AP NewsBreak: US looks to Vietnam for Afghan tips

[Adsos Letter]

Source: AP/Yahoo

BRUSSELS – Top U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. is evaluating its strategy there.

McChrystal and Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. 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 U.S.-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.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_afghan_lessons_of_vietnam

---

Karnow says the mistake is to be there in the first place.

[jody]

1. Vietnam was quite different from Afghan. Obama should withdraw immediately. n/t

[Adsos Letter]

2. As I recall, Russian generals said we would essentially get one decent year...

and then things would begin to fall apart (based on their experience)

Two more statements from the article:

When asked what could be drawn from the Vietnam experience, Karnow replied: "What did we learn from Vietnam? We learned that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Obama and everybody else seem to want to be in Afghanistan, but not I."

An administration official said consultation with academics and outside experts is the norm in the Obama presidency, especially around high-profile events or decisions.

At least that second one shows the difference between President Obama's administration and Bush's;
the question is, will he listen?

[jody]

3. Understand and I share your hope. The DU thread below uses an article from The American Conservative

but it makes points worth considering.

“Droning On” Something Commander in Chief Obama might consider in his Afghanistan War.

[timeforpeace]

7. Ya think? Me too.

[saigon68]

12. "BRING EM ON" shouted the AWOL CHIMPANZEE

[raystorm7]

4. Rule #1: Dont start trouble - Rule #2: Get the Hell out

[Downwinder]

6. And have an exit strategy before you start. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

5. If you want to repeat the Vietnam experience, then Karzai = Diem

Afghanistan is not Vietnam, but no foreign power has ever been able to control Afghanistan.

[Adsos Letter]

8. Well then, Karzai better not accept any rides in an APC.

[saigon68]

11. And here he IS (DANGER GRAPHIC PHOTO)

[IndianaGreen]

17. And JFK said: Duh, we didn't know they were going to kill him.

Installing a Catholic as President of a mostly Buddhist country was truly short-sighted.

[tocqueville]

9. Karnow is wrong except on one point

Right

it's an insurgency
Comparisons between the corruption of the Diem regime and Karzai's can be made

But for the rest he is wrong (and the others commentators miss it too)

- this not a war of choice, the Talibans backed up Al Quaeda who attacked the West, in particular the USA
- no superpower is backing the insurgency (materially, morally) as the Soviets and China did in Vietnam. The aid they get is basically private.
- the goal of the war from the Talibans is unclear : partly religiously motivated but to a lot dependent on local warlords with crass interests in drugs etc... it's not a war of National liberation, like under the Soviets or the British rule attempt for example
- the insurgency have no safe heavens outside the borders, specially since Pakistan now is fighting them intensively. North there is nothing, since the ethnic groups there are their enemies and the states beyond unreachable, West and South Iran is their enemy.
- they have not one million men to sacrifice. They have a support in maybe 10% of the population, the rest is directly hostile or neutral.
- their weaponry is minimal, they have not the capacity of reconquering the capital. They tried it in Pakistan and were wiped out.
- they are a major nuisance surfing on instability, not a liberation army.

What is forgotten here :

The US lost a conventional war in Vietnam (a common misconception is that the US lost to a die-hard gerilla). After the Têt-offensive and specially when the North was drawn in, the NVA fought with tanks, heavy artillery, missiles and even practically won the air battle. They were able to shoot jets with their flak and missiles, even B52s at 10000 m ! They were able to down US pilots in dogfights. They could shoot down helicopters. They had "infinite" manpower resources and a population coerced into supporting them through political infiltration. The NVA could promise a "better life" to the South-Vietnamese and the North supported its leadership despite terrible sacrifices, the Talibans can't, they have already been "tried out". The US were beaten in a conventional war WWII style and avoid the subject, because it's too shameful.

All this because of the Russian/Chinese material support and direct involvement as miltary advisors and probably jet-pilots. The Talibans are completely unable to do that, they can hardly shoot down an helicopter (I don't kow if they even have succedeed once). They fight with AK47s, IEDs and rifles from WWII or I and maybe with some old sovietic short distance rocketry. If beaten they can only try to merge into their local support. Actually since the Pakistani took back the Swat Valley and increase their control over the tribal areas, they are between a rock and a hard place.

The main problem is that the US is completely unable to win hearts and minds due to cultural differences. Because when you separate the insurgency from the people, you win the war.

[Winterblues]

14. I find fault with a few things you said

"They were able to down US pilots in dogfights." I know of no time this ever occurred. Americans had complete and utter control of the air in South Vietnam. While it was indeed a Conventional War with the USA engaged against the third largest army in the world at the time, the USA NEVER lost a battle against the NVA. The Political will to continue the Conflict was lost but not because the USA was beaten on the battlefield.

[Downwinder]

10. If they want council, just go back and read Douglas MacArthur. n/t

[dipsydoodle]

13. And the lesson is............

bail out.

[hedgehog]

15. Because we were so succesful in Vietnam?

:shrug:

I am amazed at the number of arm chair experts who know how we could have won in Vietnam if only we had.....

The problem is, their theories are as untested as anything I could come up with. Given the rate of success thus far in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, I submit that my theories are as valid as any "expert's".

[damntexdem]

16. Going to try to recapitulate all of the U.S. successes there?

Here's a hint as to what will be needed: helicopter pads on the tops of all buildings. ;-)