| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| George McGovern: Afghan war another Vietnam |
| 2009-12-14 |
| Longtime US senator George McGovern, shocked by President Barack Obama's new troop surge, has called the US war in Afghanistan another Vietnam. "I am astounded at the Obama administration's decision to escalate the equally mistaken war in Afghanistan," he wrote in an op-ed article in the Washington Post on Sunday. "And as I listen to our talented young president explain why he is adding 30,000 troops -- beyond the 21,000 he had added already -- I can only think: another Vietnam," one-time Obama supporter added. "I hope I am incorrect, but history tells me otherwise," said former senator from South Dakota and Democratic presidential nominee in 1972. In a speech earlier this month, Obama announced an increase of 30,000 additional US troops to the war-torn country. McGovern also compared Obama to the late Democratic president Lyndon Johnson, who decided to escalate the US war in Vietnam. Johnson had a brilliant record in domestic affairs, but Vietnam choked his dream of a Great Society, according to McGovern. The war had become unbearable to so many Americans that Johnson, who won in a landslide in 1964, did not seek re-election four years later, the former senator wrote. "Even if we had a good case for a war in Afghanistan, we simply cannot afford to wage it," said former senator who is regarded as a World War II hero in the US. "With a 12-trillion-dollar debt and a serious economic recession, this is not a time for unnecessary wars abroad. We should bring our soldiers home before any more of them are killed or wounded -- and before our national debt explodes." Earlier this year, McGovern had urged Obama to reconsider his proposed military buildup in Afghanistan and to withdraw American forces. The new troop surge would bring the total number of US troops in Afghanistan to nearly 100,000. Apart from the presence of private security forces, there are already 100,000 US-led coalition troops in war-ravaged Afghanistan and the country has been witnessing a surge in violence. Afghan civilians have been the main victims of the long-fought war. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #28 What Glenmore said. McGovern to my knowledge has never: -- accused his opponents of treason (cf Gore: "[Bush] betraaaaaaaayyyyyed this country!!"] -- accused Israel of apartheid and Bush and Reagan of wanting to start WWIII (cf Jimaah) -- consorted with financial whores in order to shovel money into his foundation and thereby burnish his post-political reputation (cf Clinton, The Pardoner of Rich and boontime companion of Tony Giustra et al) -- prostituted his biography and shamelessly trashed his opponent before foreign audiences for personal political gain (cf Pres. Clown) McGovern may be wrong, but he's a patriot with utterly no motive for financial or personal gain. Therein lies all the difference between him and his successors on the American left. |
| Posted by: lex 2009-12-14 23:01 |
| #27 No attack on American soil was launched from Viet Nam. That is the only difference that really matters. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-12-14 19:58 |
| #26 "The fact that McGovern is being quoted so prominently in an enemy Iranian government controlled newspaper says a lot about him. Yeah, but is there really much difference between an Iran controlled newspaper and say .. the New York Times? |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-12-14 19:09 |
#25 "These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." If the statement above should turn out to be as relevant as a rant by Comical Ali, why should any unfriendly state fear the consequences of an attack on the continental US? Losing the Vietnam war did not fundamentally undermine deterrence, it was a limited war with limits observed by all sides. Losing the Afghanistan war however will lead to the conclusion that the American military security umbrella in fact does not cover New York City and Washington DC. And if that's the case there's no credible deterrence left. It's not a question of capability but of intent. |
| Posted by: Kofi Hupairt3549 2009-12-14 17:32 |
| #24 Well as told by the [dis]honorable Sen. John F'kin Kerry - the U.S was busy burning women, raping villages, killing babies, etc... in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan. Kind of hard to do that with the current ROE in Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-12-14 16:10 |
| #23 Glenmore, It is my understanding that drug use was prevelant in vietnam, but I did not see it in my unit. |
| Posted by: bman 2009-12-14 15:59 |
| #22 Wait - he's STILL ALIVE? |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-12-14 15:06 |
| #21 Another similarity is that an enormously popular donk president who has just won a victory over a war-mongering trunk is engaging in a policy of guns and butter. Slowly falling into a war he is unable to win because he doesn't have the guts to fight it properly or to pull out, either of which would be preferable to the course chosen. Prospectively, the mid term election in 66 was a huge victory for the trunks as they picked up 48 seats from the donks. More Guns and butter policies (including Medicare) led to inflation. Liberal donk dissatisfaction with the war lead to clean Gene challenging and isolated and friendless LBJ in the primaries, forcing LBJ to withdraw. Domestic violence and desire to win the war led to a trunk President in 1968 who prosecuted war for 6 years to successful conclusion which donks threw away two years later. Deja vu all over again. |
| Posted by: Goober Claiting8621 2009-12-14 15:04 |
| #20 McGovern's WWII service earned him our everlasting respect, even when we totally disagree with his position on some issue. Not only that, but he never demonstrated the culture of corruption that dominates politics today. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-12-14 14:28 |
| #19 McGovern? Isn't he dead yet? He must be older than dirt (and just as dumb). :-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-12-14 14:06 |
| #18 Afghan civilians have been the main victims of the long-fought war. Really???? The reporters just cant help themselves.. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-12-14 13:15 |
| #17 bman, another Vietnam - A'stan similarity is convenient supply to copious quanitities illegal of drugs. Let's hope those drugs don't become the problem they did in Vietnam. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-12-14 12:53 |
| #16 Mcgovern hasn't been in the Senate for a long time. Two things that are differnt between Vietnam and Afgan is that Afgan is land locked and it is hard to supply the troops. Vietnam had Cam RAn Bay, and you could drink beer. |
| Posted by: bman 2009-12-14 12:33 |
| #15 Dear George, You are old, senile, and insignificant anymore. Please GO AWAY. TERM LIMITS.....need I say anymore??? |
| Posted by: armyguy 2009-12-14 11:29 |
| #14 IIRC, ANSWER was formed on the weekend after 9-11. But the white anting of the West's defenses is, of course, continuous. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2009-12-14 10:15 |
| #13 When a leftist says "it'll be another Vietnam", it's not a prediction -- it's a threat. It's a warning that they'll politicize the war, demonize the soldiers, do ANYTHING they can do bring about defeat. Remember, the left started organizing "against war" before the towers even fell. They're not really against war -- just against the US winning. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2009-12-14 09:30 |
| #12 Just send Jimmuh Carter for a little diplomacy |
| Posted by: chris 2009-12-14 09:11 |
| #11 Interesting analysis Glemore. You could be on to something there. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-12-14 08:47 |
| #10 There are a lot of similarities, and in some ways A'stan is worse. One big similarity is that in neither case could we escalate enough to win, for the same reasons - home front opposition and because escalation might overflow beyond our control (nuclear in Vietnam, Persian Gulf oil now), Another is that the enemy has convenient safe haven for training, recuperation and supply. A third is that our allies are corrupticrats and our opponents driven by fanaticism. I think I'm with McGovern on this one. Interestingly, the other George (W.) seems to have understood too - hence the move of the war to Iraq. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-12-14 08:45 |
| #9 "The fact that McGovern is being quoted so prominently in an enemy Iranian government controlled newspaper says a lot about him. there is an old adage: If your enemy wants something, dont let him have it. Even if you dont need it yourself , dont let him have it anyway. How OLD is McGovern now, anyway.? Just south of the Last Supper, I expect. Wipe his mouth and hand him the warm milk. |
| Posted by: Angleton9 2009-12-14 08:44 |
| #8 The fact that McGovern is being quoted so prominantly in an enemy Iranian government controlled newspaper says a lot about him. I agree McGovern and the rest of the Left (not to mention the media) have been working overtime to make Afghanistan another Vietnam - and the more dead American soldiers the better. However unlike Vietnam - we were attacked by the Taliban and Al-Q. Civilians were deliberately targeted and murdered in cold blood. And no matter how much the media tries to ignore it or pass it off as 'we deserved it' - people won't be so easily fooled. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-12-14 08:16 |
| #7 "And as I listen to our talented young president explain why he is adding 30,000 troops If he's so "talented" why is he not listening to a wise old sage such as yourself? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-12-14 04:22 |
| #6 There's nothing the western leftists love more than an American military defeat. The final helicopter evac of Saigon was their finest hour, and they've been craving a repeat for over 30 years. Osama-bama is doing everything he can to give it to them. They're just mad because he's not doing it fast enough to suit them. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2009-12-14 04:01 |
| #5 In the sense that an alliance of corrupt media, lefty ideologues and venal politicians are trying to sell us out and hand another country over to totalitarian savages, comrade McGovern's analogy is quite accurate. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2009-12-14 03:51 |
| #4 "We should bring our soldiers home before any more of them are killed or wounded" After all the notion that an islamofascistic Afghanistan threatens the physical security and welfare of the continental US is preposterous. /sarc Afghanistan is fundamentally different from Vietnam. The left is trying to reenact defeat, some conservatives are trying to get it right this time, both are making a dangerous mistake. The war theater of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the theater of North America. Vietnam was a limited intervention in the context of a global cold war. |
| Posted by: Hupamble Munster3358 2009-12-14 02:04 |
| #3 We should bring our soldiers home before any more of them are killed or wounded -- and before our national debt explodes. The national debt isn't exploding over Afghanistan, it's because of our talented young president's brilliant domestic affairs. |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2009-12-14 01:33 |
| #2 ION WMF > RUSSIAN "KOMMERSANT" MEDIA: US ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN MEANT TO FORCE CHINA'S COMPROMISE, CONCESSIONS WID US-UNO ON IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAMS. * SAME > VIETNAM IN TEARS: CHINA PLANS TO BUILD THREE MAJOR DAMS IN MEKONG RIVER REGION/BASIN TO FORCE VIETNAM CONCESSIONS ON DISPUTED SOUTH CHINA SEA. Wehell, we all know how forcing Vietnam to do anything worked out in the past. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-12-14 00:21 |
| #1 Wonder how many medals John Kerry will receive in Afghanistan then? |
| Posted by: chris 2009-12-14 00:11 |