Echoes of Vietnam
The media report that President Obama is considering a “compromise” that would send fewer troops to Afghanistan than General McChrystal requested to accomplish this mission, that Obama declared in March:
So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.
“Compromise” with what or whom?
Barack Obama Appointed General McChrystal, one of the world’s foremost counter-terrorism experts, to lead the Afghanistan operation. On August 30 McChrystal submitted a 66 page report, describing every detail of his strategic plan to accomplish Obama’s mission. He said the plan would require 40,000 additional troops.
What’s the alternative? Failure to defeat Al Qaeda? Allowing The Taliban to dominate Afghanistan as they did before we ran them out in 2001?
What would a compromise between success and failure look like?
The media imply but seem unwilling to openly state that the potential “compromise” would be between successful completion of Obama’s declared mission and the goal of his Leftist base that America become more humble, less powerful, less of a force for liberty in the world.
One hears echos from the politics of Vietnam and the exertions of President Johnson to compromise between the same two polar opposites. He projected enough military force to keep the war going but never quite enough to convince enemy leaders their cause was lost. The results were disastrous for him, for his party, for the struggling people of Vietnam, and for America. Two generations later the anti-war left still cites the Vietnam failure they caused to justify their call for retreat and failure to defeat Islamic terrorism.