Gingrich: four more wars

[TheLibertarian]

The Grinch has lost his mind.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich last week criticized the United States for not engaging more forcefully with other countries besides Iraq that President Georgw W. Bush had identified as the "Axis of Evil."

"I believe he was right but in fact could not operationalize what he said," Gingrich said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "That is, there was an Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Well we're one out of three. And people ought to think about that. If Bush was right in January of 2002 -- and by the way virtually the entire Congress gave him a standing ovation when he said it -- then why is it that the other two parts of the Axis of Evil are still visibly, cheerfully making nuclear weapons? And it's because we've stood at brink, looked over and thought, 'too big a problem.'"

Typically I'd be loathe to copy-paste from a leftist website like HuffPo, but it's more than appropriate here. It's time we boot these big-spending chickenhawk neo-cons out of office before they destroy civilization in their hubris. Gingrich, Palin and their Reaganite clones ought to go the way of Obama and the rest of the FDR-lite crowd and gently into that good night.

[East of Eden]

I have spent almost 2 years in the middle east, and I can tell you that the majority of the population is not represented by the "extremist impulses" of those on the fringe. Most are just like us, they want to live out their lives in peace and prosperity, and not at the expense of someone else's death.

I do recall in May on Afgan TV there was a report of Afgan Chrsitians, which prompted widespread calls for the deaths of the converts, including from members fo the legislature. That's not exactly 'just like us'.

[ChaosBorders]

I never said all Afgans are pro-Taliban.

They are two different places, Iraq has been a much more developed country, has more of an urban population with better roads and easier terrain. You can put as many troops in Afghanistan as you want but when you leave then what happens? The Taliban is ready to wait us out 500 years. The whole nation-building idea is crazy. We can't even get civilization on the South Side of Chicago.

I'll say it again: You can 'woulda coulda shoulda' all you want and its nothing but speculation.

Which is the point of building up an Afghani police force. For quite a number of years we were doing quite well even with the far too few troops we had. If we had gained complete control at the onset and thoroughly stamped out resistance there is very little question we would have succeeded there fairly easily. Instead, having too few troops has led to many of the same mistakes that occurred in Vietnam, something more than one general has pointed out. As a result of that, the Taliban is once again gaining ground.

And if we had built up the nation following the fall of the Soviet Union, we likely could have avoided this entire debacle with the Taliban in the first place. Instead, we gave them a ton of guns and then left as a soon they did our job against the Soviets for us. As Charlie Wilson put it, "we f-ed it up in the end game."

[chris_brown207]

I have spent almost 2 years in the middle east, and I can tell you that the majority of the population is not represented by the "extremist impulses" of those on the fringe. Most are just like us, they want to live out their lives in peace and prosperity, and not at the expense of someone else's death.

I do recall in May on Afgan TV there was a report of Afgan Chrsitians, which prompted widespread calls for the deaths of the converts, including from members fo the legislature. That's not exactly 'just like us'.

I would love to see East of Eden prove that these "widespread" calls for the deaths of the Afghan Christians are representative of all Afghans - or even a majority of them.

Also, I have seen East of Eden claim on other threads that we were just in focusing the great majority of our attention on Iraq and a minority of our attention on Afghanistan. This is a strange contradiction as the lack of troops is as culpable as any reason for the rise of such extremists into the highest levels of the Afghan government, and the resurgence of the Taliban in that region.

Had we done the right thing in the first place, and focused our attention where it belonged - the great likelihood is that they would be able to return to their country, and East of Eden would now be channeling his self-righteous ire at some other Arabic nation...

[East of Eden]

I would love to see East of Eden prove that these "widespread" calls for the deaths of the Afghan Christians are representative of all Afghans - or even a majority of them.

http://formermuslimsunited.americancomm ... rom-islam/

Note President Karzai was concerned by this event not because of the trashing of religious liberty, but because the conversions had taken place.

Also, I have seen East of Eden claim on other threads that we were just in focusing the great majority of our attention on Iraq and a minority of our attention on Afghanistan. This is a strange contradiction as the lack of troops is as culpable as any reason for the rise of such extremists into the highest levels of the Afghan government, and the resurgence of the Taliban in that region.

Had we done the right thing in the first place, and focused our attention where it belonged - the great likelihood is that they would be able to return to their country, and East of Eden would now be channeling his self-righteous ire at some other Arabic nation...

You can put all the troops there you want and it won't change the fact that the Taliban has significant support, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is no secret that the Pakistani intelligance and military have aided the Taliban. If lots of troops aren't eradicating this Taliban support now why would they have done so eight years ago? I'll say it again, you are speculating. I speculate that without Obama's phony stimulous bill, the economy would have better off, but I can't prove it.

[East of Eden]

Which is the point of building up an Afghani police force. For quite a number of years we were doing quite well even with the far too few troops we had. If we had gained complete control at the onset and thoroughly stamped out resistance there is very little question we would have succeeded there fairly easily. Instead, having too few troops has led to many of the same mistakes that occurred in Vietnam, something more than one general has pointed out.

Completely different situation from Vietnam. That war was lost when the Democratic Congress cut off all aid, including humanitarian, from Vietnam.

"Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam. Given the monetary and military investment in Vietnam, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage compared the American withdrawal to “a pregnant lady, abandoned by her lover to face her fate.� 2 Historian Lewis Fanning went so far as to say that “it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it.� 3

In January of 1973, President Richard Nixon approved the Paris Peace Accords negotiated by Henry Kissinger, which implemented an immediate cease-fire in Vietnam and called for the complete withdrawal of American troops within sixty days. Two months later, Nixon met with South Vietnamese President Thieu and secretly promised him a “severe retaliation� against North Vietnam should they break the cease-fire. Around the same time, Congress began to express outrage at the secret illegal bombings of Cambodia carried out at Nixon’s behest. Accordingly, on June 19, 1973 Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment, which called for a halt to all military activities in Southeast Asia by August 15, thereby ending twelve years of direct U.S. military involvement in the region.

In the fall of 1974, Nixon resigned under the pressure of the Watergate scandal and was succeeded by Gerald Ford. Congress cut funding to South Vietnam for the upcoming fiscal year from a proposed 1.26 billion to 700 million dollars. These two events prompted Hanoi to make an all-out effort to conquer the South. As the North Vietnamese Communist Party Secretary Le Duan observed in December 1974: “The Americans have withdrawn…this is what marks the opportune moment.� 4

The NVA drew up a two-year plan for the “liberation� of South Vietnam. Owing to South Vietnam’s weakened state, this would only take fifty-five days. The drastic reduction of American aid to South Vietnam caused a sharp decline in morale, as well as an increase in governmental corruption and a crackdown on domestic political dissent. The South Vietnamese army was severely under-funded, greatly outnumbered, and lacked the support of the American allies with whom they were accustomed to fighting.

The NVA began its final assault in March of 1975 in the Central Highlands. Ban Me Thout, a strategically important hamlet, quickly fell to North Vietnam. On March 13, a panicked Thieu called for the retreat of his troops, surrendering Pleiku and Kontum to the NVA. Thieu angrily blamed the US for his decision, saying, “If [the U.S.] grant full aid we will hold the whole country, but if they only give half of it, we will only hold half of the country.�5 His decision to retreat increased internal opposition toward him and spurred a chaotic mass exodus of civilians and soldiers that clogged the dilapidated roads to the coast. So many refugees died along the way that the migration along Highway 7B was alternatively described by journalists as the “convoy of tears� and the “convoy of death.� 6 On April 21, President Thieu resigned in a bitter televised speech in which he strongly denounced the United States. Sensing that South Vietnam was on the verge of collapse, the NVA accelerated its attack and reached Saigon on April 23. On the same day, President Ford announced to cheerful students at Tulane University that as far as America was concerned, “the war was over.� The war officially concluded on April 30, as Saigon fell to North Vietnam and the last American personnel were evacuated."

History News Network, George Mason University

And if we had built up the nation following the fall of the Soviet Union, we likely could have avoided this entire debacle with the Taliban in the first place. Instead, we gave them a ton of guns and then left as a soon they did our job against the Soviets for us. As Charlie Wilson put it, "we f-ed it up in the end game."

By that reasoning we created the Cold War by supporting Stalin in WWII.

[ChaosBorders]

Which is the point of building up an Afghani police force. For quite a number of years we were doing quite well even with the far too few troops we had. If we had gained complete control at the onset and thoroughly stamped out resistance there is very little question we would have succeeded there fairly easily. Instead, having too few troops has led to many of the same mistakes that occurred in Vietnam, something more than one general has pointed out.

Completely different situation from Vietnam. That war was lost when the Democratic Congress cut off all aid, including humanitarian, from Vietnam

I am well aware that the war was lost because we cut off aid. But long before that, we were having problems because we kept taking an area and then leaving instead of maintaining a force in the area, which led to the north Vietnamese constantly retaking the area. Eventually we learned that we needed to hold the ground. In Afghanistan we have repeatedly made the same mistake, in large part due to a lack of troops, and military commanders have commented on that repeatedly.

By that reasoning we created the Cold War by supporting Stalin in WWII.

Not entirely inaccurate, though our responsibility there lays more in starting an arms race and having Generals like George Patton saying things like we should just keep going and invade Russia. (Interestingly enough that might have actually worked out if we'd actually done it, but as it was it just helped to fuel an already paranoid psychopathic Stalin into thinking he must protect himself at all costs. As a result, rather than focusing on building up infrastructure and food he put their resources towards military power). It may have been less direct, but we deserve our fair share of the blame for the cold war.

[East of Eden]

I am well aware that the war was lost because we cut off aid. But long before that, we were having problems because we kept taking an area and then leaving instead of maintaining a force in the area, which led to the north Vietnamese constantly retaking the area. Eventually we learned that we needed to hold the ground. In Afghanistan we have repeatedly made the same mistake, in large part due to a lack of troops, and military commanders have commented on that repeatedly.

So what do we do, maintain a large force in Afghanistan forever?

Not entirely inaccurate, though our responsibility there lays more in starting an arms race and having Generals like George Patton saying things like we should just keep going and invade Russia. (Interestingly enough that might have actually worked out if we'd actually done it, but as it was it just helped to fuel an already paranoid psychopathic Stalin into thinking he must protect himself at all costs. As a result, rather than focusing on building up infrastructure and food he put their resources towards military power). It may have been less direct, but we deserve our fair share of the blame for the cold war.

How did we 'start an arms race' when the military downsized after WWII, to the point where we were unprepared for Korea?

It is sad and ironic that WWII was started for the freedom of Poland and ended up with Poland being enslaved.

[chris_brown207]

You can put all the troops there you want and it won't change the fact that the Taliban has significant support, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is no secret that the Pakistani intelligance and military have aided the Taliban. If lots of troops aren't eradicating this Taliban support now why would they have done so eight years ago? I'll say it again, you are speculating. I speculate that without Obama's phony stimulous bill, the economy would have better off, but I can't prove it.

First, let me say that I read the link, and while I agree that many of the country's laws are sharia in nature, and that there are still extremists and theocrats at the top levels of the government, this hardly proves that the majority of the population supports the deaths of these Christian converts.

And I do agree, as I have before, that my support for more troops is pure speculation. However, it is difficult for me to hear complaints about the level of extremism in Afghanistan from someone who supports the decision to have less troops. This is tantamount to expecting border patrol to stop the flow of drugs into our nation, while cutting their funding and reducing their numbers (or expecting America to win the Vietnam War while congress is voting to cut all aid).

And, while my point is speculation, it is difficult for me to believe that the country would be just as unstable as it is today if, in the last 9 years, it had received the same level of funding, troops, and equipment as Iraq did.

I am sure East of Eden supported the surge in Iraq (seeing as how it was a Bush policy). Isn't it irony that the same policy would be disregarded for another nation where the terrorists were actually trained at and Osama actually used as a hiding place? (And yes they have Pakistani support - just like terrorists in Iraq have Irani support. I hardly find that justification for not providing Afghanistan our full attention from the get go - outside of trying to justify the actions of politicians that one admires)

[ChaosBorders]

I am well aware that the war was lost because we cut off aid. But long before that, we were having problems because we kept taking an area and then leaving instead of maintaining a force in the area, which led to the north Vietnamese constantly retaking the area. Eventually we learned that we needed to hold the ground. In Afghanistan we have repeatedly made the same mistake, in large part due to a lack of troops, and military commanders have commented on that repeatedly.

So what do we do, maintain a large force in Afghanistan forever?

At the present, I'm not sure if anything can be done that will result in our victory. But had a large force been used from the very beginning, the problems we are now having would not likely have gained a foothold. A very similar parallel I think is the American Revolution. Had the British taken it seriously from the beginning, they would have crushed us. But due to their arrogance and short-sightedness, by the time they realized we were an actual threat it was too late and they lost the colonies. Similarly, we should have taken Afghanistan much more seriously from the beginning. Because we didn't, it may well be too late to succeed there.

Unfortunately, at present I have no idea what continued course of action we should take. If we do not remain, there is a decent chance the country will plunge back into chaos and eventual terrorism against our citizens will remain a very serious possibility. But that may ultimately be less costly than staying there, at least for us. If we do remain, we may still be able to salvage the situation and keep it from being another black mark on our history books as Vietnam is, but the economic cost of doing so will continue to be extremely high.

Right now I'm still in favor of staying, though only just. But mostly I'm perpetually annoyed that we may well lose what could have been one of the most easily won wars in history because we instead used our forces in an entirely unnecessary war close by.

How did we 'start an arms race' when the military downsized after WWII, to the point where we were unprepared for Korea?

Build up of our nuclear armament. We also made containing communism an official defensive policy and Winston Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' speech didn't help matters. Stalin was already a man prone to paranoia (and in his position who wouldn't be? But I think mental illness probably exacerbated the problem) but the U.S. and our allies gave him genuinely good reasons to be paranoid. This triggered a rather vicious cycle for which both our nations share responsibility. Though given we won, and history is written by the victors, I assume most of own role in it will be increasingly left out of any history books written for public education. Seems to happen regarding a lot of our wars.

[East of Eden]

At the present, I'm not sure if anything can be done that will result in our victory. But had a large force been used from the very beginning, the problems we are now having would not likely have gained a foothold. A very similar parallel I think is the American Revolution. Had the British taken it seriously from the beginning, they would have crushed us. But due to their arrogance and short-sightedness, by the time they realized we were an actual threat it was too late and they lost the colonies. Similarly, we should have taken Afghanistan much more seriously from the beginning. Because we didn't, it may well be too late to succeed there.

Obama sure took his sweet time about the surge.

Unfortunately, at present I have no idea what continued course of action we should take. If we do not remain, there is a decent chance the country will plunge back into chaos and eventual terrorism against our citizens will remain a very serious possibility. But that may ultimately be less costly than staying there, at least for us. If we do remain, we may still be able to salvage the situation and keep it from being another black mark on our history books as Vietnam is, but the economic cost of doing so will continue to be extremely high.

Right now I'm still in favor of staying, though only just. But mostly I'm perpetually annoyed that we may well lose what could have been one of the most easily won wars in history because we instead used our forces in an entirely unnecessary war close by.

Easily won? What foreign power has ever won in Afghanistan?

Build up of our nuclear armament.

Do you honestly think the USSR would not have built up their nukes whatever we did?

We also made containing communism an official defensive policy and Winston Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' speech didn't help matters.

Churchill described reality in his Iron Curtain speech. What was the alternative policy option to containing Communist tyranny?

Stalin was already a man prone to paranoia (and in his position who wouldn't be? But I think mental illness probably exacerbated the problem) but the U.S. and our allies gave him genuinely good reasons to be paranoid.

Tyrants, whether Stalin, Hitler, or today's radical Muslims, always blame someone else for their agression.

This triggered a rather vicious cycle for which both our nations share responsibility.

I completely reject that. Do we also bear responsibility for Hitler?