Afghanistan – In For the Long Haul – Troop Increases On the Rise – Historical Comparisons to the Viet Nam Conflict.

As military analysts make their assessment of the War in Afghanistan, the overall scope of the Operation has a dismal forecast. (Washington Post) The costs and time in-country are expected to exceed that of the Iraq War, and U.S. troop levels, now at 29,000, (NATO forces making up the bulk of the 61,000 troops), could see significant increases dependent upon the reports due later this month by the Head of U.S. Operations, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. The administrations, National Security Advisors, James Jones, on CBS “Face The Nation”:

"I don't think we're at a crisis level where there is any move by the Taliban to overthrow the government," Jones said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

But he said Washington would not rule out an additional increase in U.S. troop levels to secure the country.

Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, has an unforgiving climate and geography that has made that country, to date, impossible to conquer. An interesting point of view from The Pakistan Dailysuggests that the administration’s foray into Afghanistan (which is dubbed the “Graveyard of Empires”), will require 500,000 troops, and that does not guarantee success. The author is basing his assessment on the history of the nation, and the Eastern perspective of the U.S. incursion into that country.

The comparisons between Afghanistan and Vietnam have been based on the level of troops and the likelihood of a successful outcome. From a January , 2009 piece in Newsweek, the consensus based on the article was that this war was not at all like Viet Nam, due to troop levels at the time. That said, with a reduction in military spending, an increase in troops, and an attempt to bolster the Afghani forces and win the hearts and minds of its citizens, sound eerily similar to the tactics taken by the Kennedy Administration in the early stages of the Viet Nam War. The situation escalated under Johnson, with the assessment by those in the same position as McChrystal, that additional troops would be needed to keep the peace. The difference between Afghanistan today and Vietnam is the military. At that point, there were insufficient numbers of volunteer military so the draft was reinstated. Should, at some point, the number of volunteer military be insufficient in fighting the Afghanistan War (the ratio of troops to population should be 20.1 or 600,000 on the ground), there would be no choice but to call up those who have registered for Selective Service. In the final analysis, as is usual (post Viet Nam) it will be the U.S. citizenry that will gauge how soon this particular war is ended. The Iraq War divided the nation, and insured (in part) the election of Barak Obama as he promised to pull troops out of Iraq (duly noted and achieved for the most part). The U.S. Press and the populace were fully complicit in the desire to end the Iraq conflict, while Barack Obama pointed out that the U.S. real interest lay in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden were camped -a just war of sorts, which has been given a great deal of positive press, to date.

However, should the theater become unmanageable (based again on historical trends and geography), and troop levels increase, with fatalities fast outstripping those of the Iraq conflict, then the comparison would be justified, and history would have, once again proven a point. That said, history, although unkind to Johnson’s predecessor, Richard Nixon, must concede that he was elected based on ending the Viet Nam War, and he did so. It is the arrogance of those that believe they are able to ignore the consequences of the past, in self-righteousness and campaign promises of the present, that may, unfortunately, prove history rules the day.

Afghanistan – Revisited – Obama’s Political Troop Deployment

President Barack Obama has ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan , the LA Times notes that the increase is part of a campaign promise made by Obama to refocus efforts in that arena. Afghanistan, however, has a long history of giving the boot to outsiders, the various tribal factions which cause constant friction aside; one has to add to the mix, the religious zealots of the Taliban and the long-standing relationships between the tribes and the “camps” that house the “so called terrorists” (One has to wonder what Helen Thomas is smoking).

Afghanistan has a long history of repelling “invaders” , a condensed, easy to read, treatment on the subject by Frank W. Thackery and John E. Findling can be found online at , Google Books. The Soviet Union, the last country to make a military excursion into Afghanistan, spent ten long years battling the terrain and a people entrenched in Islamic Fundamentalism. In an attempt to prop up a communist regime, the Soviets found that simply giving more freedom to women, for example, resulted in a backlash that resulted in a pounding defeat. The incursion is often referred to as the Soviet’s “Viet Nam”.

The question remains, therefore, have times changed so dramatically in the course of 20 years, that an increase in U.S. Military on the ground in Afghanistan will fare better? The government is, for all intents and purposes, a Democracy (thank you President Bush), and is working towards improvements in a country that’s terrain makes for safe havens for those pesky Islamic Fascists. The fact that the culture is deep rooted in tribal relationships, and many of those tribal leaders have responsibilities to either members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban adds to the problem. From the perspective of History, even the great Genghis Khan found Afghanistan to be problematic, therefore one would reason, that, given the fact little has changed, the addition of 17,000 troops will do little to put a dent in the continuing carnage.

The U.S. Military in Afghanistan, under General David McKiernan, requested an entire brigade (60,000 troops) - the President is “thinking about it”. It might be wise to recall that Lyndon Johnson, and his struggle with the Viet Nam war. Johnson avoided the initial call for major troop deployments. The difference between the two Presidents, Johnson inherited the mess from Kennedy, however, Obama campaigned against Bush and his involvement in Iraq, and focused his rhetoric on the “missed opportunity” of capturing Bin Ladin in Afghanistan. The rest, as the saying goes, is history.