Obama Fails History Test on Vietnam and Afghanistan Parallels
During his speech tonight from West Point, President Obama took issue with those like me who suggest that there are useful and eerie parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. He made two principal counter-arguments, neither of which holds water. First, he said that unlike in Vietnam, the war in Afghanistan has the backing of a broad coalition of other nations (he claimed 43 in all) endorsing the rightness of America's position. That argument fails on several grounds:
- The "coalition" of NATO forces in Afghanistan is a token force to which nations for the most part grudgingly contribute small contingents only because of their treaty obligations. Their presence does not constitute an endorsement of our policies.
- In Vietnam, we actually had a smaller coalition but the forces sent by Korea, Canada and Australia, among others, were substantial in size, fully engaged and signs of support from their governments, however sadly misplaced.
- The presence or absence of a coalition of forces does not justify or condemn any war. A war is not more just because its initiator can convince other countries to support it any more than it is necessarily unjust if it can't drum up such support. War is never the answer to an intelligent question.

