Afghanistan is No Vietnam (Unless We Make It One)

28 October 2001 | Fee

[Fee]

Three weeks of bombing, and some Americans are starting to sqawk that Afghanistan is starting feel like Vietnam (i.e lets quit). It is similar to Vietnam because our enemies are well motivated, experienced from years of combat, and hide in very tough terrain. Unlike Vietnam, the Taliban does not have a world power providing heavy weapons to shoot down US aircraft, nor endless amounts of ammo to fight a protracted war. Unlike Vietnam there is no nuclear factor that limits where the US can attack without provoking a nuclear exchange between world powers. In other words there is no DMZ where the enemy can mass up in to attack or flee to and regroup. The US has free rein over Afghanistan to use its air power and ground forces. The Taliban is well motivated and fearless, but the longer the US fights this war, newer weapons will be developed and we will become smarter. In the beginning we will make mistakes, because we are still on the other end of the learning curve. Our early missions will not produce the dramatic Taliban casualties, but each mission we fly, each damage assessment and intel study will allow our military leadership to figure out how the Taliban operates, its real strengths and weaknesses. This process takes time, but once it is figured out, the Taliban casualties will start to increase with each mission. I don't care how motivated the Taliban is, they will be destroyed slowly from the air and still be deprived the opportunity to kill a US soldier face to face. With the Taliban pinned, the US with Russia, Iran and India should help organize and equip the Northern Alliance into an effective fighting force. We are too hasty in committing them into battle when they are still under equipped and have ineffective command and control (they need modern commo techniques and staff). When the Taliban is sufficiently weakened, the Northern Alliance will be used to finish them off in a ground war. All this takes time and the American public must learn to be patient. The initial usage of airpower during the Vietnam War was not effective during the early, and middle of the war, but near the end of the war we were hurting them pretty good. Our domestic front is where Vietnam can re-occur. If the American civilian loses his/her patient and pulls support from the war effort, this will motivate the Taliban to keep fighting. That will happen if we let the peaceniks distort the news and allow like minded professors remain at their teaching jobs on our colleges/universities. NO VICTORY NO PEACE!!!

[alloysteel]

To be in favor of victory by the Taliban and al-Qaeda is to be in favor of oppression of women, oppression of commerce (but the peacenik students and their mentors already subscribe to this view), and complete anarchy followed by nihilism (also a goal they seem to espouse). This is only a way to destroy and lay waste to the world, and provide nothing in its place. "Peaceniks" probably contribute more to continuing unrest and collapse in the world than practically any other movement out there.

[libertylover]

I hope you're right and some of the things you wrote are undoubtably true, that a superpower is not supplying the Taliban with unlimited weapons for example. But...

Some of the things you said are wrong, or at least debatable.

Unlike Vietnam there is no nuclear factor that limits where the US can attack without provoking a nuclear exchange... While using nukes is tempting, we might just blow up an empty mountain. Worse, we know that there are 50 or so missing suitcase nukes and if the terrorists have one they might decide to explode it in the middle of an American city. The Taliban doesn't have many high-value targests, but we've got thousands of them. If they chose a target that's not a left-wing center the media might act as if they deserved it.

In other words there is no DMZ where the enemy can mass up in to attack or flee to and regroup. This is wrong too. They're starting to move their equipment into mosques and private homes, hospitals, etc. thinking we won't attack them there, and they're probably right. Vietnam was lost because we let the enemy define the battlefield. If we don't attack these targets, we're letting the enemy define the battlefield again.

The initial usage of airpower during the Vietnam War was not effective during the early, and middle of the war, but near the end of the war we were hurting them pretty good. This is correct. We should not have stopped bombing for even a single day.

Our domestic front is where Vietnam can re-occur. Quite true and I see some disturbing things. Some of the news reports are starting to have the tone that "this war is unwinnable" and they harp on civilian casualties as reported by the Taliban.

I think GWB is doing an excellent job with the war so far but I hope we can keep the left-wing with us. I just don't have a lot of confidence that the left-wing will stay with us over the long haul.

[74dodgedart]

First, I fully support action against the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, and his terrorist network.

I can't say that I have witnessed any of "peace-niks" or anti-war protests that I read so much about here on FreeRepublic.

I can say that I do hear people beginning to question the strategy being followed by our government. It is not clear that the bombing is having any effect on the Taliban or bin Laden, nor is it clear that it has helped the Northern Alliance make any advances. Its also unclear that the Northern Alliance will be any better than the Taliban in helping us to eliminate bin Laden's terrorist network.

India-Pakistan (both nuclear powers) relations are unstable as is much of the Middle East. Things certainly have the potential to get very ugly.

The difference between Viet Nam and Afghanistan is that most Americans see the threat of terrorism as that something that directly impacts their way of life.

I believe the government needs to keep the focus on eliminating terrorist networks, not conquering Afghanistan and demonstrate that they are making progress towards that goal.