Clark: Obama Must Learn from Vietnam

by: Richard Allen Smith

Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:16:55 AM EDT

General Clark does not make a strategic or moral comparison between the two wars, but rather relates the war for public opinion on the war in Afghanistan to the same for Vietnam.  I'd like to highlight a couple portions of General Clark's piece:

Much has been done in six months to deal with the ongoing war in Afghanistan. We have restated that our aim is to eliminate the threat of Al Qaeda; built a new leadership team, including Special Representative Richard Holbrooke; reinforced our troop strength and adjusted our tactics; and have begun augmenting our force with synchronized diplomatic, political and economic efforts.

But can we explain how all of this adds up to an effective strategy that will sustain American engagement in one of the world's least accessible regions?

I made this same point on an Afghanistan panel at Netroots Nation over the weekend.  The fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan is incredibly important, and we must do whatever it takes to achieve success.  However, we cannot continue to take arbitrary actions with no stated goal.  That is the practice of the previous Administration, and we must hold this Administration accountable so they do not do the same.  Whatever the action, whatever the cost, however many troops are requested, it must be explained in explicit detail to the American people how such an action will necessarily effect success in Afghanistan.

So in Afghanistan, we must avoid confusing Americans by citing too many justifications for our presence. We aren't there to create democracy for Afghans, stabilize a nuclear-armed Pakistan or deal with strategic rivalry on the subcontinent. These may be means to an end, but we must not lose public focus on Al Qaeda. And we must be cautious in claiming progress.

Again, I'm going to relate this to one of my points from the Afghanistan panel. What General Clark is referring to here is what is commonly known as "mission creep". To believe that Afghanistan can become a liberal democracy at anytime in the near future borders on intellectual dishonesty. And even if it could, that is the business of Afghans, not Americans.  What we must do however, is discern what our goal is in the region. From there we can define a strategy that will achieve that goal, then the tactics to achieve that strategy, and the define the tasks necessary to achieve those tactics.

Our goal should be simple: a climate in the Af-Pak region were American national security is not threatened.  But what strategies best serve to complete that goal?

Establishing liberal democracies isn't it.  Insuring human rights, although it would be nice, will not necessarily effect that goal.  Neither will counter-narcotic operations. The truth is I don't really know, and there are probably few, if any, people who can completely answer that question.

But one thing is for certain: not only does allowing al Quadea to operate unfettered in Af-Pak not serve that goal, it ensures it's failure.  That is why General Clark is correct, and why the President must be forthright with the American people so that he does not lose public support for this war.