Can you say Vietnam?

[H Tower]

That's right, with Bush deploying regular troops to Afghanistan, its time to guess how long we(the US) will be involved there. If we try to set up the Northen Alliance as the government of Afghan land, will we have to leave troops there to supprt the government?

 

[H Tower]

i don't think it will be exactly like Vietnam, but with islamic fundamentalist groups supporting a lingering rebellion in the country that US troops will be forced to remain to keep the northern alliance in control. I think that US troops will be in afghanistan for the next 5 years or more.

 

[BlueMonday]

I think the Balkans analogy is the proper one. Without a doubt, NATO and UN troops will have to remain in the region for a long long time. However, to call it another Vietnam is an overstatement. Vietnam was a completely different scenario.

In Vietnam the US wasn't merely fighting the NVA and Vietcong (and the Kahmer Rouge{?}); it was fighting Soviet and Chinese manufacturing. The USSR and China poured billions of dollars worth of weapons, ammunition, food, and infrastructure into North Vietnam...as did the US into South Vietnam. Later, during the eighties we had the same situation in Afganistan. Both superpowers showered the country with billions of dollars of blood money.

However, Afganistan today is a little different. Granted millions of dollars in blood money are coming in, but nothing compared to the amount America or the USSR would have spent if they were still duking it out. With only a comparative trickle of munitions entering the border, and without a widespread political cause (like the choice between socialism and capitalism) only small pockets of rebellion will likely appear...very much like we've seen in the Balkans

But listen: That is not to say that these small pockets of rebellion are not dangerous. Undoubtedtly, they will be just as vicious and deadly as anyone can imagine. Many lives on both sides will be lost. And many great tragedies on both sides will occur. And everyone will grow sick of the whole thing. But without the organization, or the material to create a widespread revolt, the small revolts in isolated pockets will be doomed untill the American people grow fickle of wasting American servicemen for an impossible cause. Unfortuneatly, I can almost guaruntee that America backing out will eventually happen. It might take five years, maybe ten or twenty...but eventually we'll elect a president who will run with the slogan: "Stop wasting American Lives."

And so the vicious circle of death will continue...

 

[Dogberry]

This is a key mistake that is so often made. Every conflict is different & they all
have unique circumstances. I doubt if the Balkan scenario will come to pass. If there is an attempt to straightjacket Afganistan into a a policy meant for a certain time & place.. it will doubtless flounder.

Dog

 

[SlowwHand]

Most importantly, the military was not in charge in SE Asia.
Politicians were.

 

[H Tower]

but what happens when the taliban forces are "defeated"? won't the politicans step in and try to create a western loving, democratic government?(in order of priority)

 

[drake]

A democracy would be great and sure there will be a push for it, and yes, an atleast friendly and receptive to west government would be nice.

Why would we want to let another anti-west group tyake over? What would be the point of the war? We need someone that is good for the world, not just the west. God willing, we will.

And no, this isn't another vietnam, and nor will it ever digress that far either. We have learned our lesson, and by the way this conflict has been conducted so far, it should be obvious.....should being the key word.

 

[animepornstar]

installing a democratic government in a country like afghanistan is nothing you can do over a night, it will take many years before they are ready for it. that mean that we have to back them up for a long time which might piss some people up, because they won´t like the western influence over afghanistan. and hopefully are the us not only interested in a government that will allow pipelines running through the country.

 

[CurtSibling]

Yes I can say VIETNAM!

There, see?

I can also say you are mistaken if you think an ultra-modern
and well equiped army like the Allies will be bogged down in Afghanistan.
Some reasons:
The goal is different,
The US govt is different,
The region of the world is different,
The technology is different,
The global balance is different,
The enemy is different,

You compare these conflicts in error,
It's like comparing woodstock to a MTV award concert!

 

[VoodooAce]

Well, to think that we will take care of bu'ness, clap our hands together to get rid of that annoying dust, and say, "Well, another good job done here. It's Miller time!" is being naive.

Same with if we think we're going to install a pro-US government. I mean, WTH is up with that? Guess we never learn. Especially if we're going to say to them, and to the world, do as we say, not as we do. So, we stomp on a few human rights. So we don't exactly follow our own laws. As much as some don't want to admit it, the world sees us for the hypocrites we are.

There are how many different factions there, right now, that want power when all is said and done?

How many governments did the USSR install in Afghanistan in about a decade's time? Four. They tried, and failed, four times.

Duh, duh, duh-bya has gotten us into a mess and, as far as I've heard or been able to tell, they have no real plan to get us out. And now we're talking about Iraq, the Phillipines, etc....

I think boy george likes playing army men and war and the fact that it keeps his approval ratings above %50 doesn't hurt either!

 

[amadeus]

Boo-hoo, cry us a river.

What do you want us to do? Install a HOSTILE government?

We don't step on any human rights, either. Why don't you take a trip down to Kabul and ask them this question: were you better off four weeks ago, than you are today?

I can't think of one that would say "no", unless they were a Taliban militia member themselves.

 

[RedWolf]

I think you're a fool to believe that the Northern Alliance are actually a democratic government in any way shape or form. I've heard them reffered to as "just another brand of taliban"

I've even heard women's groups in Afghanistan say that very little will change in respect to women's roles in society... they STILL are not being given any meaningful role in the government building process - so they STILL are going to be opressed. their voices will not be heard.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Boo-hoo, cry us a river.

What do you want us to do? Install a HOSTILE government?

We don't step on any human rights, either. Why don't you take a trip down to Kabul and ask them this question: were you better off four weeks ago, than you are today?

I can't think of one that would say "no", unless they were a Taliban militia member themselves.

 

[SunTzu]

And when has the rights of the women of Afghanistan been important to you?
Nice little change you have here wolfman

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by SunTzu
And when has the rights of the women of Afghanistan been important to you?
Nice little change you have here wolfman

The human rights of all people are fundamentally important to liberals... ALL peoples... regardless of whether or not you live in a western democracy

When have they been important to you or your government?

Taliban has been in power for how many years now? And the world did nothing. Money comes before human rights in the wonderful world we live in.

Did you realize that before September 11th the Taliban was not even on the US list of countries that supported Terrorism?

WHY? Because of oil. Corporate interests want that damn oil pipeline built and you are not allowed to do business with foreign governments that "support terrorism". So the corporate fat cats call in some favours, spread around some cash, grease a few palms, and make their interests well known to those in power. And guess what? The world looks the other way. But NOW... people are hollering "oh my god look at how badly women are treated etc etc etc"

 

[SunTzu]

And your point is?

 

[adamsj]

I think this thread though it is great, should be shut down as I think that the question has been done, Dudes it has been done by the USA and the North Alliance!

 

[S.P.Q.R.]

Hmmm... I think the US will go home, the Northern Alliance will collapse, and there will be another civil war... so in fact, everything will be more or less like before

 

[GenghisK]

... really tired with people still comparing this war to VN war. It's totally different, although the cause defended in VN by US army is even righter.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

The US will (nearly has) blasted the complete crap out of the Taliban. A new government will form, almost certainly a more moderate one, that will probably not be too hostile to the US right away. After about five years, a revolt will occur, or more likely a coup d'etat, and some sort of Saddam Hussein will take power. If Bush Jr is still in office, this new guy will last just long enough for someone to finish calling him El Presidente for Life. If we have another hand-wringing, useless wuss like Gore, the new guy will send wave after wave of terrorists our way, and it'll begin all over again.

As an alternative to the coup, a neighbor may decide to invade. Same results as above.

 

[allan]

"It's totally different, although the cause defended in VN by US army is even righter."

"Even more right" you mean [grammar-teacher-waving-ruler-over-knuckles mode OFF]....

I don't see how it is though:

This war: in response to clear aggression against Americans on American soil. It is our DUTY to respond.

VN war: No such aggression ever took place on American soil. At best we had the Tonkin incident, which can be argued as questionable--but that was in 1964, YEARS after we first entered the conflict on behalf of our "friends" the French....

If we wanted to help the South Vietnamese on their request, at the very LEAST we should have insisted that they embrace REAL democracy, end all their corruption, and thus be truly superior to the North Vietnamese system. This should be the standard we insist on if we get involved in a civil war ANYWHERE for ideological reasons. If they don't want to accept the standard, then we don't put our troops in harm's way to help them. However I still think we need to be careful in choosing our battles in any case--we can't wipe EVERYONE'S ass for them....

The aim of this conflict we are in now, however, is not ideological. It is to eliminate the terrorist structure that is being used against us. It would be nice if democracy results in Afghanistan, however that is not our primary obligation in the conflict. Our primary obligation is to eliminate the source of threats realized against us.

Vietnam was a mistake we paid for dearly. THIS war is not a mistake, and hopefully we get the job done right so that we DON'T pay, though....