Vietnamization in 2010

U.N. official wants Afghans to take the lead
By Edith M. Lederer - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Mar 18, 2010 18:00:30 EDT

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. peacekeeping chief said Thursday it’s time for the international community to take “concrete steps” to allow Afghans to take charge of their future — and to ensure that “Afghanization” becomes more than a slogan.

Alain Le Roy told the Security Council that the Afghan government is “legitimately eager” to lead and the international community risks failure in its goals for the country if this doesn’t happen.

He said Afghan “ownership” must take place on both the military and civilian side, with the international community in support.

Afghanistan’s U.N. ambassador, Zahir Tanin, told the council the government has taken up the leadership challenge and in the coming year its priority will be “Afghanization,” with Afghans and Afghan priorities taking the lead in every area.

“We face a busy calendar that will test our strength and resolve but, with the support of the international community, it can also set us firmly on the path towards success,” he said.


Rest of article at: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/03/ap_afghanistan_un_031810/



unhappycamper comment: It didn't work then and it won't work now.

"We are here to help the Vietnamese (Afghan People?), because inside every gook (rag-head?) there is an American trying to get out."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/quotes

The more we are Doomed to repeat It

Whatever happened to "Beware of foreign entanglements"

South Vietnam was a country in it's own right, just as South Korea is today. It was being attacked by another country, North Vietnam. Attacked by a Conventional Armed force. The Third largest Force on the face of the earth at that time..Uniformed soldiers driving tanks, etc..Afghanistan is simply a country in disarray. The only foreign conventional force is the USA. There is simply no parallel other than US forces being there.

The fact that Afghanistan is so diverse and tribal makes our efforts even more inane than our follies in Vietnam.

Vietnam, not unlike present-day Afghanistan, had a CORRUPT government whom we choose to prop up against the will of the people.

I can go on but I won't.

this is already what is going on over there.

You essentially have several alternatives in a situation like Vietnam or Afghanistan (other than not to go in in the first place).

1. Continue with your own troops, let them do the fighting, and keep them there forever if necessary (US in Phillipines).

2. Try to get the locals to do the fighting so that the requirement for your own troops is lessened and eventually eliminated (Brits in Malaya).

3. Buildup of the locals is a fig leaf for cut and run (Nixon-Kissinger strategy).

4. Just cut and run (Reagan in Lebanon).


Unfortunately for the US, JFK and RFK were seduced by General Maxwell Taylor and his "doctrine of flexible response".