You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
Could Afghanistan Become Obama's Vietnam?
2009-08-23
NYT 'analysis' piece. I thought Vietnams only happened to Republican presidents these days ...
By Peter Baker

WASHINGTON -- President Obama had not even taken office before supporters were etching his likeness onto Mount Rushmore as another Abraham Lincoln or the second coming of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Yet what if they got the wrong predecessor? What if Mr. Obama is fated to be another Lyndon B. Johnson instead?
Wasn't President Johnson the white guy who lifted his beagle up by the ears? Somebody doesn't like Mr. Obama any more.
To be sure, such historical analogies are overly simplistic and fatally flawed, if only because each presidency is distinct in its own way.
Well golly, that was profound. And deep, man.
But the L.B.J. model -- a president who aspired to reshape America at home while fighting a losing war abroad -- is one that haunts Mr. Obama's White House as it seeks to salvage Afghanistan while enacting an expansive domestic program.
Does Mr. Obama's White House even know about its previous residents from the dim past? I've seen no hint of a historical sensibility.
In this summer of discontent for Mr. Obama, as the heady early days give way to the grinding battle for elusive goals, he looks ahead to an uncertain future not only for his legislative agenda but for what has indisputably become his war. Last week's elections in Afghanistan played out at the same time as the debate over health care heated up in Washington, producing one of those split-screen moments that could not help but remind some
The legendary Some make their appearance. Some always make their opinions known in New York Times pieces of any weight.
of Mr. Johnson's struggles to build a Great Society while fighting in Vietnam.
Posted by:Steve White

#10  TOPIX > THE US AND NATO SEEK TO BALKANIZE THE CAUCASUS.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-08-23 23:16  

#9  Go easy on the pens of madagascar Joe, those four non-flying birds are more capable then any of the do-do's currently residing in the WH.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2009-08-23 21:25  

#8  PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > SRI LANKA GIVES PAKISTAN AN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE [ala SAARC Group of Nations].

IOW, 1990's NET > OWG-NWO > means Islands or Island Regions like SRI LANKA can become OWG GLOBAL FREE TRADE ZONES.

D *** NGED "PENGUINS OF MADGASCAR".....!?
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-08-23 20:54  

#7  WMF > OKINAWA [Ryukyus] ARE PART OF CHINA'S CONTINENTAL SHELF, hence should be part of CHINA'S OFFSHORE SOVEREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE; + JAPAN INTENDS TO USE THE US-JAPAN ALLIANCE TO SEIZE THE DAOYUS. CHINA SHOULD PROVE ITS SOVEREIGNTY BY HOLDING ROUTINE AIR, NAVAL MILEXS IN THE DAOYUS AND OTHER DISPUTED ISLANDS.

* SAME > US IS PREPARING FOR A FINAL SHOWDOWN IN ASIA AGZ CHINA AND ASIA [Cold War enemies-antagonists], + CHINA SHOULD MILPOL ATTACK THE PHILIPPINES FIRST TO BREAK THE US STRATEGIC ISOLATION OF CHINA.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-08-23 20:50  

#6  And PAKISTAN? SOUTH ASIA REGION???

* PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUMS > MALIK: TALIBAN KILLED MEHSUD'S FATHER-IN-LAW, FAMILY [alleged collusion/conspiracy in attack?].

* WMF > CHINA'S BACKYARD ON FIRE[smoking]: CHINA SENDS A BATTALION OF PLA TROOPS TO MYABNMAR BORDER AFTER ANTI-CHINESE RIOTS; INDIA-CHINA WAR OVER TIBET [includ BHUTAN], MYANMAR, AND PAKISTAN [includ AFGHANISTAN]???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-08-23 20:26  

#5  No because zero's political opponents love their country.
Posted by: Hellfish   2009-08-23 15:03  

#4  Tipover, you notice a downplaying or lack of publicity concerning recent US WIA/KIA?
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-08-23 13:37  

#3  The anti-war folks are against this war and conservatives are put off by the new ROE and it's effect on troop safety. Add both together and you have the number of folks getting vocal against the war.

The ROE has only been in effect for a few weeks but someone had better show positive results soon or this WILL be another Vietnam as the press again (still) will beat the drums of defeat until BHO can't stand the heat. Of course many innocents will die in the out years but who cares? And that of course includes our troops that will die when we have to go back to finish the unfinished POS job when thing turns to a ball of snakes.

Another example of not fighting to win (Vietnam).
Posted by: tipover   2009-08-23 12:55  

#2  "Sticking it out seems to be a 10-year project and I'm not sure we have the political capital and financial capital to do that. Yet withdrawing, the cost of that seems awfully high as well. So we have the wolf by the ear."

You may soon see Barry FEEDING the wolf. First appeasement then surrender, but it will of course be called an Islamic multi-faith negociated settlement. This "Good War" as he refers to it now, is simply unfinished business. It is much rubbish left over from the Bush administration that Barry must sweep up and dispose of. He holds no investment in Afghanistan, nor does he wish to hold any. This entire affair is a massive detractor which drains valuable resources from his midnight basketball programs and lofty liberation theology goals. I suspect it will all be brought to an end very soon.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-08-23 12:54  

#1  I see three factors at work here. First of all, the Democrats despise the military, not just as an organization, but the individuals within it as well, as is plainly obvious from their comments of the last 10 years.

Second of all, they are utterly ignorant of both foreign and military policy, yet believe themselves supernaturally gifted in both.

For these first two reasons, they believe they can dictate military strategy like playing checkers, and any intelligent military argument against those ideas are insubordination.

Like LBJ, Obama is utterly disinterested in foreign policy or the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving its conduct up to worthless underlings and academics whose understanding of the military devolves from leftist anti-military organizations.

Third, the left are compelled to social experimentation and collectivism. This means that they will want a draft at some point, hand in hand with a Peace Corps evasion of the draft. This will be supported by those who still fantasize about their youth in the 1960s.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-08-23 12:17  

00:00