|
Wednesday Oct 07, 2009
Rosner's Domain: Nothing like VietnamPosted by SHMUEL ROSNER
Comments: 8      Peter Beinart has a new column. He's still a very good writer. Here's proof: In recent weeks, with Barack Obama rethinking his Afghan policy, the Times has been bursting with Vietnam analogies. The "Afghanistan is Vietnam" stories all share a rather unconventional structure. First, the author tells you that his premise is wrong. "Such historical analogies are overly simplistic and fatally flawed," acknowledged Peter Baker a few months back, in a story entitled "Could Afghanistan Become Obama's Vietnam?" (One can only imagine the conversation between Baker and his assignment editor. Baker: "I have this fatally flawed idea for a piece." Editor: "Get us 1,100 words by Monday.") Then, having taken confession, the writer proceeds to sin. Many parallels between Afghanistan and Vietnam, Times columnist Frank Rich conceded late last month, "are wrong, inexact or speculative" - before calling the parallels "remarkable," "eerie," "indisputable," and "uncannily" exact. Perhaps other pundits should put this kind of warning label on their commentary. Many analogies between Barack Obama and Adolph Hitler "are wrong, inexact and speculative," Glenn Beck might concede. And then on with the show. The rest of this first Beinart at The Daily Beast column is here.
1 | Terry - Eilat, Israel, Thursday Oct 08, 2009
There is one major difference between the Vietnam war & the current conflict in Afghanistan. It was possible to win the war in Vietnam militariily, Vietnam was lost politically, not militarily. Afghanistan cannot be ''won'' in any conventional sense of the word. Nation-building, an aim of the war, is unrealistic. There will never be a democratic gov't. in Afghanistan. There are no ''good guys'' - the Taliban are just the worst among many other lousy players. And, the war cannot be won without dealing with Pakistan, and by this, I most certainly don't mean increasing aid.
2 | Terry - Eilat, Israel, Thursday Oct 08, 2009
What makes comparison between Vietnam & Afghanistan somewhat valid is primarily due to American policy rather than the realities of each conflict. American policy since WWII no longer seeks unconditional victory, the concept of total war has been replaced by liberal squeemishness, a phenomenon not confined only to America. Western countries generally no longer believe in winning, in victory, in totally defeating an enemy. Which, of course, is why they can't win.
3 | Mike Felldman, Canada, Thursday Oct 08, 2009
The similarities are truly only political. Lydnon Johnson had an ambitious domestic policy initiative but ultimately his Presidency was consumed by the Vietnam war. Obama wants to re-shape the US, but has to face the realities of the greater world. His policies are constrained by the party he owes his Presidency to. My best guess with Obama is that he will cut and run after showing that he tried. In March he said he had formulated an Afghanstan policy, now he's considering his options. In those terms I believe valid comparisions can be made between two far away places. The other similary I wish for is that Johnson chose not to seek a second term.
4 | Sally - U.S.A., Saturday Oct 10, 2009
It was not too long ago that people, like Beinart, were calling the war in Iraq "Bush's Vietnam." The media constantly had the number of US soldier's deaths paraded before the public. Then Bush instituted the surge, & unless Obama blows it, which in his case is highly likely, & all of the sudden Iraq is no longer a problem. Bush receives no credit & the public, with a memory that can't function past breakfast, totally forgets. Apparently the difference is whether the U.S. President is Democrat or Republican. So people, like Beinart, dismiss the analogy in Obama's case.
5 | Sally - U.S.A., Saturday Oct 10, 2009
I think that the analogy in either case, Iraq or Afganistan, is inappropriate. I think that the focus should be the lesson of Vietnam - do not make a mess, then cut & run & then leave people to be slaughtered.
6 | Tom, US, Saturday Oct 10, 2009
Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11. Posed absolutely NO threat to the US. Saddam Hussein, whether you liked him or not did a far better job at keeping stability in Iraq as well as in the region than the retarded and dyslectic burned out druggie and alcoholic Bush ever did. The ONLY thing that can be said positive about the fiasco in Iraq is that it woke up America to the lies of the neocons. Right now the middle east is completely destabilized as a result of the invasion of Iraq and the very reason why all you morons are scared to death right now regarding Iran.
7 | Tom, US, Sunday Oct 18, 2009
Ehud Olmert - On Thursday, Oct. 22nd there will be a large rally calling for his prosecution as a war criminal before the ICC regarding the slaughter of over 1400 people, mostly unarmed civilians.
8 | hashem library,meghji bldg , mazgoan mumbai400009 india, Monday Oct 19, 2009
israel is really takin ga very strong action agaisnt the terrorisim and is the only country i nthe world as it is a jewish nation it is defending for the jewish and looking after the protection of the jewish people for all over the world and we the indian jewish community and the hashem library team here are proud of having hashem library we are proud of you people and will always be with israel till now long israel is jewish nation and hope will continue the same we are proudo f you
|
 |
Search this blog
The Israel Factor, Sep. 2009: Obama is rapidly losing favor with panel of Israeli experts
Tags:
Blogroll |
Post your own comment
