David Cameron has just returned from his first Prime ministerial visit to Afghanistan. There was much talk of national security amidst fresh hopes of eventually handing over to a well-trained Afghan army. This is our new prime minister looking for solutions to a long and increasingly unpopular war. But don’t hold your breath. If Cameron knows his history he should be aware a similar approach was attempted by White House newcomer Nixon in 1969. Back then ‘Peace with Honour’ was the optimistic name for the Vietnamese exit strategy.
In ‘69 the aim was to get the American boys home with as little egg on the Administration’s face as possible. Cue the training and equipping of over one million Southern Vietnamese recruits – it was soon the largest army in the world. But by 1975, minus their US backers, the ARVN had collapsed like a pack of cards in the face of the advancing Communists. What makes Cameron and Obama think the Afghan army will fare any better once their western allies and paymasters leave?
War costs lives and lives cost democratic governments. Nixon knew that, which is why he campaigned on the promise of secret way to win the war – this involved honourable withdrawal. By 1973 most of the American troops had left; the North Vietnamese couldn’t believe their luck – they simply bided their time and within two years were in Saigon. Likewise behind the current military surge Cameron has made it clear he’s impatient to bring our troops home once ‘the job is done’. His ally Obama went even further and put an 18 month timetable on his exit plan. What would you do if you were the Taliban?
Having decimated Southern Vietnam in the first half of the war, Uncle Sam’s U-turn in 69 involved a generous pacification programme: miracle-rice, building projects, education – the works. Eight years after the war Vietnam was the 3rd poorest country in the world. So forgive me if I feel somewhat sceptical about Cameron’s long-term 360 degree pledge to work with Afghans. Who exactly is going to pay for this promise? NGOs?

From the start the American effort was undermined in Afghanistan because beyond the cries of anti-communism it was never clear who they were fighting for. A corrupt administration? A puppet president? General Thieu’s military government had neither ideology nor legitimacy – ironic given his backers claimed to be the guarantors of the ‘free world.’ Meanwhile today, despite much talk of a political surge and a recent visit to Chequers, on what authority do Cameron and Obama believe Karzai will govern his country once they’ve made good their exit plans? Allegations of corruption, election rigging and nepotism make for eye-watering stuff.
We refused to join the USA in Vietnam. In those days our Government had sufficient independence of mind to say ‘No’ to America; we avoided being tarnished by a brutal bloody conflict. But minus the stain of Vietnam on our national conscience it’s all too easy to overlook the current parallels between the conflict in un-cowed Afghanistan and the American nightmare that unfolded in the paddy fields and jungle of South East Asia.
Tessa Dunlop

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 15th, 2010 at 3:34 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.