Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


 WHAT OBAMA IS READING 
6

Vietnam Books Playing Key Role in Afghan War Debate

Competing works on Vietnam War top policymakers' reading lists

Share

(Newser) – A pair of books on the Vietnam War—one on why America should never have gotten involved, and one on how it could have won—are providing the framework for the Washington debate over Afghanistan strategy, insiders say. Lessons in Disaster, which describes how the White House was pushed into an "unwinnable" war by the military, is being read in the West Wing, while A Better War, which describes a military that has figured out how to counter an insurgency just as it is forced to end the fight by politicians, is on Pentagon reading lists.

A Better War, which argues that American intervention in Vietnam would have succeeded if the strategies employed after 1968 had been used from the outset, helped convert many skeptics on Capitol Hill in 2007 ahead of the surge in Iraq. Opponents of increasing troops in Afghanistan now say Lessons in Disaster neatly sums up their concerns. Both books, the Wall Street Journal notes, have been flying off the bookshelves in DC so fast it's now tough to find a copy of either one.

"Lessons in Disaster" describes how McGeorge Bundy, who pushed for escalating the war in Vietnam during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, came to regret that decision.   (Amazon)
"A Better War" by Lewis Sorley argues that the American military was on the road to success in Vietnam before being forced to withdraw by politicians swayed by public opinion.   (Amazon)
US helicopters of the International Security Assistance Force arrive in Badghis province, Afghanistan.
US helicopters of the International Security Assistance Force arrive in Badghis province, Afghanistan.   (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
6 comments
VIEWING:
 
Timinator2K
Oct 7, 09 8:40 AM CDT
I hope he comes across key passages about "All in or, Out" and what half-way in means, "Bleeding-to-death Quagmire." Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
dax
Oct 7, 09 9:27 AM CDT
On pure sentiment, I'd like to give you a thumbs up for that comment Timinator. But Afghanistan is a difficult situation made more complex by an unstable nuclear Pakistan and a "now unchecked" theocratic Iran. And then there's the poppy trade. --- "All in" would probably mean decades of military commitment to from the West as we hope that the region assimilates enough Western culture during that time period to update its civic processes and temper its reactionary impulses. ---- "All in" would not mean quick victory. There isn't likely to be any surrender from the Taliban. ---- And the meaning/repercussion of "all out" is anybody's guess.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
dax
Oct 7, 09 9:30 AM CDT
Pointless speculation, but, one wonders what the geo-political terrain would look like in the region, if Bush had stayed out of Iraq (leaving it to counterbalance Iran) and we had concentrated military and commercial resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Timinator2K
Oct 7, 09 10:30 AM CDT
Bush stays out of genocidal Iraq, its a nuke arms race with Iran and the first to cross the finish line tosses the first home-grown nukes. Still, its not good as it is and Afghanistan...another political phuck-up war as there are no real/attainable goals (or, oil!) we can obtain with our short-attention span view of the world. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Thinker
Oct 7, 09 12:06 PM CDT
When will people finally open their eyes and see that war is NOT about winning, but about profiteering? The poor fight and die and the rich laugh all the way to the bank. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.