[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!

Cash Jordan: Gangs PLUNDER LA Mall... as California’s “NO JAILS” Strategy IMPLODES

Margin Debt Tops Historic $1 Trillion, Your House Will Be Taken Blindly Warns Dohmen


War, War, War
See other War, War, War Articles

Title: Obama's Afghanistan dilemma fuels comparisons with Johnson and Vietnam in '64 [ and on Stage Right, cue "conscription" or in Obumski Speak "National Volunteer Service" ?]
Source: Canadian Press
URL Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ca ... M5iHqtgZEgqHKx4AoMf6TQjKZi0Azw
Published: Nov 13, 2009
Author: By Lee-Anne Goodman
Post Date: 2009-11-13 18:20:25 by scrapper2
Keywords: National Volunteer Service, Obamaspeak for conscription?, Afghanistan War=Vietnam War, Obumski has no $ left to spend
Views: 119
Comments: 7

WASHINGTON — It's a decision that is clearly the most difficult of Barack Obama's young presidency - whether to heed the pleas of top military officials to send more troops to Afghanistan in a conflict some fear could become his Vietnam.

The president's dilemma has drawn parallels to Lyndon Johnson's deliberations about Vietnam 45 years ago as Obama grows noticeably thinner and confesses to skipping meals as he ponders the risks of escalating the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

Like Johnson, Obama came to power with an ambitious domestic agenda as a controversial war raged overseas. His presidency hasn't yet been hijacked by an enormous U.S. casualty rate in a faraway land against a stealthy enemy, but his closest advisers worry that it could be.

"The lesson of Vietnam surely is how can you get a nation engaged in it? It seems hard to imagine that Afghanistan is ever going to be a popular war," said Stephen Hess, who worked for Richard Nixon as the Republican president dealt with "Johnson's war" after his 1968 election.

"The public is already against it, and if you're bucking that, you have to be sure that you're awfully determined. You can't have any reservations. You have to be incredibly thick-skinned to be willing to send U.S. troops to their possible deaths, so we're going to learn a lot about him both as a man and as a president throughout this process."

In a book on Johnson, "Flawed Giant," the Texan president confides in an aide about his own time spent agonizing over whether to send U.S. ground troops to Vietnam and escalate the conflict started by his late predecessor, John F. Kennedy.

"The more I stayed awake last night thinking about this thing, the more a it looks like to me we're getting in to another Korea," the book's author, Robert Dallek, quotes Johnson as saying in May of 1964.

"And I don't think it's worth fighting for and I don't think we can get out."

Of course, Johnson ended up sending combat units, and the conflict defined the following four years of his presidency. Almost 60,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war that still stands out as a searingly painful chapter in American history.

Obama is not blind to the similarities, nor are his closest confidantes. His vice-president, Joe Biden, and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, are reportedly opposed to a troop buildup, at odds with the top military commanders pushing the president for more soldiers.

As Obama mulls over the correct course, he's reportedly ordered his closest advisers to look back in history - particularly the war in Vietnam.

Historian Gordon Goldstein's book on the conflict, "Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam," is on the president's required reading list. The book chronicles how Bundy, one of the key architects of Vietnam, came to regret America's involvement in the conflict.

Obama is clearly keen to avoid Johnson's fate, but he's also reportedly pointed out to those in his inner circle some crucial differences between the two conflicts: chiefly, that the Vietnamese communists wanted to unite their country, while al Qaida's primary aim is America's destruction.

North Korea, as well, served little strategic purpose to the United States except as a chess piece in its Cold War maneuverings.

"Our quest in Afghanistan, on the other hand, is entwined with the interests of our ally, Pakistan, a nuclear nation and a crucial security interest of the United States," Goldstein wrote in the Los Angeles Times on Thursday.

And yet, there are striking similarities, Goldstein added.

In 1961, Goldstein wrote, Maj. Gen. Edward Lansdale reported to Kennedy that "Vietnam is in critical condition . . . requiring emergency treatment." Lansdale warned the president that without drastic action, the government would be overthrown in in months.

Kennedy dismissed the assessment. Incidentally, Lansdale later became the subject of a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory when the longtime CIA operative was allegedly spotted at Dealey Plaza in Dallas on the day Kennedy was slain.

Like Lansdale, Gen. Stanley McChrystal has also predicted that without more troops and resources, the war in Afghanistan "will likely result in failure" within a year, Goldstein pointed out.

"Although Vietnam and Afghanistan are disparate wars separated by decades and different national interests, the core questions the commander-in-chief must resolve remain remarkably similar," Goldstein wrote.

Hess points out the unenviable positions both Nixon and Obama were placed in as reluctant wartime presidents.

"Once you're in them, these are exceedingly difficult wars to get out of, and ego tends to get involved," said Hess, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

"Nixon campaigned on his intention to get out of Vietnam, but he also didn't want to be known as the first president to lose a war. You can be sure those sorts of thoughts are also occurring right now to people in the White House."

And yet Obama would apparently have the support of many Americans if he opted against sending more troops to Afghanistan. A new Gallup poll suggests 51 per cent of Americans oppose sending new troops, including 44 per cent who said it's time to start winding down the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

Earlier this week, Obama rejected the options that his so-called war council presented to him and has asked for revisions over the next few weeks. The news comes in the wake of a warning by the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, a former commander in the country.

Eikenberry urged Obama against a buildup until the country's president, Hamid Karzai, proves he's serious about tackling the government corruption that has fuelled the rise of the Taliban.

More U.S. troops, Eikenberry has cautioned Obama, will simply serve to prop up a weak and corruption-plagued government. Karzai reportedly contacted the ambassador's office on Thursday in response to his warning.

At the war council meeting, Obama also reportedly wanted an exit strategy - a road map detailing how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government.

He's considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's inadequate and ill-equipped fighting forces to prepare to take over.


Poster Comment:

Warning, warning to any parents with draft age males! Is the other Obumski "servitude for the bourgoisie" shoe poised to drop? National Volunteer Service coming Americans' way to fight Obama's War in Afghanistan?

...Robert Dallek, quotes Johnson as saying in May of 1964.

"And I don't think it's worth fighting for and I don't think we can get out."

Of course, Johnson ended up sending combat units, and the conflict defined the following four years of his presidency. Almost 60,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war that still stands out as a searingly painful chapter in American history.

Obama is not blind to the similarities, nor are his closest confidantes....

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: randge, IndieTX, ghostdogtxn, christine, Jethro Tull, All (#0)

Obumski is spending $ on stateside entitlements like a drunken sailor. Obumski simply cannot afford sending 40,000 more troops [ or mercenaries, take your pick] to a war theater or even a smaller 20,000 contingent.

The economy has him on the ropes, but he refuses to cut back on butter[entitlements] or guns[wars, US foreign bases].

As we know based on events in recent history, conscription is "cheap", in the eyes of Dem Presidents.

Be vigilante about the welfare of your kiddies and grandchildren.

Obumski's highly vaunted Greater Good National Volunteer Service may rear its ugly head in the New Year.

From another news source:

www.guardian.co.uk/commen...fghanistan-obama-strategy

...As one key advisor – former CIA officer Bruce Riedel – reportedly told the president earlier this year, each US soldier in Afghanistan carries a $250,000 yearly price tag...

scrapper2  posted on  2009-11-13   18:48:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: bluegrass, SonOfLiberty, your_neighbor (#0)

ping

scrapper2  posted on  2009-11-13   19:00:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: scrapper2 (#0)

while al Qaida's primary aim is America's destruction.

This is an insane statement.

It is the humiliation of Palestine that fuels 98% of Islam's anger towards America.

"Satan / Cheney in "08" Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

tom007  posted on  2009-11-13   19:04:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: scrapper2 (#0)

Obama is not blind to the similarities, nor are his closest confidantes. His vice-president, Joe Biden, and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, are reportedly opposed to a troop buildup, at odds with the top military commanders pushing the president for more soldiers.

Yet another effort to shift all blame and responsibility for the Middle East war onto the military instead of the Oval office where it belongs with Bush and Obama.

Obama said NO WITHDRAWAL. Let him live with that.

When the draft starts, listen to the people whine.

Cynicom  posted on  2009-11-13   19:38:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: scrapper2 (#1)

It's all eerily familiar to me - all this hot talk about the war.

Back then it was the war on communism, the fake Tonkin Gulf incident, the futility of supporting a largely corrupt ally and hammering a foe from the air and thus creating even more enemies. And there were the atrocities and the tiger cages. There were even fanatics who brought the war home with bombings and other terror events.

All of these phenomena have their analogues today. I was just a young punk back then, but I could read a damned newspaper and sometimes it seems like yesterday. What I remember most is how most Americans sleepwalked through the war and seemed to spend whatever energy they had left over in rationalizing what we were doing in SE Asia in way that allowed them to believe that this was still a reasonable nation, a country embarked on a violent but necessary exercise of power. They repeated the mantras supplied them by their betters over and over when confronted with ugly news and ugly facts so that they could sleep at night.

The more things change . . .

Hell, I have a rapidly dwindling store of sympathy for my fellow citizens. They walked right into this one, and they will all come to regret it the way we came to rue the last big crusade. They should have had the benefit of hindsight, but they can see neither what is behind them nor what is in front of them. God help us.

randge  posted on  2009-11-13   20:29:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: scrapper2 (#0)

In a book on Johnson, "Flawed Giant," the Texan president confides in an aide about his own time spent agonizing over whether to send U.S. ground troops to Vietnam and escalate the conflict started by his late predecessor, John F. Kennedy.

I had to stop with this lie.

Ike sent the first advisers over there. To take up where the frogs got their asses kicked.

Kennedy was going to bring them home.

Lod  posted on  2009-11-13   20:42:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: scrapper2, bluegrass, SonOfLiberty, tom007, randge, lod, Cynicom (#2)

Obama's Afghanistan dilemma fuels comparisons with Johnson and Vietnam in '64

There are political parallels to Johnson and Vietnam.

The Obama regime is looking to 2012 and counting votes – a lot of well meaning middle of the road people, who voted for Obama in 2008, do not see the wisdom in escalating the war.

Like Vietnam - people correctly see Afghanistan as a “no win war” against an indigenous people.

In order to win militarily we would have to kill a lot of people – and that would turn all the Afghans against us. And this would bring more support from the whole Muslim world. Escalating the war would only increase our troubles with the world.

The Chicago Jews (who are the Obama regime) are up against it – bring more bloody war for rabid Jew Zionism or maintain control of the US government in 2012 for the less rabid Zionists.

The US Jews are going to try and finesse the voters with something less then full deployment and try to deescalate the Afghan war in the eyes of the world. The Zionist Jews true target is Iran – making Afghanistan front and center in the eyes of the world detracts from their real goal.

your_neighbor  posted on  2009-11-14   18:53:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]