ROOM FOR A NUMBER OF THESE WOMEN TO BE BROUGHT OUT SO THEY COULD BE EDUCATED AND SAVED FROM TALIBAN HORROR.?

CHEAPER THAN WAGING THIS ENDLESS WAR.

TORONTO HAS SEEN IN ACTION AN EXAMPLE OFAN AFGANISTANIS COLD METHOD FOR DISPOSING OF WOMEN
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnanimation
04:29 PM on 05/07/2012
Stop yelling...you're giving me a headache...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
waldopepper
I'd tell you all about me if you were my friend.
01:21 PM on 05/06/2012
"In other words, Obama is all but conceding defeat."

Well that's one way to put it. The Snowbird Neocon way. However, the correct way to put it is that he is recognizing the reality that other empires failed to recognize until it was too late. That Afghanistan is unconquerable and ungovernable, even in the drone era. And rather than being hidebound by dogmatic stubbornness and pride he - Obama has the courage to acknowledge that Afghanistan is a lost cause and should be the focus of alternative methods of ensuring that it does not become a refuge for those who would harm the interests of the West. An alternative method that does not require the presence of a western army within Afghanistan. Which costs lives (of coalition forces and Afghanis) as well as treasure, and which produces only further resentment.

If you want to look through your myopic glasses and call that quitting - then fill your boots Peter.
11:22 AM on 05/06/2012
You can't impose democracy on people and you can't undo a thousand years of history in a decade.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Colin Speth
A Claymore for your thoughts
02:16 PM on 05/06/2012
Agreed but there is nothing morally wrong about trying. In the long run you can only hope the seeds of freedom have been planted in some Afganis that will eventually blossom someday. Doubtfull but you never know.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mr e MaN
Political Atheist
09:23 AM on 05/07/2012
Nothing morally wrong with invading other countries? Bombing people and hoping they change. The history shows that this is an unwind able situation. You can not over turn entrenched ideas and lifestyle unless they want too, and they don't.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Donnerskinde
I used to be a people person,till people ruined it
06:36 PM on 05/07/2012
Freedom can't be delivered at gunpoint, As seen throughout the middle east with people demanding freedom, it has to come from the people it can't be gifted. Bombing the crap out of people in the name of freedom is like screwing for chastity...it doesn't work.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JJJSchmidt
10:16 AM on 05/06/2012
Gee, it is too bad that the Taliban will be able to continue abusing women, continue with stonings and amputations but it would continue anyways. The pals that the United States chose when going to Afghanistan, The Northern Alliance, aren't exactly nice guys either and under their control Afghanistan would still have stonings, honour killings, amputations and abuse of women. So US continued involvement there means little to protect human rights that don't exist either way. Afghanistan is destined to remain in the dark ages until they choose to do otherwise.
jimbo57
ni dieu ni maitre
09:51 AM on 05/06/2012
Sad fact is, if the majority of the people in a country are fundamentalist fanatics, then allowing the majority to vote will result in a theocratic dictatorship. We will get to tst this hypothesis TWICE. Once NOW in Afghanistan. The second time in 2012 in...another country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeffreygeez
08:09 AM on 05/06/2012
Perhaps "disaster" is too strong a word? I think not strong enough, most of the $ spent there is in the bank accounts of the Afghan elite. Nothing whatsoever has been accomplished, and when we leave it will be back to exactly as it was berfore we stuck our nose into the quagmire that is Afghanistan. .This article paints a rosy picture of what has been accomplished, it is indeed Obama's Vietnam, that communist country we crawled out of and that today we do business with. The USA just cannot seem to stop telling the world how to behave. Two useless wars, for? Al Qaida?' all 200 of them?. As for Al Qaida affiliated? just spin from our government referencing anyone who has a beard and a gun, the spin to try and justify trillions of dollars tossed and many lives lost.
06:15 AM on 05/06/2012
Oh Peter, you forgot...and oil pipelines won't be built. Isn't that the real reason the US and before that Russia was there in the first place? It never was about sharia, stoning and allowing girls to go to school.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Colin Speth
A Claymore for your thoughts
02:09 PM on 05/06/2012
Yes it always about oil. Because someone once proposed a pipline through Afganistan that means everything that ever happens there from here until the end of time will be about that theoretical pipeline. 9/11, Al Queda, statetgic implications concerning China and Pakistan etc had nothing to do with it. I agree it was never about Shiria and the like but it is certianly more complicated than just saying oil over and over.
04:04 AM on 05/06/2012
I guess the change, if it is to happen at all, will have to come from within. As has happened so many times before, Afghanistan apparently will not be conquered by outsiders. Too bad that lesson has to be relearned over and over. Nice going, America.
photo
devondx
Totally De-regulate all RED states=JUSTICE..
01:47 AM on 05/06/2012
hard to stay,... when we''ve been told by our afghan allies to leave.....

bush and karzan set the withdrawl date not Obama.....

but feel free to go there and change their minds...

I think most of us would pitch in to buy you a plane ticket
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
12:56 AM on 05/06/2012
The US is now at the "face-saving" stage in Afghanistan: that's when things really get ugly.