During his speech tonight announcing that 30,000 more troops will be sent to Afghanistan, President Barack Obama took aim at a popular criticism from the Left that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. Obama said, “I believe this argument depends upon a false reading of history.”
The President said, “First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history.”
He continued, “Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Obama is right. Afghanistan is not another Vietnam. He is making sure of it by not sending the nation in an open ended commitment as LBJ did decades ago. People who compare Afghanistan to Vietnam hopefully will realize that Obama is not LBJ. This is a different conflict for a different time.
This speech, although it invoked 9/11, was complete opposite of what George W. Bush had been passing off as vision for years. Obama laid out goals, objectives, and an endgame. These are three things that were never clear in the Bush Administration’s strategy. It is clear now why Obama took so long to make a decision. He was not only deciding on troops, but coming up with a comprehensive strategy.
He is correct that America can’t bail out on Afghanistan, but much like Iraq, an endgame must be set, or else the government there will never take responsibility. Obama’s speech itself was comprehensive, but he has a tough, almost impossible, sell to make to the left if he expects them to get on board with this decision.
Thanks, Jason, for an excellent analysis of the situation.
This needs to go far and wide; as we can’t keep falling prey to the Right Wing Talking Points, our own fears, and our own natural resistance to war.
None of us wanted this war.
I’m glad we have a president who takes the time to consider all options before acting. Knowing that Obama was one of the only voices speaking out against the invasion of Iraq in 2001 and 2002, I can only conclude that the intelligence he receives about Afghanistan is troubling enough to warrant this.
This decision isn’t popular with his base, and I know it pains him to send anyone to war. The mark of a true leader is that he is NOT pandering to his base for votes. He’s doing what he thinks is best.
And the timeline for getting out, as you explained so well, is a marked departure from the R approach (McCain who said we might be there forever) and Vietnam.
Bullshit. You are just another apologist for a failed presidency doomed to go down as yet another an incompetent who stumbled into office.
[...] First Tweet: 36 minutes ago politicususa Influential Jason Easley #Obama Denies that #Afghanistan is Another Vietnam http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Afghanistan-Vietnam #liberal #left #prog #p2 retweet [...]