New York Times lies about JFK. Again.

[Robert Burrows]

Long before, at the very beginning of the “misadventure,” in 1961, President John F. Kennedy had been warned off Vietnam by no less an authority than Charles de Gaulle. “I predict that you will sink step by step into a bottomless military and political quagmire, however much you spend in men and money,” de Gaulle, the French president, later recalled telling Kennedy.

The American ignored him. In words that foreshadowed both the Vietnam and Afghan debacles, de Gaulle warned Kennedy: “Even if you find local leaders who in their own interests are prepared to obey you, the people will not agree to it, and indeed do not want you.”

 

America’s Afghan War: A Defeat Foretold? https://nyti.ms/3D5sCzv

[Benjamin Cole]

Dien Bien Phu. de Gaulle know of what he spoke. 

JFK was not going to make a major mistake in Vietnam. LBJ did, and eventually knew it. Nixon/Kissinger knew within months after 1968 they had to get out.

I give Biden credit. He got out.  Everyone is beating up on Biden. But how did Biden inherit such a mess?

[Robert Burrows]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

But how did Biden inherit such a mess?

George W. Bush stole the 2000 election. 

[Larry Hancock]

My brief answer is that Biden inherited it from the Bush's administration's decision to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan rather than after Isis and Bin Laden's Saudi connections because it was a) easier and far less embarassing, b) made quick news by bombing empty training camps never used in the 9/11 attack and c) created a diversion while the Saudi's involved covered their tracks.   Bush  then swore not to do security in Afghanistan, not to do policing or nation building there and that became a farce (his statements are on record but were quickly cancelled out by the neocons) - when Blackwater had to be hired to provide security for the new Afghan leadership you had a good clue we were out of our minds and our depth.  

Then the campaign began, all the old counter insurgency types came out and started preaching their Vietnam mantra again,  inertia sets in,  huge profits drive "investing" in a new democratic Afghanistan, the military kept asking for just more time for training and counter insurgency to take hold (ala Vietnam)  and on and on.  Then Trump signs a peace deal promising full withdrawal and giving the Taliban a year to cut the kind of local deals they always do with warlords,  and apparently some of the national govt (if rumors about the money carried out to the UAE become proven) and of course the Taliban can walk across the whole country in days with that planning in place (many of the provincial capitals they took had been taken and retaken and taken again over the years).

And Biden had the nerve to cut the cord, just as JFK was beginning to.   Note the similarity between his remark (which is drawing so much hate) about the Afghans having to do it for themselves and JFK's almost identical remark about Vietnam in the fall of 63. 

[Steve Thomas]

12 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

And Biden had the nerve to cut the cord, just as JFK was beginning to.   Note the similarity between his remark (which is drawing so much hate) about the Afghans having to do it for themselves and JFK's almost identical remark about Vietnam in the fall of 63. 

Larry,

That's why I don't think JFK's move to pull out of Vietnam was the raison d'etre for his assassination.

Nobody seems to aiming for Joe Biden.

Or, has the military/industrial complex milked everything that they think that they can get out of Afghanistan, so it's ok to leave?

Or was the threat of world-wide communist domination a bigger threat than world-wide domination by Islamisists?

Steve Thomas

[Larry Hancock]

Biden appears to have caught a lot of the normal power brokers flat footed by actually not letting himself be talked into continued involvement - I think a number of them figured that in the end they could sway him as they did Obama. 

But beyond that,  there really is no more big money to be made in Afghanistan, or Iraq or Syria for that matter.  And with China, Russia and Iraq doing such a good job of presenting themselves as conventional/atomic threats (especially China, nice of them to begin tripling their ICBM force as a motivator) they are an obvious driver for the military industrial complex.  There was nothing on that order of similar strategic threat in 63 (Russia would not see atomic parity until circa 1970 and China was not really a conventional player beyond their national boundaries, nor were they making the sorts of territorial claims they are now) when outside of SE Asia JFK was actually bringing certain areas of military spending under control.  

I will say though that in the early 60's the JCS consistently positioned China as the driving threat in SE Asia, which is why they kept reporting in that a conventional response would have to be on the scale that ultimately China would come in to Laos or Vietnam and they would have to answer with nukes.

 

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

The excursion into Indochina back in 1965, the invasion itself which was 175,000 combat troops in one year,  this military establishment dwarfed what we had in Afghanistan.  And that initial invasion force grew exponentially each year.  Until it peaked out under the first few months of Nixon's administration at nearly 540,000 combat troops.

That massive invasion force, which even topped what France had in 1954, was accompanied by what was probably the largest air war since World War II, code named Rolling Thunder.  When you add in the bomb tonnage over Laos and Cambodia by Nixon, you are up to about 3 million tons of bombs.

After the American withdrawal you had over 58,000 Americans killed, and literally millions dead in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

Those numbers dwarf the Afghan mission.

Afghanistan surpassed Indochina in time spent and money wasted. But in pure human devastation, there is no comparison.

As per the DeGaulle warning, the New York Times is lying. (Yawn.). There are two men who were influential in their advice on the war to JFK and anyone who reads say ten books on the subject realizes this.  They are DeGaulle and Douglas MacArthur.  Kennedy was very mindful of their warnings. They reinforced what he saw in Saigon in 1951, and what he heard from Seymour Topping and Edmund Gullion.  Which is why he drew the line at American combat troops in theater, and never crossed that line in three years. At the time of his death, he was activating his long incubating plan to get the advisors out. Which had begun in 1962.

Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson and Walt Rostow's war. Kennedy has sidelined Rostow because he was too hawkish, and took him out of the NSC.  Johnson brought him back.

 

[Steve Thomas]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

I will say though that in the early 60's the JCS consistently positioned China as the driving threat in SE Asia,...

Larry,

I was very surprised one day when I was reading a speech by one of the Generals involved in the Algerian Putsch, (I think it was Challe), when he said that the biggest threat in Algeria was the Chinese Communists.

Steve Thomas

[Larry Hancock]

That was pretty much the "mantra" for the period, the "domino" theory was first proposed for Iran right after the end of WWII and it was literally  picked up and repeated for virtually every region around the globe - as soon as the various political and trade empires began to collapse in the face of anti-colonialism and local nationalism it was essentially cited as the explanation over again and again to turn each of them into a communist threat. ...depending on which variety of Communist was closest.  And  the Chinese became pretty influential in both north and central Africa ala Angola....of course the Cubans showed up too.  There was always someone to take advantage of the local movement and the knee jerk reaction of communist threat followed.

I think I covered that pretty repetitively in Shadow Warfare, at least it seemed repetitive to me.  But you have to understand the depth of fear against Communism in that period,  I saw it first hand, it was visceral.  Everything was blamed on communists,  every push for equal rights, every anti-colonialist movement,  every Yankee Go Home sign or slogan.  I mean it couldn't be us, or the Brits, or the French....clearly we were the good guys so it all had to be an international, evil conspiracy.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Cold War paranoia.

As Greg Parker has written, the Cold War ran on BS.

 

[Jeff Carter]

The Americans intended to redeploy to regional bases, from which air assets could continue to support the (now-departed) Afghan government. The big surprise over the past two months was that no one in the region was willing to accept US bases, which led to the haphazard events we see now as the actual fall of the government was not anticipated. Further, regional cooperation now and into the future, in concert with the Taliban, is far more advanced than US analysts ever foresaw. The Russians apparently were in discussion with Taliban seven years ago anticipating this day, and both Russia and China have been lending advice on managing world perception. Political rapprochement within the country, to be followed by regional investments in rebuilding, are already in motion reflecting planning which goes back some time.

I recommend a discussion with Pepe Escobar and the Grayzone fellows -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiF3TQZSxhs

And the four-part analysis “Reflections on Events in Afghanistan” by the Indian scholar MK Bhadrakumar -

https://www.indianpunchline.com/reflections-on-events-in-afghanistan/

It’s a different picture than Reuters/AP. Right now, the US has no footprint or influence or prospects in the Eurasian landmass from Beijing to Tehran, and that may be the biggest  game-changer since 9/11.

[Steve Thomas]

I don't know where this will go, but I was reading the other day that Afghanistan is sitting on what might be a trillion dollars worth of rare earth minerals, including lithium. The article said that Afghanistan has the world's second largest deposit of lithium after Brazil.

I wonder where that is going to leave us in the next decade or two.

Steve Thomas

[Robert Burrows]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Cold War paranoia.

As Greg Parker has written, the Cold War ran on BS.

 

War Is A Racket. 

[Adam Johnson]

I still believe this is all one of the greatest military strategical ploys ever devised: stage 1 pull out all coalition forces. Stage 2 allow Taliban scattered across the middle east to return to Afghanistan and think they have won a great battle.  Stage 3 give the Taliban 6 months to accumulate in large numbers in several cities whilst being watched by satellite and secretly installed surveillance equipment. Stage 4 make up some bullshit sighting of tactical nuclear weapons being constructed in several Afghanistan cities by Taliban. Stage 5 surgically nuke Afghanistan cities off the face of the earth thus destroying 80% of all known Taliban. Stage 6 have strike teams assassinate all suspected Taliban cells around the world at the same time as air strikes with tactical nukes begins. Stage 7 when the world starts to complain the US can just stick its fingers in their ears and go..."la la la I'm not listening la la la". Stage 8 give things a few weeks and life goes back to normal. Stage 9 send a txt message to China and North Korea saying pull your heads in or your next motherxxxxers. Stage 10 Biden reveals he and Obama put this 10 year plan together in 2012, Joint Chiefs release statement saying Biden planned this in 2012/13 and they backed him all the way, CIA announces they had no knowledge of plan. Biden wins 2022 noble peace prize.

AJ

P.S This post is not to be taken seriously....have a nice day😀

 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

War Is A Racket. 

Smedley Butler said so.