S2,
I listened to Obama's speech carefully. His point debating the fact that it's not a Vietnam "where thousands of the indigenous population were involved in the insurgency" (I'm paraphrasing)....I thought yes, he's right...and then I thought....so what!? His speech was eloguent, but lacked a visceral reality that acknowledges what is going on there. The comparison he should have made, and didn't, was neither war had a rationale that made any sense - and both wars got a lot of people killed and wounded on both sides. Intellectually, I understand WHAT he is trying to do, what I don't understand in WHY. If it does eliminate the small outposts out in the hill country, I'm for it. Consolidating in large population areas brings other types of problems and is only a short term strategy because a large standing garrison is an easy target if you keep it there too long. I think he's trying to get Pakistan to ante up and Afganistan to do the same - training that many troops will be very difficult and there are no guarantees who they will work for after they are trained.
I don't agree with his approach - having said that,he will absolutely have to have the discipline to hold to a time line.
And finally, the other huge difference in Vietnam was the draft. There were new guys coming in (and going out) every day, and the tour was one year. And, everyone knew someone that was there...that's not true today, so the pressure to get out is not as great(sad but true).Therefore, Obama knows the outcry against the war will have a built in governor on it and allow him time to withdraw.
Altair19 |
