Will Syria be Obama's Vietnam?
- General Mackevili
- The General
- Posts: 18425
- Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 5:24 pm
- Reputation: 3419
- Location: The Kingdom
- Contact:
Will Syria be Obama's Vietnam?
It will be interesting to read this same article a year from now. So much (more) could happen in the Middle East in that time.
FIFTY years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson authorized a strategic bombing campaign against targets in North Vietnam, an escalation of the conflict in Southeast Asia that was swiftly followed by the deployment of American ground troops. Last month, President Obama expanded a strategic bombing campaign against Islamic insurgents in the Middle East, escalating the attack beyond Iraq into Syria.
Will Mr. Obama repeat history and commit ground troops? Many analysts believe so, and top officials are calling for it. But the president has expressed skepticism about what American force can accomplish in this kind of struggle, and he has resisted the urgings of hawks inside and outside the administration who want him to go in deeper. Mr. Obama, his supporters say, is a “gloomy realist” who has learned history’s lesson: that American military power, no matter how great in relative terms, is ultimately of limited utility in conflicts that are, at their root, political or ideological in nature.
It’s a powerful, reasoned position, amply supported by the history of America’s involvement in Vietnam. But that history also shows that a president’s attitude and analytical assessment, no matter how gloomily realistic, are not necessarily an antidote to ill-advised military action. Foreign intervention has a logic all to itself.
Today we think of Lyndon Johnson as a man unwaveringly committed to prevailing in Vietnam. But at least at first, he shared Mr. Obama’s pessimism. He and his advisers knew they faced an immense challenge in attempting to suppress the insurgency in South Vietnam. “A man can fight if he can see daylight down the road somewhere,” he said privately in early March 1965. “But there ain’t no daylight in Vietnam.”
Johnson also knew that the Democratic leadership in the Senate shared his misgivings, and that key allied governments counseled against escalation and in favor of a political solution.
On occasion the president even allowed himself to question whether the outcome in Vietnam really mattered to American and Western security. “What the hell is Vietnam worth to me?” he despaired in 1964, even as he was laying plans to expand American involvement. “What’s it worth to this country?”
At other times Johnson was quite capable of arguing for the geopolitical importance of the struggle — he was adept at tailoring his Vietnam analysis to his needs of the moment. But the overall picture that emerges in the administration’s massive internal record for 1964-65 is of a president deeply skeptical that the war could be won, even with large-scale escalation, and far from certain that it was necessary even to try.
So why did Johnson take the plunge? In part because he was hemmed in — not merely by 15 years of steadily growing American involvement in Indochina, but, more important, by his own and his advisers’ use of overheated rhetoric to describe the stakes in Vietnam and their confidence in victory. Moreover, he had personalized the war, and saw any criticism of its progress as an attack on him, compromising his ability to see the conflict objectively.
We know the results. In the very week in which he professed to see “no daylight” in the struggle, Johnson initiated Operation Rolling Thunder, the graduated, sustained aerial bombardment against North Vietnam; also that week, he dispatched the first combat troops. More soon followed, and by the end of 1965, some 180,000 men were on the ground in South Vietnam. Ultimately, the count would top half a million.
True, it’s hard to imagine Mr. Obama ordering a Johnson-style surge of combat forces to Iraq or Syria. The circumstances on the ground are dissimilar, and he sees the world and America’s role in it differently than Johnson did. By all accounts he is less inclined to personalize foreign policy tests, and less threatened by diverse views among his advisers.
In these respects he is much closer in his sensibility and approach to another Vietnam-era president, John F. Kennedy. He consistently rejected the proposals of civilian aides and military leaders to commit combat forces to Vietnam, but he also significantly expanded American involvement in the conflict during his thousand days in office, complicating the choices open to his successor. Whether he could have continued to walk that line, as Mr. Obama is trying to do, is an unanswerable question.
But the point is not about biography; rather, it’s about the inability of a president, once committed to military intervention, to control the course of events. War has a forward motion of its own. Most of Johnson’s major steps in the escalation in Vietnam were in response to unforeseen obstacles, setbacks and shortcomings. There’s no reason the same dynamic couldn’t repeat itself in 2014.
And there is a political logic, too: Then as now, the president faced unrelenting pressure from various quarters to do more, to fight the fight, to intensify the battle. Then as now, the alarmist rhetoric by the president and senior officials served to reduce their perceived maneuverability, not least in domestic political terms. Johnson was no warmonger, and he feared, rightly, that Vietnam would be his undoing. Nonetheless, he took his nation into a.....
...click link to continue reading...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/op ... ?referrer=
FIFTY years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson authorized a strategic bombing campaign against targets in North Vietnam, an escalation of the conflict in Southeast Asia that was swiftly followed by the deployment of American ground troops. Last month, President Obama expanded a strategic bombing campaign against Islamic insurgents in the Middle East, escalating the attack beyond Iraq into Syria.
Will Mr. Obama repeat history and commit ground troops? Many analysts believe so, and top officials are calling for it. But the president has expressed skepticism about what American force can accomplish in this kind of struggle, and he has resisted the urgings of hawks inside and outside the administration who want him to go in deeper. Mr. Obama, his supporters say, is a “gloomy realist” who has learned history’s lesson: that American military power, no matter how great in relative terms, is ultimately of limited utility in conflicts that are, at their root, political or ideological in nature.
It’s a powerful, reasoned position, amply supported by the history of America’s involvement in Vietnam. But that history also shows that a president’s attitude and analytical assessment, no matter how gloomily realistic, are not necessarily an antidote to ill-advised military action. Foreign intervention has a logic all to itself.
Today we think of Lyndon Johnson as a man unwaveringly committed to prevailing in Vietnam. But at least at first, he shared Mr. Obama’s pessimism. He and his advisers knew they faced an immense challenge in attempting to suppress the insurgency in South Vietnam. “A man can fight if he can see daylight down the road somewhere,” he said privately in early March 1965. “But there ain’t no daylight in Vietnam.”
Johnson also knew that the Democratic leadership in the Senate shared his misgivings, and that key allied governments counseled against escalation and in favor of a political solution.
On occasion the president even allowed himself to question whether the outcome in Vietnam really mattered to American and Western security. “What the hell is Vietnam worth to me?” he despaired in 1964, even as he was laying plans to expand American involvement. “What’s it worth to this country?”
At other times Johnson was quite capable of arguing for the geopolitical importance of the struggle — he was adept at tailoring his Vietnam analysis to his needs of the moment. But the overall picture that emerges in the administration’s massive internal record for 1964-65 is of a president deeply skeptical that the war could be won, even with large-scale escalation, and far from certain that it was necessary even to try.
So why did Johnson take the plunge? In part because he was hemmed in — not merely by 15 years of steadily growing American involvement in Indochina, but, more important, by his own and his advisers’ use of overheated rhetoric to describe the stakes in Vietnam and their confidence in victory. Moreover, he had personalized the war, and saw any criticism of its progress as an attack on him, compromising his ability to see the conflict objectively.
We know the results. In the very week in which he professed to see “no daylight” in the struggle, Johnson initiated Operation Rolling Thunder, the graduated, sustained aerial bombardment against North Vietnam; also that week, he dispatched the first combat troops. More soon followed, and by the end of 1965, some 180,000 men were on the ground in South Vietnam. Ultimately, the count would top half a million.
True, it’s hard to imagine Mr. Obama ordering a Johnson-style surge of combat forces to Iraq or Syria. The circumstances on the ground are dissimilar, and he sees the world and America’s role in it differently than Johnson did. By all accounts he is less inclined to personalize foreign policy tests, and less threatened by diverse views among his advisers.
In these respects he is much closer in his sensibility and approach to another Vietnam-era president, John F. Kennedy. He consistently rejected the proposals of civilian aides and military leaders to commit combat forces to Vietnam, but he also significantly expanded American involvement in the conflict during his thousand days in office, complicating the choices open to his successor. Whether he could have continued to walk that line, as Mr. Obama is trying to do, is an unanswerable question.
But the point is not about biography; rather, it’s about the inability of a president, once committed to military intervention, to control the course of events. War has a forward motion of its own. Most of Johnson’s major steps in the escalation in Vietnam were in response to unforeseen obstacles, setbacks and shortcomings. There’s no reason the same dynamic couldn’t repeat itself in 2014.
And there is a political logic, too: Then as now, the president faced unrelenting pressure from various quarters to do more, to fight the fight, to intensify the battle. Then as now, the alarmist rhetoric by the president and senior officials served to reduce their perceived maneuverability, not least in domestic political terms. Johnson was no warmonger, and he feared, rightly, that Vietnam would be his undoing. Nonetheless, he took his nation into a.....
...click link to continue reading...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/op ... ?referrer=
"Life is too important to take seriously."
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh."
Have a story or an anonymous news tip for CEO? Need advertising? CONTACT ME
Cambodia Expats Online is the most popular community in the country. JOIN TODAY
Follow CEO on social media:
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Google+
Instagram
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh."
Have a story or an anonymous news tip for CEO? Need advertising? CONTACT ME
Cambodia Expats Online is the most popular community in the country. JOIN TODAY
Follow CEO on social media:
YouTube
Google+
Re: Will Syria be Obama's Vietnam?
I hope he doesn't. The situation is obviously grim there and innocent people are getting slaughtered, but the situation requires more than a military solution. Otherwise, as soon as American troops leave, the militants will regain control, as we have seen again and again. The locals have to decide what type of lives they want to live, and either surrender to and abide by the strict ISIS ideology or fight against it themselves. No point in spending another trillion US tax dollars and more American lives for this endless cycle of violence that goes back over 1400 years. We should never have gotten involved there in the first place. Chickens coming home to roost, and all that....
Re: Will Syria be Obama's Vietnam?
their goal is keeping Sirya in an unstable state of civil war for decades just as they did in Lybia.Soi Dog wrote:I hope he doesn't. The situation is obviously grim there and innocent people are getting slaughtered, but the situation requires more than a military solution. Otherwise, as soon as American troops leave, the militants will regain control, as we have seen again and again. The locals have to decide what type of lives they want to live, and either surrender to and abide by the strict ISIS ideology or fight against it themselves. No point in spending another trillion US tax dollars and more American lives for this endless cycle of violence that goes back over 1400 years. We should never have gotten involved there in the first place. Chickens coming home to roost, and all that....
they can't win the game as Sirya is backed by Russia, so it can only stall and go on as long as it takes.
the civilians should better migrate elsewhere and start a new life as there's no way the situation will come back to normal anytime soon.
-
- Expatriate
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:47 pm
- Reputation: 0
Re: Will Syria be Obama's Vietnam?
I wouldnt send one British solider to fight overthere ...it not worth it...buy the oil of any fucker that has it....it's a case of never twain shall meet....
Let Syrian ppl sort there own shit out...
PS I wish Britain would drop the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugee...
selection should be done case by case.
That's my worry tons of refugees flooding europe ...
Let Syrian ppl sort there own shit out...
PS I wish Britain would drop the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugee...
selection should be done case by case.
That's my worry tons of refugees flooding europe ...
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 5 Replies
- 1975 Views
-
Last post by God'sGift
-
- 23 Replies
- 3958 Views
-
Last post by armchairlawyer
-
- 19 Replies
- 2895 Views
-
Last post by johnny lightning
-
- 27 Replies
- 4951 Views
-
Last post by hunter8
-
- 7 Replies
- 779 Views
-
Last post by Fridaywithmateo
-
- 21 Replies
- 6281 Views
-
Last post by JUDGEDREDD
-
- 6 Replies
- 2349 Views
-
Last post by Bernie Bro
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: barang_TK, Bing [Bot], Bluenose, Clutch Cargo, ExPenhMan, John Bingham, Kammekor, Ong Tay, Ozinasia, rgrowden, Richy9999Rich, WildAlaskaKen, yongchi and 1149 guests