|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 11:12 AM
Posts: 679,
Visits: 1,074
|
|
I think the American public is being duped. They complain about the "viet nam syndrome" being all about "another unwinnable war" when, in fact, Viet Nam was completely winnable BUT for the chickens back in the States who had never experienced it other than the news telecasts. So their disfavor is what created the "unwinnable" war, just as it now threatens to do in Afghanistan.
Further, we have discussed before, it is an significant error to base national (nevermind "defense") policy on public opinion polls generated by the very news media who will suffer if there is no news to report on a given day. CNN and every other news outlet of which I'm aware has a bias and an agenda and that cannot help but drift into any survey or poll they take.
For all I know, they polled people they knew would respond this way or that...
Bush got into the bad habit of paying attention to public opinion polls.
Now that he's president, if you question his tax policies, energy plans or health-care ambitions, you are “hoping he will fail” — and that, with the help of roundabout reasoning, is tantamount to hoping we cannot transcend race. -Jonah Goldberg, 8/20/09
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:51 AM
Posts: 475,
Visits: 484
|
|
Poll questions can be misleading.
But how would we know if we won the Vietnam War or the Afghanistan War? When people quit shooting at our soldiers? When there are only two attacks a week? I do think Vietnam was more winable that Afghanistan - I'll give you that. Maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 11:12 AM
Posts: 679,
Visits: 1,074
|
|
tLIB (10/20/2009)
Poll questions can be misleading.
But how would we know if we won the Vietnam War or the Afghanistan War? When people quit shooting at our soldiers? When there are only two attacks a week? I do think Vietnam was more winable that Afghanistan - I'll give you that. Maybe.
That's part of my criticism of George Bush and, now, Barack Obama: "Success" should be defined before we ever put boot on ground in-country. When we first went into Afghanistan, we had a mission: I don't know if that has changed but it seems like it has since General McChrystal is asking for more troops in order to be "successful" there.
If it has changed, it is Obama's responsibility to communicate the change to the troops in a clear and compelling manner. I don't think he's done that (assuming the mission has changed).
We got into Viet Nam gradually: Initially, our mission was just to train the S-Vietnamese army so they could stand against the N-Vietnamese. But as our mission there grew and grew, I don't believe Nixon OR Johnson ever redefined it so we kept coming up with patches (Bomb Hanoi, increase troop strength, etc.) with no idea what we were supposed to be accomplishing. We had many, many examples of our soldiers doing something in Viet Nam only to find out later he shouldn't have done that. I also believe tragedies like My Lai could have been avoided if we'd had a sound mission (well, and some better intel as well as more intelligence).
Now that he's president, if you question his tax policies, energy plans or health-care ambitions, you are “hoping he will fail” — and that, with the help of roundabout reasoning, is tantamount to hoping we cannot transcend race. -Jonah Goldberg, 8/20/09
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:41 PM
Posts: 213,
Visits: 1,015
|
|
tLIB (10/20/2009)
Poll questions can be misleading.
But how would we know if we won the Vietnam War or the Afghanistan War? When people quit shooting at our soldiers? When there are only two attacks a week? I do think Vietnam was more winable that Afghanistan - I'll give you that. Maybe.
It's easier to dig in soil then in rock.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:51 AM
Posts: 475,
Visits: 484
|
|
We got into Viet Nam gradually: Initially, our mission was just to train the S-Vietnamese army so they could stand against the N-Vietnamese. But as our mission there grew and grew,
I have been looking for the original mission in Afghanistan for OEF. I don't see it online anymore, but it seems like this is what is happening there too. The mission is changing and growing. More evidence of the VN syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 11:12 AM
Posts: 679,
Visits: 1,074
|
|
tLIB (10/21/2009)
We got into Viet Nam gradually: Initially, our mission was just to train the S-Vietnamese army so they could stand against the N-Vietnamese. But as our mission there grew and grew,
I have been looking for the original mission in Afghanistan for OEF. I don't see it online anymore, but it seems like this is what is happening there too. The mission is changing and growing. More evidence of the VN syndrome.
It has to be changing... but I would say "morphing" rather than "growing."
Our original mission in Afghanistan was, I recall, to take down the Taliban because they supported Al Qaeda and we believed OBL (and Al Qaeda) planned and executed the attacks of 9/11.
However, today both Al Qaeda and Taliban say they're not that close and they are apparently both, now, working in Pakistan as well. To suggest we are still about our original goals given the changes in the complexion would be kind of unbelievable.
Also, GWB seemed to abandon that original mission and OBL fled into the caves (or died, whichever) in order to pursue Iraq (for which we didn't seem to have any plan or the plan was unfolded as we went along) so now that we've returned to Afghanistan, I can't see but how the mission MUST have changed.
I hope BHO is telling the troops the new mission ... 'cuz he SURE ain't telling the rest of us.
Now that he's president, if you question his tax policies, energy plans or health-care ambitions, you are “hoping he will fail” — and that, with the help of roundabout reasoning, is tantamount to hoping we cannot transcend race. -Jonah Goldberg, 8/20/09
|
|
|
|
