Radical centrist
New member
I served in Vietnam in the '60s. All that time, I kept hearing politicians and military leaders constantly say that if we just sent more troops to Vietnam we could win that war. At one time there were about 500,000 Americans serving there. Look how well having all those troops there ensured our success.
In today's paper, I read that General McChrystal has said that we need more troops in Afghanistan to win.
To paraphrase the immortal Yogi Berra, is this deja vu all over again?
How_would_I_know: Afghanistan is very much like Vietnam. In both cases, we fought, and are fighting, an entrenched insurgency. All the military superiority in the world will have a difficult time defeating a determined insurgent movement.
In both cases, the support of the population is dubious, at best. They will smile to our faces and then support the insurgents behind our backs. During WWII, we had the help of dedicated resistance movements.
In neither Vietnam nor in Afghanistan do we have a defined "front line" which would enable us to say "the enemy is over there. In both the World Wars, there were distinct "front lines.".
In today's paper, I read that General McChrystal has said that we need more troops in Afghanistan to win.
To paraphrase the immortal Yogi Berra, is this deja vu all over again?
How_would_I_know: Afghanistan is very much like Vietnam. In both cases, we fought, and are fighting, an entrenched insurgency. All the military superiority in the world will have a difficult time defeating a determined insurgent movement.
In both cases, the support of the population is dubious, at best. They will smile to our faces and then support the insurgents behind our backs. During WWII, we had the help of dedicated resistance movements.
In neither Vietnam nor in Afghanistan do we have a defined "front line" which would enable us to say "the enemy is over there. In both the World Wars, there were distinct "front lines.".