• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Afghanistan comparable to Vietnam?

Is Afghanistan comparable to Vietnam?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I hope the casualty rate never gets as bad as it did in 'Nam.
 
apdst said:
We have a weak Democratic president that can't even decide to attack, or retreat. There's a movement in our country that would rather we lose and leave. It's an unconventional war. There's a brother-n-law government in Kabul. The media is undermining the war effort every chance they get. Defeatism is rampant.

I would say that Afghanistan is a repeat of history.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are Americans who would like to see American defeat in Afghanistan in order to advance a political agenda. Their dilemma lies in the fact that Barack Obama will suffer by virtue of their activities. That's why they have been quiet to date. Even Code Pink is conflicted. No matter what he does in Afghanistan Obama will suffer politically. His base opposes Obama's War, and if he relies on Republican support he puts his fate in the hands of his enemies. The continuing deaths of American men and women in Afghanistan will have a slow corrosive and debilitating effect on the Obama Presidency.
 
SE102 said:
Defeat in a war as part of a greater political plan?
What do you mean?
Click to expand...

Where to begin? Over the course of the last half century I've observed a change in the nature of the political order in our country as well as in the psychology of the American people/peoples. It breaks my heart and brings tears to my eyes.

Once we believed that politics ended at the waters edge. That consensus ended at least twenty years ago. Imo the political parties now believe that the use of foreign policy crises is a legitimate device to advance political agendas for partisan advantage regardless of the impact on the American people.

Let me give you an example. "The War is Lost." Senator Harry Reid (D. Nev., Senate Majority leader) said that in 2007. Imo that encouraged America's enemies in Iraq. The Democrats sought partisan political advantage by destroying Bush regardless of the impact on American forces in theater.

Now I think the Republicans are about to do the same thing to Obama. Obama's hesitation to fish or cut bait has encouraged the Taliban to adopt new tactics to inflict major casualties on American men and women. This will be used against Obama despite the harm to the morale of our soldiers.

Partisan advantage and the acquisition of power have become more important than the national interest.
 
There are some similarities and there are diferences. Yes there were "insurgents who live among 'fill in the gap' in both wars. Yet unlike Vietman there is not other country's army in the field in Afghanistan and there isn't a "Osama Bin Ladin " trail. In Vietnam except for the Montagnards and the bunch of minute group of small ethnic groups Vietnam was 86 % Vietnamese. Afghanistan has larger ethnics groups in relative proportions. Therefore inter-ethnic fighting is a greater possibility and danger in Afghanistan.

I do not think that there is much relevence in thrying to compare the two wars.

I heard some talking heaaad or something say that "Afghanistan is Vietnam without snow".

I say NO !!!
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Obama's hesitation to fish or cut bait has encouraged the Taliban to adopt new tactics to inflict major casualties on American men and women.
Click to expand...

I don't think "tactics" is the word you are looking for. It's possible that the Taliban (who are masters at Information Operations) could potentially use Obama's hesitancy as some type of IO talking point or theme.

But if you are referring to Kinetic tactics, I think you have a simple misunderstanding of the term. Ambushes are generally ambushes. The Taliban won't invent new tactical approaches to attacking NATO forces because of the action or inaction of the U.S. President.
 
American first said:
All that was missing in Vietnam was the will to win. Hopefully we won't make the same mistake but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect; what was missing was a strategy to win that was being suppressed by politicians in Washington who were afraid to piss off the Chinese and potential start WWIII.

The will was definitely there; our troops always won many times exhibiting stunning bravery against massive odds due to their superior training, tactics and equipment.
 
American said:
Why is Vietnam only a US failure, we were only the last ones to fight there but there were many before. I think all wars can be compared from a military perspective. You plan and impliment a strategy and it succeeds or fails. Politics is part of every war.
Click to expand...

Vietnam was not a US failure; we won the fight and secured an agreement with the Communists. Where we failed was allowing the Communists to break the agreement and not stand by the ally we promised we would stand by; we can blame a Democrat controlled congress for that.

Ever since that Democrat failure, the example and template has been set for the likes of the thugs in Somalia and Osama Bin Laden; the world clearly understands the lack of will on the part of Western nation’s fickle and spoiled citizens who have forgotten what the word "sacrifice" means.
 
kansaswhig said:
I don't think "tactics" is the word you are looking for. It's possible that the Taliban (who are masters at Information Operations) could potentially use Obama's hesitancy as some type of IO talking point or theme.

But if you are referring to Kinetic tactics, I think you have a simple misunderstanding of the term. Ambushes are generally ambushes. The Taliban won't invent new tactical approaches to attacking NATO forces because of the action or inaction of the U.S. President.
Click to expand...

The tactic is merely to have an effect on American public opinion with the assistance of the mainstream Liberal media.

Once they see a leader, or lack thereof, who is showing an unwillingness to prosecute the war we started, it provides a window of opportunity to shape that opinion in favor of the terrorists.

It is a very old and tried and true tactic that even with all the history, Americans are uninformed enough to fall for it and believe the BS spewed by a media who has already historically shown it is uninterested in INFORMING the public but rather desirous of shaping public opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom