As I sit down to write this, I reflect on the internal dialogue that plagues me after I write something like this...namely that it would have been more amusing to write about why Wilma Flintstone was secretly in love with Betty Rubble, but was afraid of the consternation of the prehistoric victorian values. That being said, I start writing as usual, with an apology. I do however, think this subject is not only topical, but downright predictive.
In 1979, Afghanistan was on the brink of yet another civil war. The cause, a faction of pro-communist Afghans and a faction of democratic Afghans. The result...a killing here, a killing there and viola you have the Soviet Union getting involved as support. Why did the Soviets get involved? Well, since you asked, the United States brokered a "peace accord," between Israel and Egypt and began selling arms to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern Countries, causing the Soviet Union to react in military strategic fear. Long story semi-short, the Soviet-Afghan war begins, thousands die and the World continues to turn as many Countries condemn the action. Fearing that the great satan Communism would gain a foothold in the oil rich Middle East, America via the CIA, sent shoulder mounted Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems as well as "para-military" trainers.
President Jimmy Carter stated, "Soviet aggression could not be viewed as an isolated event of limited geographical importance but had to be contested as a potential threat to US influence in the Persian Gulf region." The US was also worried about the USSR gaining access to the Indian Ocean by coming to an arrangement with Pakistan. So fellow reader, we saw many more die, Soviet helicopters shot from the sky and U.S. trained Mujahideen rebels very appreciative for our help in fighting the "Superpower" Soviet Union and winning.
The outcome of this was important. The Soviet Union was viewed as weak and the Islamic insurgency was emboldened. The U.S. Government then adopted National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) that continued to train Mujahideen forces in "unconventional warfare." Translation, making car bombs, assassinations and cross-border attacks. The end result (for those of us with ADD and those who are still reading, but waiting for the Wilma Flintstone analogy,) the rise of Osama Bin Laden. America did a great job of accomplishing the goal of defeating Communist spread, but failed to rebuild Afghanistan to the level that the Afghan people would have appreciated and in the wake of that, we were viewed as an imperial user who cuts and runs when our needs were met. When the Soviet Union retreated in embarrassing defeat, there was indeed a large scale civil war in Afghanistan and you guessed it...thousands were tortured, killed etc. The Heroin however, was still in production and Afghanistan is still at war and the World is still spinning. No more Democratic and no less feudal...time marches on. Hmmm simplistic view I agree, but have we seen this movie before?
During his inaugural speech, President Kennedy pledged, "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." Though against U.S. troop deployment to South East Asia, Kennedy was also fresh off the fact that the Soviet's were ahead in the "Space Race", the Berlin wall was constructed, and the Bay of Pigs invasion was a disaster. These events propelled Kennedy to, "draw a line in the sand." Kennedy then said, "Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place," By 1963 there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from 900 advisors sent by President Eisenhower.
The CIA assassinates a Vietnamese leader who was not towing the, "party line," Kennedy is furious that he didn't approve this action and Vietnam had a succession of corrupt leaders take and lose power with no real net effect on the battle. Kennedy is assassinated, President Johnson takes over and is uninterested in the "actions in South East Asia." President Nixon gets the nod and begins Vietnamization or as we know it today in Iraq, "let's train the Iraqis to defend themselves and plant the seeds of a fairly elected Democratic Government." Again, does any of this sound familiar?
OK, next...the fall of Siagon, enter the Khmer Rouge on April 17th 1975 and then the resulting genocide that claimed over a million lives.
The most wise quote from General Maxwell Taylor, one of the principle architects of the war, "first, we didn't know ourselves. We thought that we were going into another Korean War, but this was a different country. Secondly, we didn't know our South Vietnamese allies... And we knew less about North Vietnam. Who was Ho Chi Minh? Nobody really knew. So, until we know the enemy and know our allies and know ourselves, we'd better keep out of this kind of dirty business. It's very dangerous."
Did we know our enemy in Iraq? Did we know our allies? Do we know ourselves?
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that "the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion."
Marine Corps General Victor H. Krulak was critical of General William Westmoreland's atrittion strategy, calling it "wasteful of American lives... with small likelihood of a successful outcome." As well, doubts surfaced about the ability of the military to train foreign forces. The defeat also raised questions about the quality of the advice that was given to successive presidents by the Pentagon.
Starting to sound really familiar? Harvard philosopher George Santayana said, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Are we condemned to repeat the past? Did we learn nothing from the words of leaders who in retrospect were critical of their own policies and despite their collective egos have warned us by their mistakes and analysis.
March 2003, U.S. and allies invade Iraq. The lessons of the past ring out. President Kennedy's words, "Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place," Substitute Iraq for Vietnam and Bush for Kennedy. The battle...costly, the outcome...unknown. Our enemy...still unknown.
We are there now, it's true. August 31st is coming up quickly as the "line in the sand," that President Obama has drawn as the date we remove the majority of U.S. military troops. We will leave behind advisors to continue the training of the Iraqi defense forces. The outcome...maybe a huge victory in public opinion and a free Iraq. But what if...What if civil war erupts, we are pulled into a battle that must be fought, lest we seem weak and the militant Islamic rule becomes emblazoned once again by yet another Super Power failure. What if we face the decision to support the troops we have there and in doing so we ultimately deepen the military involvement and start from scratch?
The final words after the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan were said by a new Islamic warrior of the day, Osama Bin Laden, "credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role," but "collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant."
The words of President Johnson induce both feelings of fear and regret that we have not learned and we seem intent and potentially condemned to repeat history.
"I wish it were possible to convince others with words of what we now find it necessary to say with guns and planes: armed hostility is futile -- our resources are equal to any challenge -- because we fight for values and we fight for principle rather than territory or colonies, our patience and our determination are unending. Once this is clear, then it should also be clear that the only path for reasonable men is the path of peaceful settlement."
PM
No comments:
Post a Comment