The escalated American war in Afghanistan is shaping up as another Vietnam, which brought a generation of grief to the United States.
The parallels are uncanny. Both wars concern far-off lands with difficult supply lines and people with centuries-old resistance to foreign control. In each case, the other side is fuelled not just by nationalism but also by ideology - communism in Vietnam, Islamism in Afghanistan. In each case, local resistance has the military advantage of relatively safe sanctuaries - North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the one case, Pakistan in the other.
In each case, there's an elephant next door - the People's Liberation Army (Vietnam), and fear over control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal (Afghanistan). In each case, these things did or will constrain the full exercise of American destructive power lest they awaken the elephant.
In each case, one of the things you need to do to "win" - i.e. destroy the agricultural base supporting the enemy (poppies in Afghanistan) is ruled out by a mixture of morals and politics, a combination that can paralyze decision-making. In each case, the other side has infinite patience unless utterly crushed.
From the archives
It's not all one-sided. Today's U.S. military is far more proficient at guerrilla action, and Washington has more allies in Afghanistan than it did in Vietnam. Alas, most of them (Canadians and Brits notably excluded) don't want to fight. And most distressing of all, if there is a "win," what is it?
In Vietnam, it was supposed to be propping up the surrounding "domino" countries that Washington feared would go communist if Vietnam were lost. Didn't happen. In Afghanistan, instead of a corrupt government dominated by aggressive Islam and oppressive of women, we would have, um, a corrupt government dominated by aggressive Islam and oppressive of women but (sort of) elected.
The Taliban version would undoubtedly be more brutal, but is making this choice for the Afghan people a moral or strategic imperative for Western nations?
There is the issue of potential bases for al-Qaeda in a Talibanized Afghanistan, but history has shown that local dictators can control such terrorists much more effectively than foreigners if given the right incentives. Targeted operations can quietly kill remaining threats to American security if Barack Obama is prepared to rebuild this covert capacity and empower it.
Perhaps Mr. Obama, with enough time, money and troops, could achieve in Afghanistan what Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam - namely, he spent his way to military dominance, then was brought down by political controversy at home. In Vietnam, it was always another 30,000 troops that would bring victory. This didn't happen, and the failure ended the Johnson presidency. The United States has now been in Afghanistan (not to mention Iraq) for seven years. Even the Obama Teflon will have limits.
Far better for Mr. Obama to adopt the Nixonian solution: Find a plausible time to declare victory, then leave. Ten years on, 9/11 will have been avenged. But Mr. Obama cannot politically afford to do that without a lot of international help (disguised as pressure), and Canada should be in the forefront of that push. We have earned our right to advance our opinion by the blood of our soldiers.
Would this make our sacrifices to date for naught? Not at all. The Afghan people have seen the faces of decent Westerners and know their options. We have supported our allies, and our troops have done us proud. We are a force to be reckoned with again. But most Canadians now think we have made our military statement.
In leaving Afghanistan to its own devices, the West would not be abandoning history, just waiting for it. It is important to recognize that the underlying Afghan ideology - Islam - is roughly as powerful as Christianity once was in Europe. It has intellectual domination of the people, the ability to bring kings to heel, great wealth, its own courts and so on. In due course, technology and other ideas and schisms will do to Islam what those forces did to Christianity.
Of course, the process will be far more rapid with modern communications. The old church did not have to contend with the subversive effect of the printing press. From this point of view, Western culture is already winning any "war," and unstoppably so. Curiously, Western culture has already triumphed over communism in postwar Vietnam.
Individual freedom is the most powerful idea in human history, but it cannot be forced or imposed. It has to be earned and learned. Many in Afghanistan will suffer in this process, as did our ancestors for us. We can but stand ready to help. That's sad, but it's the way of the current world.
ggibson@bc-home.com
Recommend this article? 1 votes
View the most recommended
This conversation is semi moderated
1 reader comments | Join the conversation
More popular news items
A tag is a keyword or descriptive term supplied by our editorial staff used to associate related articles with one another. Tags make it easier for you to find other stories that share the same theme or topic with the article you’re currently reading.
Have all subsequent stories by this writer e-mailed to you.
E-mail alerts deliver the news to your inbox as it happens.
Back to top
Read Full Article »