[Peace-discuss] Bacevich: Vietnam vs. Munich, and Creating an "Iraq/Afghanistan Syndrome"

[C. G. Estabrook]

The only strategic miscalculation in the Clinton-Bush-Obama war in SW Asia 
(similar in this regard to the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon war in in SE Asia) was an 
underestimate of the local resistance to the imposition of puppet governments in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.  But the puppets are being established nevertheless. (That 
may involve - as is being bruited about among US diplomats right now - a Pashtun 
protectorate in the south of Afghanistan.)

Otherwise the US military domination of the Greater Middle East in the first 
decade of the 21st c. was successful.  Iran remains a problem, particularly as 
it attracts allies such as Turkey, Brazil, and Pakistan (which itself remains a 
potentially greater problem).

But in general, US wars have been quite winnable - and continue to be.  Even in 
Vietnam the US achieved its aim - preventing the independent development of an 
society not subject to the US-dominated world economy - by means of massive 
violence.  The US didn't achieve its maximum aim - a quiescent puppet government 
- but "the threat of a good example" was averted. Vietnam now begs for Nike 
factories.

The question in the Middle East is whether the US can titrate the violent 
destruction of recalcitrant countries, since the massive violence employed in SE 
Asia is less acceptable domestically.  (That's why the USG is worried about the 
Wikileaks documents - and why the pundits are working so hard to convince us 
they aren't important.)

And the administration may even be able to gin up a Vietnam-style air attack on 
Iran.  Obama has been talking about that since he ran for the Senate. The 
question is, can he invent enough of an emergency to sell it to the US public?

What political miscalculation?  The Democrats will lose Congressional seats in 
November, but the president's party almost always does at mid-term elections. 
And the prevarications of Obama and the Democrats so destroyed the antiwar 
movement by 2008 that it's hard to see its being a problem for him in 2012.

The equivalent of a Tet Offensive, a revolt in the military, and/or an aroused 
US public all seem unlikely. In their absence, Obama and his advisers should be 
able to craft his re-election. He'll run against a demonized tea-party, welcome 
the liberals home, and probably win handily, like Bush in 2004.


On 8/4/10 9:54 AM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Would you agree w/ Bacevich that Obama's decision was a political calculation
> that has led to a strategic miscalculation? Bacevich's main point is that
> military solutions should be off the table because (laying aside moral, etc
> considerations) wars are no longer winnable. (And it's also become a
> political miscalculation, of course.) --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Tue, 8/3/10, David Green /<davegreen84 at yahoo.com>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]
> Bacevich: Vietnam vs. Munich, and Creating an "Iraq/Afghanistan Syndrome" To:
> "Brussel Morton K." <mkbrussel at comcast.net> Cc: "Peace Discuss"
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Date: Tuesday, August 3, 2010, 9:36 PM
>
> My central complaint about Bacevich's analysis is this: "I can’t pretend to
> look into his (Obama's) heart and understand what factors caused him to make
> the decision he did. I suspect that a political calculation may have weighed
> more heavily than a strategic calculation or a moral calculation. And I find
> that deeply upsetting, because I, and I think many of us, felt that here,
> finally, was a public figure who—whose decisions would not be influenced
> primarily by political calculations." I think Obama's was indeed a strategic
> calculation. Obama's political calculations have amounted to using and
> abusing his "base" while being willing to countenance political defeat at
> midterm and beyond. That should tell us something about antiwar strategic and
> political calculations, past and present.