No More Afghanistans
William Astore teaches History at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. He retired from the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel in 2005, having taught at the Air Force Academy as well as the Naval Postgraduate School. Reprinted from the Huffington Post with the permission of the author.
In grappling with Afghanistan, President Obama and his team of national security advisors reveal a tendency all too common within the Washington beltway: privileging fleeting and reversible signs of local success while downplaying endemic difficulties and larger patterns of strategic failure. Our latest intelligence estimates, we are told, show signs of progress. But of what sort? The Taliban appears to be extending its hold in the countryside, corruption continues to spread in the Karzai government, and the Afghan National Army remains unreliable, all despite (or rather because of) prodigious infusions of cash courtesy of the American taxpayer.
The president and his advisors would do well to toss aside the latest"feel good" intel and pick up a good book on war. I'd recommend Summons of the Trumpet: U.S.-Vietnam in Perspective, by Colonel (later, Lieutenant General) Dave Richard Palmer."One of the essential ingredients of [national] preparedness," wrote then-Colonel Palmer in 1978,"is a diligent and honest study of the past, an intellectual examination of historical successes and failures." True to his word, Palmer quoted Major G.P. Baldwin, who wrote in 1928 of the Russo-Japanese War that:
The [Russian] government, the press, and the people as a whole had no enthusiasm for the war, indeed failed to understand what the nation was fighting about... Such support is necessary in any war... Unless the people are enthusiastic about war, unless they have a strong will to win it, they will become discouraged by repeated [setbacks]... no government can go to war with hope of success unless it is assured that the people as a whole know what the war is about, that they believe in their cause, are enthusiastic for it, and possess a determination to win. If these conditions are not present the government should take steps to create them or keep the peace.
Palmer cited these words at the end of his probing account of America's defeat in Vietnam. Though I don't agree with all of Palmer's conclusions, his book is stimulating, incisive, and compelling in its concluding vow:"There must be no more Vietnams."
Let's consider the points that Baldwin and Palmer raise in light of today's situation in Afghanistan. Are the American people enthusiastic for this war? Do they have a strong will to win it (assuming the war is winnable on terms consistent with our interests)? Do they know what the war is about (this seems unlikely, since nine out of ten Americans can't seem to locate Afghanistan on a map)?
If the answer to these fundamental questions is"no," and I believe it is, shouldn't our government and our troops be withdrawing now? Because I don't see that our government will seek to mobilize the people, mobilize our national will, tell us clearly what our cause is and why it is just, and persist in that cause until it is either won or lost. And if I'm right about this, our government had best work to"keep the peace."
Some of the reasons Palmer cites for why Vietnam was such an"incomprehensible war" for the United States bear careful consideration for President Obama's policy review. These reasons include that few Americans knew exactly why we were fighting in Vietnam; that it was a"limited war" during which most Americans"sensed no feeling of immediate danger and certainly no spirit of total involvement"; that no"unifying element" was at work to suppress internal doubt and dissent, common elements in all wars; that the struggle was not only (or even primarily) a military one but one in which economic, political, and psychological factors often intruded; and that a cultural gap of great perplexity separated us from both our in-country allies and our enemy, a gap that"foment[ed] mistrust and misunderstanding."
In light of these points, Afghanistan may qualify as a new"incomprehensible war." Let's not be distracted by the minutia of the latest intelligence reports and their uncertain metrics of"success." Unless we can give convincing answers to General Palmer's questions and points - and unless we can wage a war that doesn't entail destroying the Afghan village in order to save it - our only sound course is expedient withdrawal, followed by a renewed vow: There must be no more Vietnams - or Afghanistans.
comments powered by Disqus
- Five Things You Need to Know to be a Better Digital Preservationist
- Book on Losing British Generals Wins American History Prize
- Stanford scholar explores civil rights revolution's positive impact on the South's economy
- Harvard Historian Nancy Koehn on Amazon's Tentacular Reach
- Q&A with historian and author Nick Turse