In 1968, we had 548,000 troops in Viet Nam.

[kentuck]

A much smaller country than Afghanistan and we could not stabilize it. Why do we think 34,000 will stabilize Afghanistan? If they are being sent there to simply train and support, that might work for a short time. As soon as they are gone, the strong will overwhelm the weaker. I suspect the same will happen in Iraq eventually also? However, the President may be focusing more on Pakistan than Afghanistan?

[Ernesto]

1. I was one of them....

It didn't take to long to figure out we were on a bum trip.

[MH1]

2. I'm sure "we" don't think that

but don't expect the actual strategy or rationale to be broadcast.

Obama is not an idiot but he was handed a very difficult situation.

[msongs]

9. that excuse is gonna run out of steam pretty soon -

"Obama is not an idiot but he was handed a very difficult situation."

Msongs

[MH1]

14. not an excuse, it's a fact

but in any case please refer to my first sentence, "but don't expect the actual strategy or rationale to be broadcast."

Packing up and leaving Afghanistan RIGHT NOW (as you apparently want to do) may not be the best strategy if you care about the best result for the most people. Of course if you don't give a shit about anyone but Americans (in the very short term), obviously removing our troops from harm's way and never deploying them anywhere dangerous would be a good approach.

[Romulox]

23. It's the old "we had to destroy the village to save it!" routine.

Talk about oldies but goodies! :wow:

[rurallib]

3. And bombing them "back to the stone age" IIRC

Odd that American business is trying to exploit their workers now.

[MGB67]

29. Maybe I'm just old and tired...

but I feel like getting stoned back to the bomb age.:crazy:

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. It's the same domino theory except that this time it's radical islam

and Pakistani nukes.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. So would "Rolling Thunder" work in Iraq/Pak/Afghan?

Just one example of a successful strategic operation that ultimately accomplished nothing.

[tekisui]

5. Don't forget we are also diverting money and support to

local Taliban. We are paying Taliban members to join our side. The Brits have reported that the Taliban have infiltrated the Afghan police and military. Karzai welcomed 'the Taliban brothers' back to Afghanistan in his *cough* acceptance speech.

We are committing $200 Billion a day to support corrupt, undemocratic and compromised regimes. Our presence further destabilizes, doubling down is failure times two.

[jdlh8894]

6. Don't think so

Intell and technology are MUCH more advanced than they were 35-40 years ago.
I think we will just have to wait and see. JMO

[treestar]

7. that was the 1960s

technology was less advanced. Just sayin'

I don't know if it is a good idea or not, but have an inkling it is military strategy and I know zilch about that. So I'm not going to take implacable stances. This is Bush's war - and highly supported by the voters.

[tekisui]

8. With his upcoming annoucement, Obama will have more than doubled

the US troop presence. Not to mention the number of contractors.

This is Obama's War, make no mistake about that.

[treestar]

12. It is BUSH's war

He started it in 2001.

Then he screwed it up with the Iraq distraction.

The number of troops in Iraq could have been in Afghanistan all along, during Bush's term.

[tekisui]

15. Obama doubled down. It can't be bush's forever.

Iraq is not Obama's. Obama has begun the withdrawal. Escalating and expanding in Afghanistan and calling it the right war give ownership to Obama.

We may look back on the history of the AfPak war and see bush's years as the prequel. We are looking at decade(s) more of a lost war.

[treestar]

17. If Bush had conducted his own war right, it would have had that

many troops all along.

So the number of troops does not seem all that relevant.

And we don't know that we can't win, whatever that may mean.

The general public still sees some need to contain Al Qaeda.

[tekisui]

18. Number of troops is quite relevant.

Obama's first surge of 21,000 led to the bloodiest months and the bloodiest year. It further destabilized the country. And, now we are stuck defending a crooked dictator.

The general public does not support an escalation.

[JVS]

30. "And we don't know that we can't win, whatever that may mean. "

If we don't know what a win is, we can't win.

[Ignis]

28. Improved tech doesn't help police / nation-building activities.

If anything, it helps guerrillas / insurgents / freedom fighters.

[Ignis]

37. Here's a Wired story that details the difference:

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/15-12/ff_futurewar

[Winterblues]

11. Not really comparable

North Vietnam had the third largest army in the world at the time and it also had both China and the USSR giving overt aid. Also we were constrained from sending troops into North Vietnam..The Peasants, Pushtans, whatever, have no real support or military structure. Which actually makes our job there even harder.

[TexasObserver]

16. Yeah, you should have met this little guy in black PJs named "Charlie."

He might change your mind.

Sure, they had the NV army and backing from the USSR and China, but the VC were everywhere.

You're right that they're not really comparable, because we had overwhelming forces and materiel in Vietnam and the surrounding countries. Unlike Afghanistan, we had real numbers in Vietnam. We pulverized that country for years, and we killed a million people. And it didn't even make a dent.

We are going to leave Afghanistan, and it won't be after "winning" a war there. The sooner it happens, the better.

[Winterblues]

19. I spent two tours there and NEVER once encountered VC

I was almost never in any rear area either. We were engaged against the NVA entirely..

[kentuck]

22. I think the majority of the Viet Cong were up north...

around Hanoi and around the Quang Tri Province. Most of the conflict in the south of the country were NVA, in my opinion.

[TexasObserver]

24. The VC were mainly in South Vietnam, not North, not Hanoi. That was the NVA.

The NVA were regular army from North Vietnam, and they were hardcore soldiers. VC were peasants, farmers, just locals who either signed on with the NVA supported VC or suffered because they didn't.

The Vietcong (VC) were militia members in South Vietnam and Cambodia. The NVA was the North's army.

[TexasObserver]

26. Really? What two years did you only engage NVA?

You're claiming to have been there fighting, not me. I'm claiming to have knowledge of the war based upon my TDY duties there, my assignments in Laos, Thailand, and Makung, and my duties in intelligence in the entire region from 1969 to 1971.

Assuming your story is true, its anecdotal. Maybe you did only engage NVA.

I looked at maps every day in the command post that showed the location and troop strengths of NVA and VC, to the extent they were known, as well as reports on all the engagements. You saw one man's view. I saw the reports from all units.

[Winterblues]

27. I was there from May of '68 to December of '69

Spent the bulk of my time in I Corp but spent a few months in III Corp. I was with the 1st Cav when it moved from I corp to III corp and then extended to go to another unit which put me back in I corp. Spent buku months humping the mountains (boonies) around the DMZ. Was there for the relief of Khe Sahn

[TexasObserver]

31. Khe Sahn battle ended in early April of '68.

Are you saying in May of '68 you had a role at Khe Sahn a month or so after the battle of Khe Sahn concluded?

Yours seems an interesting story, because engaging only NVA was unusual, at least according to reports that made it to the command post where I worked. NVA operated in larger units and fought more formal engagements, where the Cong were opportunity militia fighters who typically engaged in the areas in which they lived. NVA regulars were North Vietnam citizens.

You seem legit, so I don't want to suggest that you didn't have the experience you report. But never engaging VC in two years, in 1968 and 1969 seems out of the ordinary.

We're off on a tangent. Your position was that Afghanistan is nothing like Vietnam, because in Vietnam we were facing a formal army on the other side, backed by China and the USSR. That's a valid point, but the similarity is a string of hazy justifications that come down to some US politician not having the balls to say NO to the military-industrial complex, followed by a war that cannot be won.

We are nothing but police in Afghanistan, and like the police, as soon as we leave the neighborhood, so does the "stability" we brought.

We lost in Vietnam, and we've lost in Afghanistan.

[Winterblues]

34. I arrived in Vietnam on the third of May 1968

After ten days of orientation I was sent directly to my new Unit on the outskirts of Khe Sahn. There were no longer any Marines left on site but the enmey was still in the area and our job was to count bodies. The entire area had been pretty much leveled by B-52 bombing (arc lights). My unit had been the first Unit in after the Marines finally called for assistance from the US Army. Granted I was not there the day my unit arrived on the runway which they immediately painted a 1st Cav Patch on but the relief effort was still going on when I arrived. There were several small villages within a few kilometers of the runway. Khe Sahn was nothing more than an FOB with a runway. There was no village there. There were burnt out hulks of enemy tanks and half ton trucks within a few meters of the outer perimeter and more NVA regulars than anyone understood there to be.. there was not a day went by that we did not make contact, and we spent several months within ten kilometers of Khe Sahn.

[TexasObserver]

35. Thanks for that info.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the role the VC played. Your personal experience is what it is, so if that's what you saw, that's what you saw.

[TexasObserver]

13. Yes, it's insane, it won't work, it will kill Americans, and it will make things worse, not better.

The president's naivete is very troubling when it comes to some matters, and this is one of them. He's being led around by the nose by warmongers, and he seems too weak to stand up to any powerful group.

[era veteran]

20. Bush ( Rumsfeld) lost Bin Laden @ Tora Bora

Plain fucked up, of course he had an illegal war to wage. He is a traitor. Out Now

[era veteran]

21. dupe

[Naturyl]

25. War in Afghanistan helped break the Soviet Union.

Why do we think the outcome will be different for us?

[old mark]

32. There are times I think that would be a good thing. nt

[Kaleva]

33. The VC and North Vietnamese had the support of two major powers.

Another question to ask is: How are the Taliban ever going to drive the US out of Afghanistan? They can't. The only way they can hope to win is that the US gets tired of it all and withdraws on its own accord before the Taliban itself is defeated.

[HughMoran]

36. "Viet Friggin' Nam"

Favorite line from Forrest Gump,

I think Obama is more worried about terrorists reestablishing root in Afghanistan, then potentially destabilizing a nuclear Pakistan.

[Major Hogwash]

38. General Wesley Clark said the plan was to invade and occupy 7 countries in 5 years

And that was clear back in 2007.

Iraq
Syria
Lebanon
Libya
Somalia
Sudan
Iran

There's even a video of him saying it here -

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5166

And a shorter version here -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE