History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
You do not have to register to participate in this poll for the first two weeks; after that, registration is required. We do ask all readers to abide by our civility guidelines whether they register or not.
To participate in our poll simply drop down to the bottom of this page and click on the word"Comments."
President Obama:
[T]here are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaida from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaida and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Maybe now Obama's fawning fans will begin to wake up to the corpocracy to which he is bought and sold.
Adam Betz -
12/4/2009
Sir, it is rather offensive that you described the "children" in the audience at West Point as naive. You apparently were not paying very close attention to the uniforms of those in the audience or you are a naive person.
Many of those "naive and lovely children" were wearing a badge of honor that night. It is called the Combat Infantryman's Badge and is given for infantryman in the U.S. Army who have come under enemny fire. Those individuals were formerly enlisted men and have chosen to now lead their Soldiers as Army Officers.
Be careful how you choose your words, Sir. Many of those young men and women in that audience may look young, but we have much more experience in this cruel world than you will ever dream of having.
Semper Fidelis
R.G. McFadden -
12/4/2009
Successful counterinsurgencies can be counted upon to take over a decade. It's extremely unfortunate that the President's goal of starting a withdrawal in 2011 is being presented as being out by 2011.
Further, the bad guys in the sandbox have been banging the drum for over a decade now: "keep inflicting casualties and the Americans will leave. They left in Vietnam, they left in Lebanon, they left in Somalia, it may take a while, but they'll leave here. And they we can put paid to the apostate governments of Islamic countries and destroy Israel"
POTUS' speech -- especially as it's been interpreted -- just sent a "hang on for two years" signal.
Derek Ho -
12/4/2009
What do I think?
1. Photo op in front of a captive audience.
2. Nothing new in the way of strategy despite all his efforts to differentiate himself from Bush.
3. He didn't explain very well why it took 3-6 months of dithering to come to this plan. He could have accepted McChrystal's request in the summer but with review stages built in to halt or reverse the troop movements based on new conditions in country. I guess it was more important to lobby for Chicago to get the Olympics than provide relief to the forces in country.
4. Broadcasting an end date rather than end conditions was incredibly stupid. You know he's in trouble when even media commentators like Bob Schieffer can see how silly it was.
5. He clearly doesn't understand either operational strategy or history. He just set the stage for a replay of the fall of South Vietnam.
Robert Lee Gaston -
12/4/2009
What I found most interesting was the polite, but pro-forma reaction of the cadets who were in attendance. Some were actually asleep. Most looked as if they were wondering if there was still time to get the hell out of there, and go get an MBA.
I suppose if you use them as a prop they will behave like manikins, but it was hardly the stuff to inspire our next generation of combat leaders.
John Beatty -
12/4/2009
It should be quite clear that the Bobblehead Emperor Barak I of Cook County is sending this token force to Afghanistan with the intention of sacrificing them to appease Conressional conservatives willing to sell their votes on his Federalization of one in seven American jobs in the health care takeover.
Announcing the withdrawal date, not coincidentally just before the Democrats need to make the hard choices about 2012, only gives the Islamofacists a date of return to power.
The mass media dare not speak of this connection, even if they do see it, for fear that their access to the First Couple of the Planet will be compromised.
There is nothing that this Oxygen Thief-in-Chief will not do to get his way.
W W Pendleton -
12/3/2009
The complete lack of passion, the absence of a call for success, and a relatively weak suggestion that the job needed to be done seems to point to a leader whose heart is not in the job. Does this imply he expects to fail and wants credit for trying? I can't say. I would have preferred in the context of sending troops at least a bit of "yes we can."
Sandra McGee -
12/3/2009
I really do not think it is the right choice - to send more troops into a country that has been living the same way for thousands of years. We had our chance & blew it. To me it is just adding fuel to the fire.
Edrene McKay -
12/3/2009
The war cannot be won.
The best we can do is stay there indefinitely to prop up a corrupt central government and educate a population with a 10 percent literacy rate to defend itself against an enemy that many prefer to the corrupt warlords who are now in charge.
If we leave, the Taliban will take over again, establish shia law, and provide a safehaven to Al Qaeda whom they will never renounce. They are brothers under the same skin -- fundamentalist Muslims and extremists -- and to do this would be to undermine their credibility.
The difference between the two groups in 2001 was that the Taliban wanted to maintain its control of the country but had to interest in terrorist acts against the United States, while Al Qaeda did. After ten years of fighting the U.S., that may have changed.
Herbert Shapiro -
12/2/2009
There is sadly much in Pres.Obama's West Point speech that can only cause further division at home and add to undermining our standing in the world. We are asked to support sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to shore up a corrupt government while lacking evidence the Afghan people desire the American military presence.We confront the possibility that rather than reducing terror the increased U.S. intervention may stimulate new attacks upon ourselves and NATO allies.
While the new American forces are to be deployed in Afghanistan the scope of the President's words cross the border into Pakistan. Reference is made to the "border regions," implying that U.S. forces will strike at the Taliban and such al-Qaida personnel as still exist upon Pakistani territory. Is there reason for belief Pakistanis will welcome this activity and is it not likely the end result may be expansion of the war?
As the President stated there is a connection between national security and our economy. But there is a dimension to this connection that was missing in his speech. When we remember Vietnam, part of the memory must be the reality that shifting our priorities to war compromised the domestic social programs President Johnson had begun.No more than in the 60s can we now combine a war program with addressing the vast unmet needs generated by the Great Recession.
Even now as Americans respond to the President's speech, it would be an act of high statesmanship for the President and his Administration to reconsider embracing a true withdrawal strategy.The stage for withdrawal is not set by sending in more troops to generate further loss of lives and treasure.
Herbert Shapiro
Professor Emeritus, History
University of Cincinnati
Nancy Volle -
12/2/2009
It is estimated that Pakistan has between 70 and 90 nuclear warheads. Afghanistan borders Pakistan. Obama believes the Taliban would like to get access to some of Pakistan's nuclear warheads. If the Taliban take control of Afghanistan it will be far easier for them to advance their efforts to seize control of nuclear warheads in Pakistan. The Taliban are willing to use nuclear weapons even if to do so will result in grave harm to Muslim people. The Taliban have made it abundantly clear that suicide is not to be avoided. The Taliban believe to die a martyr allows one to leave the world and enter an eternal life of happiness. The United States will save many people, American and non-American, from the horror of nuclear weapons if we can derail the Taliban from their frightening quest to get and use Pakistani nuclear warheads. I think Obama's plan should have the support of reasonable people.
Fran Hoyt -
12/2/2009
I am deeply disappointed and even angered that this President continues a war strategy that aims at bringing systemic change to a country whose population and social structures remain wedded to a distant, primitive past. Al Qaeda is a network of criminals and should be dealt with as such. There should never have been a "war on terror", but a concerted international effort to go after these people as hardened thugs, stopping their financial backing, their access to weapons, their Internet sites, their hideouts and other locations. Pres. Obama's buy-in to the strategy of the military in Afghanistan will bring more deaths, more injuries, more misery, more drainage of American treasure at a time when he needs to do nation building and restoration of our economy at home. I pray that Congress refuses to support him and to give him the funding for this fiasco. When will we ever learn.
Bayard Anderson -
12/2/2009
Unlike the last administration, this President informed us of the realities of the war on terror as though we were adults and did not lie to us about the costs. He is doing what he promised to do in the election and that is why he was elected to provide leadership in a critical area totally neglected by the weak leadership of the last administration. The former vice president has always sought to blame others for his own failures and the war on terror is not exception. He has failed at every government job he has ever undertaken.
Richard Dodge -
12/2/2009
Almost all of the detail had been previously leaked. Again we are telling kthe enemy when we will leave so that they may adjust their schedule. We seem to concentrate on how to end the war and not how to win it. There is a difference.
Richard Dodge
Chase Danny Looney -
12/2/2009
I think it was boring and more of the same rhetoric. He sounds like a robot, nothing sincere in his voice.I don't like being talked down too.
Proctor S. Burress -
12/2/2009
That settles that! Our president is now in the employ of the generals.
But who amongst us thought that CHANGE would really prevail?
And was it not rather cynical (thanks to his handlers) to stage the speech at a military academy? Those lovely and naive children were not the audience. The American people...even those of us who have made no sacrifices...were!
The gods of war are demanding more blood, treasure and spin!
