Home > Opinion > Doug Heye > Obama's Afghanistan Decision Risks a Democratic Party Civil War

Obama's Afghanistan Decision Risks a Democratic Party Civil War

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Interesting story you got here. I'd like to read more about that theme. Thnx for posting that info.

Steave of AL 10:30PM March 09, 2010

While I share your skepticism about the possibility of a democratic, honest, functional central government in Afghanistan, to be fair we should acknowledge that there was one before our invasion in 2001, run by the largely illiterate Taliban. It didn't function the way we'd like, but it functioned better than the current puppet regime of Hamid Karzai. Particularly irksome was their decision not to turn over al-Qaeda, whom they felt honor-bound to shelter in view of the help they provided in ousting the Soviets.
I am concerned that our surge will simply push more Taliban into Pakistan, thereby worsening an already terrible situation. It might be more productive to pay the Pakistan Army/ISI to broker a deal with the Taliban to hand us the heads of the al-Qaeda leadership, declare victory, and come home. We would need to provide Pakistan enough assistance to allow them to shove all the refugees back across the border and mine the passes. At that point, what happens in Afghanistan stays in Afghanistan.
Bad news for the Afghans, particularly women, but no worse than before we arrived in 2001.

Will of CA 6:47PM December 03, 2009

With a literacy rate of 28.1 in Afghanistan, just who is going to be learning how to take over? I expect this whole charade to fall flat on its face. Vietnam here we come.

s of VA 1:48PM December 03, 2009

Obama's gamble will fail, because a similar gamble failed in Vietnam. Fact: The U.S. had 130.000 troops in Vietnam when U.S. president Lyndon Johnson increased them to 500.000. Johnson also pushed the South Vietnamese U.S. puppet regime to increase its 260.000 troops to 600.000 - all U.S. trained and equipped- as Obama wants to do in Afghanistan. In addition, Johnson trained and equipped Kmer mercenaries in Laos, and overthrew Cambodia's government with a coup by the U.S. puppet General Lon Nol.
Then, with 500.000 U.S. troops; 600.000 South Vietnamese troops; 40.000 Kmer mercenaries, and 110.000 Cambodian troops - a total of 1.250.000 troops, Johnson bragged in a public speech -like Obama did yesterday- that "the U.S. will defeat the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong insurgents on the battlefield!" That was in 1964. Ten years later, the U.S. realized that it cannot win the war, and started withdrawing its troops from Vietnam in a plan it called "The Vietnamization of the Vietnam War." Then, the South Vietnamese army started defecting en mass to VietCong, and the U.S. was forced to withdraw its last troops hastily from the fortified U.S. embassy rooftop in Vietnam.
The same will happen in Afghanistan with the Obama plan that entails "the Afghanization of the Afghan war!" And since the Afghan plan will master at most a total of about 500.000 troops, and the about 300.000 Afghan troops will defect easily to Taliban, or shoot the U.S. soldiers in the back when the opportunity comes -as they have done it before, the Obama plan is laughable at best. But Obama was a clueless local politician before he was elected, and he is totally clueless on what he is doing now in Afghanistan. Worse yet, he revealed his total bliss and ignorance on war history yesterday when he said during his speech yesterday that "people who see a Vietnam in Afghanistan misread history!" Well, he gave himself an "F" grade in Vietnam war history yesterday, and now he expects to win the war in Afghanistan with his misunderstanding of it! Sorry, Mr. president. You may have won a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing, but wars have never been won with misleading public rhetoric, and misunderstanding of history by incompetent or clueless leaders. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Nikos Retsos of IL 4:20PM December 02, 2009

So we're pouring just enough troops in to increase our casualty counts, so in another year or two we'll have to put in another 30,0000 to justify the losses sustained so far. We will not "win" this war because Afghanistan has absolutely none of the infrastructure or political or cultural ingredients needed to make a stable nation. Under the best of circumstances, it would take several million troops and nation-building funds equal to five or ten Obamacare plans. We don't have that. Every death or life-altering injury suffered there from now on means nothing more than helping to extend the tenure of a corrupt drug lord a little while longer.

kenneth of IL 3:54PM December 02, 2009

While I think this decision Pres. Obama made was very difficult I think it is perhaps one of his best so far. The U.S. has commitments and obligations and the world looks to the U.S. to be an honest broker of eventual peace. Were the U.S. to withdraw its troops the region would quickly destabilize and only lead to further problems in the Mid-East. Further the U.S. would soil its reputation worldwide and the next time we asked allies for help they would strongly reconsider.
There is hope that Afghanistan may someday develop along peaceful lines. While this decision won't win him accolades and friends it was the right one to make. This action allows the U.S. to fully engage and then eventually withdraw. It also allows the U.S. to retain its reputation throughout the world. Put a price on that.
By comparison, no Senator or Congressperson who voted to exchange "Cash-for-Clunkers" has any right to criticize this unpopular but right-headed move of the President. Billions in U.S. treasure were wasted on something as frivolous new cars which have purely consumptive value. In exchange for taxpayer cash the U.S. purchased functioning cars that were summarily executed and removed from economic life forever. It should have been called "Cash-To-Trash". That is what it amounted to.
Personally, I want my taxpayer cash back from that wrong-headed move endorsed by so many in Political Office.

Adam Smith of VA 3:46PM December 02, 2009