• 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?

kansaswhig

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,164
Reaction score
509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CNN's Ed Hornick writes thought-provoking article:

Afghanistan haunted by ghost of Vietnam

While President Obama's war council deliberates its strategy toward Afghanistan, the ghost of Vietnam is often invoked as a warning.

Afghanistan, U.S. and coalition forces have been fighting in Afghanistan for eight years and until recently the war had been overshadowed by the one in Iraq. In March, Afghanistan will become America's longest war, surpassing the Vietnam War.

The Vietnam War, which cost 58,000 American lives, is the one most often invoked when U.S. troops are committed overseas.

While some say Afghanistan is "Obama's Vietnam," experts say there are several major similarities and differences between the two wars.

Eric Margolis, a veteran journalist and former Army soldier who served during the Vietnam War, said the biggest problem the United States is facing now -- as in Vietnam -- is fighting the mostly poor, rural insurgents who live among Afghans.

"It makes it very difficult to drive them [insurgents] out because they can stay there forever. ... They're at home. When we attack villages where they are, we kill a lot of civilians, causing an uproar and turning the people more against us."

I think the differences between the wars are pretty evident, politically, outside of the similiar nature of the insurgency and despite my disagreement that many Afghans possess any kind of nationalist ideology. I don't believe that they do for the most part. I'm also not convince we can compare Saigon to Kabul, outside of the corruption.

Thoughts?
 
CNN's Ed Hornick writes thought-provoking article:

Afghanistan haunted by ghost of Vietnam



I think the differences between the wars are pretty evident, politically, outside of the similiar nature of the insurgency and despite my disagreement that many Afghans possess any kind of nationalist ideology. I don't believe that they do for the most part. I'm also not convince we can compare Saigon to Kabul, outside of the corruption.

Thoughts?

I think another similarity is the existence of a sanctuary outside of the country. I don't think there is necessarily a competing government.
 
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.
 
We have a weak Democratic president that can't even decide to attack, or retreat.

As you can imagine, SFC, my intention was not to turn this into a partisan shouting match. I think you know that. Let's stick to the parallels between the wars and that which is not similar.

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 don't know about rampant...right now, I'd say the Kabul govt. is more like an estranged uncle.

I would say that Afghanistan is a repeat of history.

maybe...
 
As you can imagine, SFC, my intention was not to turn this into a partisan shouting match. I think you know that. Let's stick to the parallels between the wars and that which is not similar.

I was only comparing the historical similarities. Can't help how the cards fall. It's not my fault that the Dems screwed the pooch in Vietnam and now they're screwing the pooch in Afghanistan.



I don't know about rampant...right now, I'd say the Kabul govt. is more like an estranged uncle.

I meant that defeatism is rampant here in the states. I should have constructed that paragraph better. But, I'm stupid, remember?
 
I was only comparing the historical similarities. Can't help how the cards fall. It's not my fault that the Dems screwed the pooch in Vietnam and now they're screwing the pooch in Afghanistan.

I think we can agree that Vietnam was a bi-partisan failure. Nixon?



I meant that defeatism is rampant here in the states.

I know, I disagreed with you.


I should have constructed that paragraph better. But, I'm stupid, remember?

Oh Sarge, you aren't stupid. Sometimes you should pause before hitting "submit reply"
 
I think we can agree that Vietnam was a bi-partisan failure. Nixon?

Nixon ramped up the violence and forced the North to sign the Paris Peace Accords, so no, I wouldn't call it a bi-partisan failure. Unless you want to blame Ford for not having the balls to honor our treaty with South Vietnam and send help, even though the Dem controlled Congress had removed his war powers to do so.


Oh Sarge, you aren't stupid. Sometimes you should pause before hitting "submit reply"

It's not my nature to hesitate. You of all people should be able to understand that.
 
It could be comparable. I mean, when Nixon took office in 1969 there were 500,000 troops or there abouts in Vietnam, the war had been ongoing for years. In months after Nixon took office, that became known as "Nixon's war."

So it could be compared as when Obama took office in 2009, we had tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan and the war has been going on for years....could it become known as "Obama's War."

If so, there are comparisons. If not, there are hardly any analogies.
 
I think there are a lot of strings that could be drawn together between the two wars.

The first major one that occurs to me is a feeling that we didn't have a clearly defined set of objectives in either war. We have large undefined goals with no real metrics attached to them in both wars. Roundly, the idea was to 'stop the march of communism' or, 'stop the dominoes from falling' in Vietnam. How you decide you've achieved that goal is pretty hard to define, and therefore knowing when to leave is also hard to know. There's no real way out of that one.

Likewise in Afghanistan, our round goals are to 'defeat al Qaeda,' or, 'spread the seeds of democracy.' Honestly, if our goal is to defeat al Qaeda, it's never going to happen because al Qaeda is in Pakistan. They are a country-less non-regular force; borders mean nothing to them but safety. For the US, the borders mean everything. (Or, they should mean everything.) There are certainly parallels to draw between Laos and Pakistan. If our goal is to 'spread democracy,' again, we have some ideas about how to measure that success, but as has been demonstrated, vacuums lead to propaganda, and is seems like democracy is bound to be undercut the moment we leave. If we are to see success in Afghanistan, we'll need to commit for the long haul.

I think Obama's hesitation can be linked straight back to a few of these ideas. There are at least two possible approaches to Afghanistan. The Powell Doctrine; meaning clearly defined goals, exit strategy, overwhelming force. And the strategy that proposes as small a footprint as possible, designed to help allay the perception of invader/occupier versus the perception of liberator/enabler. Both probably have their merits, and it's obvious that 'winning' in Afghanistan is something that truly does need to be defined.
 
I would say most people have no idea why we decided not to win in Vietnam. That's right We didn't lose the war we lost the will to win. Dumb ass politicians made decisions not to bomb parts of the north where the enemy was receiving resupplies and shooting down our planes because they feared a wider war more than they wanted to win. We most likely shouldn't have been there in the first place because they presented no direct of for that matter indirect threat to us in the near term. In Afghanistan the Al Quaeda lived and trained with the help and blessing of the Taliban and not only attacked us on 9-11 but posed at continuing threat.
We go back to similarities when we look at the dumb ass politicians and the will to win as well as the knowledge required to make intelligent decisions about military matters. Obama and the rest of the politicians need to sit down and shut up and turn the military loose with every tool in our arsenal and orders to win this war as quickly as possible by the use of what ever means are necessary and stop worrying about a few or even a few thousand civilian deaths. It's war and civilians die in war and if the enemy is using them to hide behind and to kill in suicide bombings as way to influence public and world opinion. It needs to e be made clear to everyone that if the civilian population wants to be free to live as they want without the massive personal restrictions imposed by the Taliban they need to point out the enemy where ever they are and we will come in with massive over whelming force and kill every damn one of them.
If Obama and the Dims (no spill error) are unwilling to do this they need to be removed from office and pass laws stripping every damn one of then of any and all pensions and or perks the bastards feel they deserve. That type of idiot is what got over 50,000 American young men killed for nothing in the end. If young people like my Dad who went to war in WWII as a 19 year old can defeat Germany and Japan in battles from one side of the world to the other it is clear to me that our young all volunteer Military who are the best trained finest fighting force in the history of the world can route out and kill not capture or make deals with an enemy who's ultimate goal is to destroy our way of life and kill our citizens. All the stupid dumb ass Obama and the rest of the appeaser mentality types who fear a wider war need to do is get the hell out of the way. No country in the world will attack the United States or even bad mouth us ever again if a decisive victory with the use of a magnitude of force never seen before is used to show that we are serious.
I would then issue a proclamation to the rest of the world like that given by Klatu in the day "The Day the Earth Stood Still" that any country that attacks another anywhere in the world will be immediately reduced to a burned out cinder, so they need to turn theirr pursuits to peaceful means and we'll all get along fine and we'll even help them take care of their people in a just and Democratic manner and we can all turn our efforts and spend our wealth on more productive ans exciting endeavors like space and deep sea exploration as well as cures for cancer and other diseases. maybe even come up with a safe vaccine for H1N1 that won't cause autism so parents won't have to worry because the Governments of the world can't be trusted to do the right things for thr right reasons.
 
Last edited:
The two wars are not even remotely comparable.

In Vietnam we overturned a democracy in favor of dictatorship. In Afghanistan we overturned a dictatorship in favor of democracy.

In Vietnam we were alone. In Afghanistan we have all of NATO behind us.

In Vietnam millions were killed. In Afghanistan tens of thousands (I think?) have been killed.

I could go on.
 
If we aren't fighting to win over there then pull them out!


j-mac
 
The two wars are not even remotely comparable. In Vietnam we overturned a democracy in favor of dictatorship.

That's not really accurate. We did not want the communists in charge.

In Afghanistan we overturned a dictatorship in favor of democracy.

I wouldn't call the Taliban "a dictatorship", where they did not enforce their version of Sharia was wholly ungovnerned. I'm also not sure the "democracy" we've enabled has earned that label yet.

In Vietnam we were alone. In Afghanistan we have all of NATO behind us.

Some of NATO; primarily the Brits, French, Candians and Aussies. Everyone else's role is pretty minimal. We are doing the brunt of the leg work.

In Vietnam millions were killed. In Afghanistan tens of thousands (I think?) have been killed.

Hard to say. Certainly not millions, but we are not as reckless with bombing as we were then. Different time, different tactics.

I could go on.

Please do; those comparisons were pretty amateur. Think of the framework in regards to the nature of the insurgency, the collective organization of the resistance and governmental response IRT resistance...
 
AS President Obama and his advisers contemplate a new course for Afghanistan, many commentators are suggesting analogies with earlier conflicts, particularly the war in Vietnam. Such comparisons can be useful, but only if the characterizations of earlier wars are accurate and lessons are appropriately applied.

Vietnam is particularly tricky. While avoiding the missteps made there is of course a priority, few seem aware of the many successful changes in strategy undertaken in the later years of the conflict. The credit for those accomplishments goes in large part to three men: Ellsworth Bunker, who became the American ambassador to South Vietnam in 1967; William Colby, the C.I.A. officer in charge of rural “pacification” efforts; and Gen. Creighton Abrams, who became the top American commander there in 1968.

A closer look at key aspects of how these men rethought their war may prove instructive to those considering our options in Afghanistan today. Among their principles were these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18sorley.html
 
bhkad,
Great article, thanks for posting. It's a very succinct comparison highlighting the key issues from each war.

Much like Vietnam, we have failed to get our act together for the first 8 years.

If we are going to win this, it requires much, much more support than we have. The "civilian surge" isn't going to happen, which once again places the burden on the military to be multifunctional, much like in Iraq.

Steve Metz from the U.S. Army War College wrote this about the "civilian surge" that just won't happen:

The Civilian Surge Myth

How can we snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Afghanistan? There's one solution that has attracted analysts of all stripes: a "civilian surge," where development and political advisers working for (or contracted by) the State department and the U.S. Agency for International Development flood the country and turn the tide against the insurgents.


The logic, at least, is sound: It takes more than military success to defeat insurgents. Insurgency grows where a corrupt and weak government does not provide security, justice, and opportunity. Unless these underlying problems are resolved, the military can kill insurgents forever, and more will emerge. Insurgency is a symptom of deeper ills. The rub is that these deeper ills are not military, but political, economic, and social--things that armed forces are not prepared to fix.
 
Is Afghanistan comparable to Vietnam?

Yes, fundamentally I see almost a carbon copy, save the humidity.

I could list the similarities, but then someone would argue this or that point, and I think it's important to focus on the big picture.

Anybody remember the 8 questions in the Powell doctrine?

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have genuine broad international support?


I see the answer as no in almost every case, so I hope to God Obama is taking this time to seriously re-evaluate the reasons to be there and put our amazing young people in harm's way.
 
Yes, fundamentally I see almost a carbon copy, save the humidity.

I could list the similarities, but then someone would argue this or that point, and I think it's important to focus on the big picture.

Anybody remember the 8 questions in the Powell doctrine?

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have genuine broad international support?


I see the answer as no in almost every case, so I hope to God Obama is taking this time to seriously re-evaluate the reasons to be there and put our amazing young people in harm's way.


The Powell Doctrine is not set in stone. We can go with 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7....like in Iraq.
 
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.
 
Why is Vietnam only a US failure,

Because it's an endevour we chose...and failed to achieve the objective.

we were only the last ones to fight there but there were many before.

Recent to us? The French. That's one. Not "many".

I think all wars can be compared from a military perspective.

Compared to what? I don't understand this statement.

You plan and impliment a strategy and it succeeds or fails.

Or in our case, multiple strategies in Vietnam.

Politics is part of every war.

Uhhh...yeah. It sure is. Remember what CvC said...
 
CNN's Ed Hornick writes thought-provoking article:

Afghanistan haunted by ghost of Vietnam



I think the differences between the wars are pretty evident, politically, outside of the similiar nature of the insurgency and despite my disagreement that many Afghans possess any kind of nationalist ideology. I don't believe that they do for the most part. I'm also not convince we can compare Saigon to Kabul, outside of the corruption.

Thoughts?

I think the notion that Afghanistan is anything like Vietnam is beyond absurd, it is a farce.

In Vietnam we only fought a containment fight; we could not go into North Vietnam and we could not conduct total war. Part of the reasons for this was the lesson learned in the Korean conflict when China unabashedly came to the rescue of the communist dictators who ran North Korea.

The Democrat administrations at the outbreak of Vietnam feared a repeat with China and therefore did not declare it an official war but rather a police action.

None of the restrictions we had in Vietnam are part of the Afghanistan conflict. We defeated the existing Government, we do not have to fear China or Soviet involvement and we have already replaced that Government with a democratically elected one. We do not have any restrictions on any portion of the country and the only similarity might be the Vietcong using Cambodia as a supply line versus the Taliban using Pakistan.

The major difference here however is that the Pakistan Government has declared war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda too.

The only area that is remotely similar is the media's and Libruls typically feckless efforts to argue that we cannot win and how inept our troops are at fighting an insurgency.

But then, Libruls and the media never did find a war they didn't hate and didn't find inconvenient to their political beliefs.
 
The two wars are not even remotely comparable.

In Vietnam we overturned a democracy in favor of dictatorship. In Afghanistan we overturned a dictatorship in favor of democracy.

South Vietnam was never a dictatorship. There was a coup, but it wasn't to install a dictator.

In Vietnam we were alone. In Afghanistan we have all of NATO behind us.

There were several countries that were fighting with in Vietnam.South Vietnam

South Korea
Australia
Philippines
New Zealand
Khmer Republic
Thailand
Kingdom of Laos

The ANZAC's proved themselves to some of the best jungle fighters in the world. Also, there were 30,000 Canadian citizens that volunteered to serve with the United States military. We were hardly there alone.

In Vietnam millions were killed. In Afghanistan tens of thousands (I think?) have been killed.

Yoo're right on that one.
 
Some of NATO; primarily the Brits, French, Candians and Aussies. Everyone else's role is pretty minimal. We are doing the brunt of the leg work.

The Brits, Canadians and French never sent troops to Vietnam during the American presence.
 
The Brits, Canadians and French never sent troops to Vietnam during the American presence.

Uh, yeah I know. I was talking about Afghanistan.
 
All that was missing in Vietnam was the will to win. Hopefully we won't make the same mistake but I doubt it.
 
Back
Top Bottom