Tweet
I’m unimpressed by Garry Wills’ argument here, as I am with pretty much every Reductio Ad Vietnamum argument. It’s barely even an argument. There’s no consideration of costs to U.S. interests or even benefits of withdrawal. Just the unarguable political point that a one-term presidency is preferable to an unwinnable war, with the conclusion that Afghanistan is quagmire just assumed instead of argued. I hate having to disagree with this, because it pushes me further to the right than I’m comfortable going, but I’ve got little choice. For instance:
We will hear predictions of dire consequences if we don’t carry out a commitment, and don’t yield to demands of the military to expand forces. We heard that for years about Vietnam. But when we did withdraw, the consequences were not as fatal as those we incurred during the years that saw the deaths of over 50,000 of our soldiers and many more Vietnamese.
New rule! I call a new rule. The surgeniks don’t get to say “But it worked in Iraq!” And the antiwar crowd doesn’t get to say “But Vietnam went like this!” From now on, we take Afghanistan on its own terms.
3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Thank you.
Saying “Afghanistan is just like Vietnam” brings no clarity or insight to the discussion. It’s intellectually lazy and historically inaccurate. Sure, there are similarities, just as there are to, say, the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan. If these similarities provide enlightenment, fine, use them.
But the questions that need to be answered about the American military involvement in Afghanistan are not addressed by grunting out a marginal historical parallel and wandering off to water the plants. Is there an American national security interest in Afghanistan? If so, is it best served by the deployment of military power? If so, what is the appropriate level of commitment, and how is it best utilized? And finally, is there a point where the return on the investment of lives, money and prestige is simply not great enough to justify the expenditure?
“Afghanistan is just like Vietnam” provides no insight into these questions…
mikey
Wills doesn’t want to bore himself by belaboring the obvious. It’s like that old saw about arguing about socialism: “your questions are so old I’ve forgotten the answers”. To have to rehearse the arguments again–all the reasons why Afghans will try to kill Americans so long as they’re there– seems incredibly tedioust, though I suppose it’s necessary. If Obama was old enough to have lived through Vietnam (and not meanwhile undergone some sort of conversion to neo-conservatism) he wouldn’t go near a big commitment to Afghanistan. On what other subject does Joe Biden exhibit greater judgement than Obama? Why do you think that is?
Well, Joe Biden wanted a bigger stimulus, but I guess that’s because he lived through his parents’ stories about the Great Depression.
Direct personal experience cannot come to be the only signifier for decision-making: we must simply insist that American leaders learn from their predecessors’ mistakes, whether within living memory or not.