Afghan commentary continues. At Slate, Ben Mathis-Lilley points to other commentary that seriously suggests it would have been better to remain in Afghanistan forever and ever than to watch whatever is happening now.
The lesson that this part of the press seems to have taken, though, from the admittedly compelling image of a final helicopter taking off from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, is that the United States should have extended its military engagement in Vietnam. These writers might not put it this way, given that they also know Vietnam was a “quagmire” in which regrettable things happened while “All Along the Watchtower” played on speakers mounted to the outside of a helicopter, but that’s the logical endpoint of the analogy: that Biden screwed up by ending the war because it associates him with images that might make Americans sad about “losing.”
Today I encountered someone wondering why we didn’t learn “the lessons of Vietnam.” I don’t believe we ever reached any consensus about what those lessons were. Once U.S. combat operations ceased in 1973, we stopped talking about it.
One lesson was that it’s unwise to begin a military operation without a very clear mission objective — an understanding about what would constitute “winning” or “losing” — and an exit strategy. But among the other “lessons” clanking around in people’s heads were “we could have won” (what, precisely?) or that Democrat’s were “soft” on the war and they paid a price. I took that last idea apart a few years ago. I propose that when you get to the place where the only way you avoid “losing” is to just not let the war ever end, you’ve already lost.
I agree with Geoffrey Skelley at FiveThirtyEight that it’s too early to know if there will be a significant political fallout from the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Joe Biden’s approval rating has just dripped below 50 percent, the low point of his presidency so far.
That said, it’s possible Americans won’t penalize Biden all that much for what’s happened in Afghanistan because, outside of some major conflicts, foreign policy doesn’t usually weigh heavily on voters’ minds. Foreign policy is a critical matter — events in recent days have reminded us of the serious implications of the U.S.’s decisions — but the reality is that for years Americans have paid very little attention to the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Additionally, Americans’ perspectives on the Afghanistan conflict are mixed, with Gallup recently finding about an even split on the question of whether it was a mistake for the U.S. to send troops in the first place. After 20 years in Afghanistan and the unpopular war in Iraq, Americans are skeptical of intervening militarily in foreign countries — even for humanitarian reasons.
Skelley goes on to say that opinions on Afghanistan are polarized by party. Like everyone else these days.
See Paul Waldman, Could the American public learn the right lessons from Afghanistan? (Answer: Maybe) See also Joe Ferullo at The Hill, Beltway reporting of Afghanistan withdrawal a disservice to Americans. Good analysis.
I still say that by Fall, Afghanistan will be mostly out of the headlines and we’ll be refocused on domestic issues.
I'm inclined to give credence to the observation that most critics of the "execution" of the withdrawal didn't ever approve of the US leaving. As a matter of opinion, when Joe brought up the subject of pulling out, I suspect his own advisors advised, "tomorrow." Meaning never.
And if you don't think the argument for staying isn’t based on money, you're ignoring the windfall the conflict(s) have been for the military contractors with so much clout on Capitol Hill. Here's another place they have clout. Where do retired senior pentagon military go after retirement? Ans: Advisors to the military contractors. It's one of the most obscene examples of the revolving door, second only to retired members of Congress working on K Street.
Because the makers of military wares have such influence in the Pentagon, no president can know when he's seeking military advice if it's the general talking or the future flack for General Dynamics. For sure, Biden had to deal with some of those 'advisors' who are bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex.
Isn't it odd, assuming Joe derailed the gravy train, that suddenly the entire beltway pundit class has knives out? If you were paranoid (like me) you'd suspect the establishment was punishing Joe for not keeping the paychecks to Haliburton on schedule.
Having worked in an Army town for five years I can attest to what Doug says. Camp followers and the military are inseparable for all time and in all of the world. So too are the other parasitic elements in the world of warfare,
All I want to say is that I have empathy with those whose life is in turmoil. These include Americans stuck in Afghanistan and more so those who might be judged by the Taliban as to have been too friendly to the Americans. Politics does have consequences at time lethal. As so many caught up in Viet Nam found out, you had no choices but bad choices. That is what happens when you make war. They should count their lucky stars they have Biden as US POTUS.
I listened to a news show today where a Democrat who I never heard talk before said in hindsight that the rush job to get into Afghanistan was the error. He concluded that we should learn by that mistake. Way too many people have a war agenda, and trade and profit from war. I notice these people are never around to clean up the messes those wars make. They are parasites of war and the war machine. Like the poor they will always be with us. To this day Ike remains a respectable Republican president because he recognized the misplaced power of the military industrial complex. He may be the last commendable hero of a dying political party for that and more.
I don't have much to add, since I'm in 100% agreement with Doug and Bernie on this one.
So why rehash what others have said better than I could?
But one little thing, Bernie: Yes, Ike warned us about the MIC. But only on his way out! AFTER the 8 years when he actually had the power to cut that Hydra off before too many more heads popped up.
Now, no one dares f*ck with the MIC.
Biden's learning that lesson right now.
The one relevant lesson of Vietnam that I could glean was "if they don't think of themselves, first and foremost as proud Vietnamese, willing to fight to keep what they have, there's no winning."
I see movies about Vietnam, and I see a lot of villages in the jungle. And I realized that, unless each of those villages had 3-4 people more willing to die, if they can take a few of the enemy with them (but preferring to live, and just killing some of the enemy), not just for their village, but all the surrounding ones, you couldn't win.
Of course, a lesson gleaned from movies is suspect, but it really does seem to apply. The Afghanis weren't, first and foremost, proud Afghanis, so getting out of the way of the brutal men with guns was the sensible decision.
(I'm not sure this is at all relevant, but I also remember a bit from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that seems relevant. Kira, a revolutionary, counseled one race that they had to be willing to kill their own race, especially if they were collaborating with the occupation. "If you're not willing to kill Cardassians, they'll put a Cardassian at every target of interest, to keep you from attacking." That's a bit more than just "I'm a proud Vietnamese/Afghani!" but probably necessary in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Of course, in Vietnam, since we fought to *prevent* a free and fair election, it should have been obvious that it was impossible to instill that sense of Vietnamese Pride needed to "win".)
The Vietnamese who were willing to fight for their people were the Viet Cong. The Afghans who were willing to fight for Afghanistan are the Taliban. Why would you – why did WE – expect local people to fight for us, the foreigners, who they see mainly as an army occupying their homeland? Sure, there were many in both cases (VN & AF) who chose to make money off us, and some who genuinely believed that our vision of how their country should be run was Good. But too often, those are/were local "elites" who sent their children to US or Europe for education, rather than into battle.
Like people in most comfortable countries, Americans tend to think that our values, our ways of life, our forms of government, are the Right Ones. Heck, I do, too. But what works (or useta work) *here* doesn't always work *there*.
As a Viet Nam veteran, the lesson that I believe should be learned from Nam and Iraq and Afghanistan and most American military interventions was gleaned from the Matthew Broderick movie "WarGames".
The best solution to a war is to not play.
One lesson was learned and implemented very well. Suppression of dissent. Suppression of unfavorable coverage for both Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Ah yes, more and more the first casualty of war is the truth. In this way too, war has become more and more uncivilized.
Maybe the war strategy is always to enrich military contractors, because that has certainly always been the case. The rest of us are just cannon fodder.
"Beltway Media" love the R2P ("Responsibility To Protect") doctrine for US Foreign Policy because it gives the media the power to Wag The Dog – using sympathetic images of injured children to inspire us to bomb The Bad Guys. R2P was the framework for US intervention in Bosnia when Yugoslavia fractured; I strongly recommend watching the Dustin Hoffman movie "Wag The Dog" for perspective. At the time, I was in favor of US military action to protect Bosnians from Serbs, but I've since become very skeptical of getting drawn into overseas conflicts based on an emotional response to what we see (what we're shown?) on TV.
Propaganda has long been an important tool for getting people to cheer or vote for wars; it wasn't invented by or for Bill Clinton. Both Bushes certainly tried to use "humanitarian" reasons to increase support for their invasions (for a good time, google "Nayirah testimony"). But the Clinton Democrats' Foreign Policy team has gone all-in on the R2P framework; that was the main reason for my concerns about HRC as President.
In my view, R2P always functions as a cover-up for other reasons for war. So when Pundits whine about "protecting" some group of people on the other side of the world, they are covering up for other reasons that they want US military there.
In the case of Afghanistan, there are two major strategic reasons for US to have/keep military forces there, but it's very rare to hear them discussed in public.
The first reason is to block China's OBOR ("One Belt, One Road") plan. Afghanistan would be a key link in the New Silk Road, linking China to the Middle East, South & Central Asia, and even Europe & Africa. China is climbing to the status of a Major World Power. They are using their new economic power very smartly, funding infrastructure development around the world, gaining friends the way we once did. This WILL change the balance of power; the USA will no longer be the "hegemon". I would like to see us accept that transition gracefully, but I know it would be hard to win elections here with that platform.
The second strategic reason for keeping US military in Afghanistan is about Iran. US Air Force bases in Afghanistan would be crucial if/when we ever get around to bombing Iran. (Note that this is also an important strategic "reason" to stay in Iraq).
Trump is a grotesque human being, and the Worst President Ever, but for some reason, he wanted to get US forces out of all those Middle Eastern countries. I strongly agreed with that one aspect of his policies, but US media & "pundit class" opposed & ridiculed all of Trump's attempts to withdraw.
And now they are attacking Biden for following through on what Trump started – getting out of Afghanistan, and turning it over to the only local group capable of "governing" there.
Are they using R2P as cover for some deeper strategic reasons they want us to stay there? Or do they believe their own BS? Or are they just blinded by the power of their medium's ability to create emotional responses? I'm really not sure which is true; also not sure which is worse.
Maybe we need to devote a little more attention and effort to nation-building here at home. What we consistently try to do in the foreign countries in which we choose to intervene is this: to establish an idealized vision of government that serves the general population. Putting aside the arguments above that identify special interests as the drivers, but also geo-political competition (most of which I agree with), let's focus on getting better at dealing with multiple factions here in the US. I realize perfection will never be reached. But if we can find a way to make it work here, how can we justify trying to get it to happen elsewhere in the world?