Obama 'Pulling A Nixon' with Respect to Troops' Lives

[Feuer Frei!]

No one needs to tell the public that politicians are slick—and the ones who get elected are the oiliest. President Obama, in a recent speech announcing the phased withdraw of 33,000 U.S. surge forces from Afghanistan by September 2012, told the country that the United States had largely achieved its goals in Afghanistan and that "we are starting this drawdown from a position of strength." The public could be forgiven for missing the real message: "We've lost the war, but we are declaring victory anyway and getting out."
The reality of withdrawing 33,000 of about 100,000 troops in that country is that the president's "counterinsurgency" strategy—the U.S. clearing areas of Taliban forces until "good government" can take hold and the Afghan forces are competent enough to take over—has failed. The strategy was designed to achieve battlefield gains that would not eradicate the Taliban but cause the group to come to the negotiating table. Although the Taliban is negotiating, it is not doing so seriously because it knows it is winning the war. If it were losing, more Taliban would be defecting to the Afghan government; so far, only 1,700 out of between 25,000 and 40,000 insurgents have done so.

Since according to counterinsurgency expert William R. Polk, guerrilla warfare is 80 percent political, 15 percent administrative, and only 5 percent military, the U.S.-sponsored corrupt and illegitimate Afghan government is a major albatross around America's neck. Also, even after Afghan security forces have been trained for almost a decade, they are incapable of securing Afghanistan on their own.
Yet if there hasn't been a terrorist threat from Afghanistan for seven to eight years, as the Obama administration maintains, then why did we need the surge and 18-month counterinsurgency strategy in the first place, and why can't troops come home faster? The answer is that the withdrawal timetable is not based on military considerations but on electoral politics.



Richard Nixon faced the same dilemma presiding over the lost Vietnam War. In 1971, he wanted to withdraw U.S. forces from South Vietnam until Henry Kissinger reminded him that the place would likely fall apart in 1972, the year Nixon was up for reelection. To avoid this scenario, Nixon unconscionably delayed a peace settlement until 1973, thus trading more wasted American lives for his reelection.
Obama appears to be up to the same thing. A phased withdrawal of 33,000 U.S. troops before the election will push back at Republican candidates' demands for more rapid withdrawal and signal to the conflict-fatigued American public that he is solving the problem, while leaving 70,000 forces to make sure the country doesn't collapse before that election. Again, American lives will be needlessly lost so that a slick politician can look his best at election time.


SOURCE

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Richard Nixon faced the same dilemma presiding over the lost Vietnam War. In 1971, he wanted to withdraw U.S. forces from South Vietnam until Henry Kissinger reminded him that the place would likely fall apart in 1972, the year Nixon was up for reelection. To avoid this scenario, Nixon unconscionably delayed a peace settlement until 1973, thus trading more wasted American lives for his reelection.

I was there at the time, and we joked about it. "He said if we elected him he would get us out of Vietnam. Then he said if we re-elected him he would get us out of Vietnam. Sounds like a deal."

Or, at the risk of crossing the line that I hate crossing, we had another joke back then: "Why switch Dicks in the middle of a screw? Vote for Nixon '72!"

As for Obama, I don't know. We do have the same problem we had then, though. The "War" is far and away. On the one hand we see it on television all the time, which makes it closer than past wars, but on the other it's slightly unreal in the sense that the countries involved aren't changing their entire national focus like they did in the World Wars. If you've lost a loved one it's very close to home. If not, it's not quite real.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

"Why switch Dicks in the middle of a screw? Vote for Nixon '72!"

That's priceless, even for a non-American.

[Platapus]

The public could be forgiven for missing the real message: "We've lost the war, but we are declaring victory anyway and getting out."

Perhaps the real message is: We recognize that this is an economically, politically, and militarily un-winnable conflict and we are declaring victory (revenge for 911) and getting out"?

Personally, I don't care what the reasons or the rationale are, as long as we get out of AF.

We can only hope that future presidents read history about what happens when major powers try to "win" in AF.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

We can only hope that future presidents read history about what happens when major powers try to "win" in AF.

"Sweet dream 'til sunbeams find you, sweet dreams to leave all worries behind you..."

There is nothing new under the sun - except what had been forgotten meanwhile. Our instrumental options increased over the past centuries and millenia. Our intelligence did not. We think in the same patterns and run by the same rules and decide by the same logic like our forefathers did 1, 2 and 3 thousand years ago. If I get asked whether we have learned something in all that time, I answer: technically yes, in principle: no.

[krashkart]

The conclusion I'm coming to is that we can never win a war against a bassackwards country. This seems to happen every time the 'States invades a smaller, primarily tribal culture -- we get our butts handed to us. Why?

[BossMark]

Not just the USA have failed in Afghanistan the English failed in the 19th century the Soviets tried and failed in 1978 I think they were there for ten years

[Gerald]

Right,27 December 1979 – 15 February 1989 (as, Soviet war in Afghanistan, information from Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan