Posted on 08/22/2009 9:06:09 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
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?
To be sure, such historical analogies are overly simplistic and fatally flawed, if only because each presidency is distinct in its own way. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Like everything else related to the WOT the administration is learning it's not quite as simple to manage as it is to protest.
And no matter what happens after that, the focus will be on Iraq and the ongoing problems resulting from Bush's little adventure there.
Obama has already countered this in private, he and Biden have revealed that they are willing to bomb Afghanistan’s harbors, unlike that Lyndon Nixon guy.
The Dims are doing their best to turn it into another Viet Nam.
I don’t think he can do that. The Afghan government is too weak. If we withdraw the images of the Taliban rolling into Kabul less than 30 days later would be on every television in the world. Obama could not possibly allow that kind of humiliation.
Well, you’re probably right. But on the other hand, I wouldn’t put it past Obama to make a deal with the Taliban — “I’ll withdraw my troops, but if you take Kabul in 30 days, I’ll bring them back. Allow the Afghan gov’t to teeter on for 12 months after I withdraw and then you can take Kabul. At that point, I will do nothing and the land is yours.”
When Bush was in the White House sure. But they are in charge now. Obama has not done anything to change the perception that democrats are weak on foreign policy and security. Another 'quagmire' with a few disastrous headlines could secure their landslide defeat.
We made a similar deal in Vietnam. We promised to come back and aid the South if the NVA invaded. When they did congress refused to honor our agreement. I pray that something similar does not happen here.
New bumper sticker?: Afghanistan = Vietnam
Obama said: “This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”
He’s not a truther?
I’m just asking qestions...
Without huge protests - which won't happen with America's first black president in office - or nightly, gratuitous and salacious anti-war stories from the MSM DNC propagandists, most Americans will go on with their day without giving Afghanistan a single momentary thought.
To be sure, there are great differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan, and between Johnson and Obama. But it does make for some interesting conversation.
In many ways the Vietnam war was lost in it's neighbors - Laos and Cambodia. Afghanistan could well be lost in Pakistan. I wonder as time goes by how much the White House and it's oh so brilliant youngsters will begin trying to direct operations in Afghanistan from Washington. We've already seen this problem crop up where lawyers were consulted before missles could be fired from unmanned aircraft.
One glaring difference is easy to spot. Johnson did not run for another term. I don't think we'll be that lucky.
LOL.... nicely done.
Am I having a flashback or what?
Woodstock in the News, and America caught up in a war we can’t win.
The share of Americans who said the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting slipped below 50 percent in a survey released last week by The Washington Post and ABC News. A July poll by the New York Times and CBS News showed that 57 percent of Americans think things are going badly for the United States in Afghanistan, compared with 33 percent who think they are going well.
Do you fall in this catagory?
Good points. I'll take the second one first. I'm sure that the ground commanders will continue to be handcuffed and stiffed by political appointees back home. That's the nature of Democrat war-fighting since the Vietnam war. While that will impede progress on the ground prolonging our engagement, there just aren't not enough Taliban to inflict heavy casualties on the US. They have no artillery and no armor and even if they did, they don't have the air power to protect them. It's purely a guerrilla war, but on an vastly smaller scale than Vietnam.
Pakistan, on the other hand, is - as you point out - a complicating matter. If civil war breaks out in Pakistan, which isn't out of the questions, it could mean escalation that we haven't really seen since Vietnam. Very bloody. Quagmire wouldn't begin to describe our problems if Pakistan blows up.
The only predecessor zer0 is even close to is Jimmy Carter...but obama is going to make carter look great comparitively speaking.
IMHO, your premise is slightly askew. He may well lose Afghanistan, too. But right now, his assinine orders to evacuate Iraq seem to be leading to the loss of Iraq already! With the recent withdrawal of our Troops from Iraq, the Iraqi military and police seem to be unable to maintain the law and order that our American treasure, blood, sweat and tears handed to them, and the country is descending once more into a hell hole of terror bombings and mayhem.
So unless some tactics and strategies are changed, BOTH countries will be lost, and all the American sacrifice will have been for naught! Just today I saw a headline that some Iraqi leader warned the people to brace themselves for a long season of bombing and turmoil. WTF?! And while that is going on, our fearless leader is partying on Martha’s Vineyard with a bunch of the billionaires who bought the election for him!
You might find this interesting. As if things over there wern't complicated enough.
I think Obama is busy digging himself holes domestically and no one in the White House is all that interested in what is going on overseas unless it makes headlines. I think we are on the verge of a full court press on fronts all over the world. Our enemies can smell weakness, like they did in Somolia. I think Pakistan, Georgia, Korea and Iraq are all ready to blow up.
Bush may have been a domestic flop, but dictators and terrorists knew that they would pay a heavy price if they tried to rattle their sabres. Now, they know we aren't as motivated and aren't as focused. This White House can't handle a multitasking.
I hope we don’t have another Vietnam. As much as I dislike this president, I don’t want to see us fail in any war effort.
That is what is so scary. Despite what a stunningly poor candidate McCain was, America chose to put a touchy feely socialist novice in the White House while we are fighting two wars. You do remember we are fighting two wars, don't you? It hasn't been in the news much lately, and that includes here on FR. That's what is so surprising about this article and where it is from.
If this Iraqi government fails, some secular strong man will probably take over and impose order on the country. It’s unlikely that Islamists will take over the country because they aren’t popular with the people. In fact, Al-Qaeda’s horrendous acts on the Iraqi people is what gave us a 2nd chance in Iraq.
Like wars we could have won had it not been for the Treason of Walter Chronkite,
And could yet win but for zero.
IO disagree. He may not have stopped what was going on when he came into office, but he/they/ are certainly haven’t stepped up. In fact they are half steppin, and tying one of our military’s arms behind it’s back...exactly how the DimoLosers did with Viet Nam to start the eventual retreat/defeat.
I’m afraid you are correct. Unfortunately, the socialists don’t know any other way to govern. They are incapably of changing their mindset.
Remember too, that a defeat of America is a victory for socialism. We know for certain that Obama is a socialist.
Yes, but they know that most Americans are not socialists. They can not afford defeat, but don't know how to win a war. They must disguise their true intentions, the humbling of the United States. And they hate carrying the label of being weak and ineffective in foreign policy. This causes them to be very schizophrenic. They want to fight a war their way, with minimal contact, hoping that the enemy will "see the error of their ways" and come to the table. They hamstring the military. They can't go for the throat when fighting our enemies the way they do when fighting Americans domestically.
It would be better for us if they would just declare defeat and bring our troops home. But instead they will fight half hearted, draining our blood and treasure, yet never bring themselves to win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.