Normally I try to post things of a more political nature under the nom-de-plume of Father Orthoduck. But, in this case, some of the current arguments over Afghanistan hit rather close to home and bring back memories. Yes, I am a baby boomer. Yes, I remember Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Yes, I remember quite well how the Viet Nam conflict (they refused to call it a war back then also) eventually drove President Johnson from office and away from a second term. Many of us still remember the night he went on TV and said, “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.” Eventually, I was drafted and not to be President of the USA either. I was drafted before I was an American citizen (permanent residents can be drafted) and I was given my citizenship in the month before I had to enter, otherwise I would not have been able to be sent overseas had the authorities chosen to do so. [ No, I was not sent overseas.] And, I can remember all too well the day I watched President Nixon on TV with my buddies in a barracks in the USA as we hooted at him when he said, “Throughout the years of negotiations, we have insisted on peace with honor.” Almost exactly two years later Saigon fell on 30 April 1975. Gerald R. Ford was President and Nixon had already resigned in disgrace to avoid impeachment and trial before the US Congress.
It is all too true that we baby-boomers are living more and more in the past as we get older. We dominate the culture and that needs to end. But, it is also true that he who does not know history is doomed to repeat it. And, that is the problem I have with the current arguments over Afghanistan, a problem that is well captured by the comic above. President Obama has inherited a war in Afghanistan which the Congress refused to declare a war, despite ample justification and legal support, even from the world community. [Iraq is a separate matter.] President Bush was roundly criticized by many Republicans for repeating President Johnson’s mistake of trying to have both “guns and butter.” For those of you who do not know the term, it meant trying to run a war without calling for any financial sacrifices back home. Just like back then, President Bush took a thriving economy and drove it into the ground. We cannot have both guns and butter. The lack of fiscal control during the Bush years was appalling and the crash was massive.
Now President Obama has inherited a non-war (never legally declared) in its ninth year. At the risk of being labeled just another baby-boomer, the echoes from back then are well captured in the comic above. The military repeats its insistence from back then to simply give them more troops and they can win it. The enemy is slipping across the border into another country, into which we cannot really go without willingness to fight a much more major war. Inevitably there are those in the USA that say both that we cannot back out without a victory; we cannot keep this conflict going unendingly; and we cannot keep spending massive amounts of money on it. The sad part is that the same people are saying all three at once. They are logically contradictory. To win a war, one has to be willing to expend effort, lives, time, and money. And that means patience, losses and sacrifices at home, and a solid explanation to the citizens as to why all three are necessary.
There are those that say that we must back the military uncritically. For those who say that, I recommend that you read a good summary of The Pentagon Papers to see how misguided the military can be. You may also wish to look up Korea and the reason why President Truman had to remove General MacArthur from command. Farther back, you may need to look at President Lincoln and his replacing General McClellan with General Grant. There are those Republicans and Democrats who are now echoing the line from back then, that President Bush made a mistake by trying to guide the military too much and by taking on a two front conflict, which we still have going on. So, they say the solution is to cut the military loose and to do whatever they wish. I would say that would be OK, provided you are willing to be silent as the inevitable body count ratchets up. Military victories are won and held by ground-pounders, not by military air. Moreover, it is not clear that this victory could be a purely military victory.
This is because we are faced with a government in Afghanistan that has an eerie echo to Viet Nam as well. As much as any other reason, the succession of corrupt South Vietnamese governments, supported by the USA, lost the support of the populace. In order to combat that, the USA got into the business of regime change, as necessary. Please look up the history of President Kennedy’s order to the CIA to terminate one of the presidents of South Viet Nam. To uncritically back the current government of Afghanistan because they are our government is an invitation to lose here as in other places. Look up the history of the Shah of Iran and how we ended up losing that country by backing one of “our” supporters in an uncritical fashion.
There is pressure on President Obama to make a quick decision because our boys are dying. I would argue that there is every reason to take time and evaluate carefully or the body count could end up being much higher, just like in Viet Nam. Yes, some will die as a result of the delay, and that is the sadness and pain of war and the result of a militarily inadequate policy by the previous president. Some will die in order that more may not and that is a terrible thing to have to say. What we need is a coherent policy towards Afghanistan, a policy that will not simply let us escalate, only to have another repeat of a “peace with honor” speech by an American president. I do not wish my daughter, who is a 2nd Lt. and headed overseas in a couple of months, to ever have to listen to the speech her daddy had to listen to. If we escalate, it must be by coherent policy. If we dig in to be there for another decade or two, it must be by coherent policy. And, if we pull out, it must be by coherent policy. What I do doubt is that there will be any quick victory.
Finally, please note that in talking about Viet Nam, previous USA history, and the military, I have mentioned actions and failures by presidents of both parties. Neither party can claim either a perfect record or innocence when one looks back. And, I must say, neither party can claim innocence or a perfect record for some of the problems and mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we let this issue become a purely political “gotcha” issue, we will end up the same as back then, rudderless and without a clear definition of objectives, goals, and means.
Yes, I am a baby boomer. And, I remember the Viet Nam conflict and the arguments from back then all too well.
It is the old saying….doing the same thing and expecting different results. We have been there and done that as you say in Viet Nam. Yes. getting out of the way and letting the military do it WILL work–but you have to be able to articulate to the military just what you want to accomplish. Micro managing a war from the White House with no clear idea of what you ultimately expect out of the situation is a recipe for disaster just as letting the military “have it” without letting them know what the expected outcome is.
The problem is that no one in authority has been able to really say just what is the expected otucome. In WWII, it was pretty clear. Do what you have to do to halt the Japanese and German attempt to conquer the world. (over simplification, I know.) Since then, we have been putting out brush fires all over the world without a real concrete plan (to my way of thinking) of just what we are attempting to accomplish.
The military mind says, “Get in there-take the ground-get it done–get out,” which is not bad if you have told the military just what it is that you want to get done. There is a reason that the military is under civilian control. But if that civilian control hasn’t got a clue what is wanted, expected or needed, the military–who is on the front line where a wishy-washy policy means real blood and body parts–will fall back on–get in there–get it done-get out.
I come from a military family. My father and then husband were in Viet Nam the same year. My subsequent husband had three tours in Viet Nam which left him scarred in ways that civilians cannot imagine. On my father’s tombstone in Arlington Cemetary it says, ” WWII, Korea, Viet Nam.” I lost my father to Agent Orange Related Cancer. I lost two marriages to Viet Nam, both involving PTSD. The first we didn’t know was PTSD–the diagnosis hadn’t been invented yet–but the man I sent over was not the man who returned. The man who returned drank, distanced himself, was emotionally unavailable, would rather spend time with other men who had been there and done that than with his family, was terrified that somehow something would happen to me to the point that I was virtually a prisoner in our home and had violent flashbacks–though we didn’t know what they were then. The second seemed okay until the PTSD genie came out of the bottle at the time of Desert Shield. He never was able to put it back in. My children have been traumatized by the ravages of a war they were not even alive to know about.
If I had my druthers, the Civilians would tell the military what the objective is in clear terms and then get out of the way and let the military do what they do best. Get in there, get it done and get out with the minimum loss of life, limb and resources. Until Washington has decided just what it is they are attempting to accomplish, it will continue to be the disaster we are seeing–as Yogi Berra said–deja vu all over again.
My heart breaks for military families who are living through what my family has lived through. Neither President Bush (who was a reserve officer) nor President Obama have served in the military on the front lines in a time of war. Maybe if they had, they would have a clearer picture of just what kind of objectives you can ask the military to complete for you and how important it is to set clear and rational objectives and a definate plan for what you are asking the military to do.
If we have not learned from the 55,000 + names on the Viet Nam Memorial or even from the Russians misadventures in Afganistan, what will it take for us to learn? The answer, it seems, is more of the same.
Alert to Washington–figure it out while there is still time–there is limited space on the Mall for memorials with the names of the dead. I pray each day that we will stop finding reasons for more wars and more names.
Alix