Let me start with the final point :" Obama obviously never followed the history of Vietnam, were counter-insurgency was developed. It doesn't work. Evidently, the military's version of history is still in denial. We lost."
Counter-Insurgency has a long history, and in fact has never failed when the insurgents lacked outside support. It was first developed by the U.S. in the Philippines in the early 20th-century. Then the Japanese based their strategy in China on the u.s. experience, but being less hypocritical, labelled it accurately: "Burn all, loot all, kill all." Then after WW2 the British in Malaya and the U.S. in the Philippines against the Huk further developed the strategy, and both insurgencies were crushed. And in fact the Vietnamese insurgency was crushed twice, each time being restarted by the North, which in turn was supplied by Russia and China. (And a side point in reference to "We lost": Who this we you talking about?) Obama (who has _always_ supported this war) had every reason to expect success in Afghanistan, given the record of such insurgencies not backed from abroad. (The U.S. had supported the insusrgency against Soviet forces.) The Taliban _do_ have support from some elements of the Pakistan state, plus the profits from the opium trade. But their success is by no means certain. Chuck misreads history.
But the post is also wrong in principle, attempting to explain the latest developments in a 60 year consisten U.S. policy in terms of Obama's personal and passing political motives. This is to grossly misunderstand and underestimate our enemy, always a disastrous mistake in serious politics as well as war. Chuck should read or reread Carl Estabrook's two recent posts on U.S. policy in the Middle East since the Truman & Eisenhower administrations, and the rreaffirmation of that policy by a series of National Security Advisors both Republican and Democrat. It weakens left understanding to confuse a fundamental national policy with the personal motives of individual politicians.
And it is even worse to regard the enemy as stupid -- that is itself stupid. I learned this before I became a radical when I realized how Eisenhower had fooled all of us liberals with his deliberate tom-foolery. Bush was not stupid, and his advisors certainly were not. And "his" war was a bipartisan war from the very beginning.
Carrol
Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
The civilian leadership is
> uninformed, makes stupid judgements, and has no clue what to do. It seems
> clear to me, that is pretty much what McChrystal said, isn't it? I think McC
> is probably the worst enemy imaginable, but now it turns out, he has one
> virtue. He is honest.
>
> McC's crime was to break propaganda protocols and give an honest appraisal
> of his civilian leadership. I have little doubt that Obama was nervous and
> informed around military brass. He is nervous because he his afraid he is
> going to `lose' no matter what. He is definitely uniformed since he carried
> on Bush's failed war and had no concrete reason to try to sustain it. It was
> a stupid decision. Obama obviously never followed the history of Vietnam,
> were counter-insurgency was developed. It doesn't work. Evidently, the
> military's version of history is still in denial. We lost.