Afghanistan; The New Vietnam?

Midst all the news of bailouts, stimulus programs and mortgage rescue plans, President Obama announced he is increasing the American troop level in Afghanistan by 17,000, a surge, if you will. Obama made much during his campaign that we fought the wrong war. His position was Afghanistan was much more important, and roundly criticized the Iraq War, along with his left wing supporters in the media. “The war is lost!” exclaimed Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader.

The Bush surge worked, and Iraq, while not a place that I would care to visit, is stable and functioning. It will be the cornerstone of our Mideast policy in the future, and provide a base of operation for future problems that may develop in the Mideast. History will judge Bush kindly on Iraq.

Afghanistan, however, is another issue. It could prove to be Obama’s Vietnam. One only has to look at its history to realize that outside of maintaining a minimal military presence there to threaten against any future terrorist activity, we should be wary. Any country that has gone to war there has lost. It is an outpost of desperation.

Iraq is an industrialized country with educated people and a middle class, albeit dwindling under Sadaam. Afghanistan, on the other hand, is backward, mostly uneducated, and a rogue state whose primary source of income is opium. Even the moderates within its firmly entrenched Islamic theocracy are conservative, with women routinely beaten and kept under lock and key. It is a country of warlords and fiefdoms, with a government whose sole sphere of influence is in Kabul, its capital city. Its history is one of continual civil war and continual fighting in one of the poorest countries in the world.

In addition, the really bad guys are holed up in Pakistan, in an area the Pakistani army has just walked away from, turning control over to the Islamists. The politics makes invading this area impossible, reminiscent of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Its terrain is foreboding. The war is being fought on deserts and horrendous mountains, with plenty of places for these roaches to hide.

The Soviet Union tried invading Afghanistan to support its Marxist government is 1979. As a student of Soviet history, two things led to the downfall of the Soviet Union: 1) The Chernobyl nuclear accident, after which the Soviets could no longer hide its technological deficiency; and 2) The Afghan War in which Soviet forces were massively defeated, leaving the country with their tails between their legs, and bankrupting the Soviet Union. It was a stunning defeat.

From 1979 to 1989, the Soviet Union fought the same type of war on which we are now embarking. During that period of time, more than 600,000 Soviet forces served in Afghanistan at a clip of about 55,000/year. Afghan casualties alone are estimated between one to two million. The Soviet Union placed its casualties around 14,000, with 35,000 injured. But independent researchers have place those figures much higher (deaths closer to 25,0000). Sickness from disease like hepatitis moves the general sick and casualty numbers into the hundreds of thousands. Deaths to Afghanistan troops and civilians conservatively are placed around a million.

The left wing press almost succeeded in sabotaging our efforts in Iraq, but is remaining strangely silent about the ramping up of the American Afghan war. America didn’t learn from the French in Vietnam…we are ignoring the lesson of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. While we are focusing on our economy, this may prove to be the biggest boondoggle of them all.