Michael Hastings was the Rolling Stone reporter whose article on “The Runaway General” ended the illustrious military career of General Stanley McCrystal.
In 2012, Hastings greatly expanded on his article with a vividly-written book: The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America’s War in Afghanistan.
According to its hardcover dust jacket: “General Stanley McCrystal, the innovative, forward-thinking, commanding general of international and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was living large. He was better known to some as Big Stan, M4, Stan, and his loyal staff liked to call him a ‘rock star.’
General Stanley A. McCrystal
“During a spring 2010 trip across Europe to garner additional allied help for the war effort, McCrystal was accompanied by journalist Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone.
“For days, Hastings looked on as McCrystal and his staff let off steam, partying and openly bashing the Obama administration for what they saw as a lack of leadership.
“When Hastings’ piece appeared a few months later, it set off a poltical firestorm: McCrystal was ordred to Washington where he was fired uncereminously.”
But there is an even deeper element to be found within Hastings’ book–that is, for anyone with even a general knowledge of the war in Vietnam.
Hastings does not make any direct parallels between the almost 14-year conflict in Afghanistan and the conflict that raged in Vietnam from 1961 to 1975. But those parallels are definitely there for anyone to see.
Consider:
- Ngo Dinh Diem, the “president” of South Vietnam (1955-1963) was a Catholic mandarin who was alienated from an overwhelmingly poor, 95% Buddhist country.
- Hamid Karzai, the “president” of Afghanistan (2001-2014t) is from a wealthy Pashtun family and is alienated from members of other Afghan tribes.
- Diem’s authority didn’t extend far beyond Saigon.
- Karzai’s authority didn’t extend beyond Kabul.
- Diem didn’t believe in democracy–despite American claims to support his efforts to bring it to Vietnam.
- Ditto for Karzai–despite American claims to support his efforts to bring democracy to Afghanistan.
- Diem was widely regarded in Vietnam as an illegitimate leader, imposed by the Americans.
- Ditto for Karzai.
Ngo Dinh Diem
Hamid Karzai
- American soldiers were sent to Vietnam because America feared Communism.
- American soldiers were sent to Afghanistan because America feared terrorism.
- Americans were ordered to train the South Vietnamese to defend themselves against Communism.
- American troopss were ordered to train the Afghan army to defend themselves against terrorism.
- Americans quickly determined that the South Vietnamese army was worthless–and decided to fight the Vietcong in its place.
- Americans quickly determined that the Afghan army was worthless–and decided to fight the Taliban in its place.
American soldiers in Vietnam
- There was massive distrust between American and South Vietnamese soldiers.
- Ditto for relations between American and Afghan soldiers.
- American soldiers in Vietnam felt surrounded by enemies and hamstrung by unrealistic orders to win “hearts and minds” at the risk of their own lives.
- Ditto for American soldiers stationed in Afghanistan.
- President John F. Kennedy doubted that Americans could win a war in Vietnam and tried to contain the conflict.
- President Barack Obama came into office determined to contain the Afghan conflict and withdraw American troops as soon as possible.
- In the early 1960s, the Pentagon saw Vietnam as “the only war we’ve got” and pressed to insert greater numbers of men.
- In 2001, the Pentagon saw Afghanistan as “the only war we’ve got” and pressed to insert greater numbers of men.
American soldiers in Afghanistan
- The Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) posed no threat to the security of the United States.
- The Taliban poses no threat to the security of the United States.
- The far Right embraced the Vietnam war as a way to assert American power in Asia.
- The far Right embraced the Afghan war–and later the war on Iraq–as a way to assert American power in the Middle East.
- Counterinsurgency was preached as the key to defeating the Vietcong in Vietnam–where it didn’t work.
- Counterinsurgency is now being preached as the key to defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan–where it hasn’t worked.
- Americans entered Vietnam without an exit strategy.
- Americans entered Afghanistan without an exit strategy.
From this, the United States should draw several conclusions:
- Commit forces only when American security is truly threatened.
- Go in with overwhelming force, destroy as much of the enemy as quickly as possible, then get out.
- Occupations are costly in lives and treasure–as Napoleon and Hitler discovered–and should be avoided.
- Don’t try to remake the cultures of other nations–especially those of a primitive, alien nature such as Afghanistan.
Hastings’ book does not cover the Afghan war to its end. It can’t, since there is no telling when that war will end.
But by the end of its 379 pages, it’s clear what that outcome will be: Another futile exercise in “nation-building” at an exorbitant cost in American lives and treasure.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AL QAEDA, ARTHUR M. CUMMINGS, BARACK OBAMA, BOKO HARAM, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, CANADA, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAVID CAMERON, DENMARK, FACEBOOK, FBI, HATE CRIMES, INVESTIGATIVE PROJECT ON TERRORISM, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, MOHAMMED, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NIGER, PAKISTAN, RELIGION, SAMUEL HUNTINGTON, STEVEN EMERSON, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, THE INVESTIGATIVE PROUECT ON TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WHITE CLIFFS OF DOVER, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VERA LYNN, WORLD TRADE CENTER, WORLD WAR ii
TERROR AND TRUTH(LESSNESS): PART TWO (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 6, 2015 at 12:09 amDuring World War II, British singer Vera Lynn comforted her war-weary fellow citizens with a poignant rendition of “The White Cliffs of Dover.”
Click here: Vera Lynn: The White Cliffs of Dover – YouTube
The appeal of the song lay in its promise that, once Nazi Germany was defeated, peace and normality would return.
And despite being threatened with invasion in 1940 and devastated by massive bombing raids in 1940-41, citizens of Great Britain could take heart in the following:
Nazi Germany had a capitol–Berlin–and a single, all-powerful leader–Adolf Hitler. Once Berlin was occupied and Hitler dead or captured, the war would be over.
And, for all their ferocity, German soldiers were easy to recognize: They wore gray uniforms, spoke German and waved flags emblazoned with swastikas or imperial eagles.
Wehrmacht soldiers marching through conquered France
Today, Western nations under attack by Islamic “holy warriors” face none of those advantages. Islam has no single capitol city–or leader.
The American occupation of Baghdad in 2003 triggered a nationwide insurgency. And deposing Saddam Hussein unleashed a religious war between Shia and Sunnis throughout Iraq.
Nor do Islam’s jihadist legions wear uniforms. Many of them don’t speak Arabic or wear clothing associated with Arabs, such as flowing robes and headdresses.
More ominously, millions of Islam’s potential “warriors” live within the very Western nations they despise. They can get all the instruction and inspiration they need to wreck havoc simply by going to the Internet. Or, if they have the money, by traveling overseas to such terrorist-recruiting centers as Syria.
And yet, faced with an unprecedented threat to their security, many Western leaders refuse to publicly acknowledge this fundamental truth:
Even if the West isn’t at war with Islam, Islam is at war with the West. Leaders like President Barack Obama, who insisted, at a White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”
David Cameron
And leaders like British Prime Minister David Cameron, who said on August 29, 2014: “Islam is a religion observed peacefully by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a poisonous ideology observed by a minority.”
It was at this same press conference that Cameron announced that United Kingdom authorities would soon begin revoking the passports of British citizens traveling to Syria.
Arthur M. Cummings, the FBI’s executive assistant director for national security, has no use for such Politically Correct terms as “man-caused disasters” to refer to terrorism. Nor does he shy away from terms such as “jihadists” or “Islamists.”
“Of course Islamists dominate the terrorism of today,” he says bluntly.
In May, 2014, Steven Emerson, a nationally recognized expert on terrorism, posted an ad in The New York Times, warning about the dangers of PC-imposed censorship:
“Our nation’s security and its cherished value of free speech has been endangered by the bullying campaigns of radical Islamic groups, masquerading as ‘civil rights’ organizations, to remove any reference to the Islamist motivation behind Islamic terrorist attacks.
“These groups have pressured or otherwise colluded with Hollywood, the news media, museums, book publishers, law enforcement and the Obama Administration in censoring the words ‘Islamist’, ‘Islamic terrorism’, ‘radical Islam’ and ‘jihad’ in discussing or referencing the threat and danger of Islamic terrorism.
“This is the new form of the jihadist threat we face. It’s an attack on one of our most sacred freedoms—free speech—and it endangers our very national security. How can we win the war against radical Islam if we can’t even name the enemy?”
He has a point–and a highly legitimate one.
Imagine the United States fighting World War II–and President Franklin Roosevelt banning the use of “fascist” in referring to Nazi Germany or “imperialist” in describing Imperial Japan.
Imagine CNN-like coverage of the Nazi extermination camps, with their piles of rotting corpses and smoking gas ovens, while a commentator reminds us that “Nazism is an ideology of peace.”
Then consider these Islamic terrorist outrages of our own time:
In every one of these attacks, the perpetrators openly announced that their actions had been motivated by their Islamic beliefs.
In his groundbreaking book, The Clash of Civilizations (1996) Samuel Huntington, the late political scientist at Harvard University, noted: “The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”
All-in-all, the future looks better for would-be Islamic conquerors than for those in the West awaiting the next Islamic atrocity.
Share this: