When America fought to win: Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf briefing the press on US advances during the victorious 1991 Gulf War. (AP)
The Taliban seem to believe all they need to do now is wait ’til America hightails it out of Afghanistan (coming soon), then take the country back and remake it into the jihadi haven that Allah always intended it to be.
“They want to flee from Afghanistan just as they turned tail and ran from Vietnam,” a Taliban statement boasted Wednesday. “When America faced utter destruction in Vietnam, they came up with the formula ‘declare victory and run.’ And [now they] want to utilize the formula of ‘transfer security and run’ here in Afghanistan.”
Vietnam, of course, is where America lost its groove. But then we got it back, didn’t we?
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the decorated Vietnam veteran who led the campaign to evict Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, passed away last week. Many obituaries noted that his military success pulled America away from the blahs that had afflicted it since that 1975 humiliating escape from Saigon.
No, Stormin’ Norman didn’t cure the Vietnam syndrome all by himself. Much credit goes to the first President George Bush’s successful diplomacy and to President Ronald Reagan’s legacy (including the Granada invasion).
Even then, President Bill Clinton remained reluctant to use force, relying mainly on diplomacy (and the odd missile strike) to counter the rising threat of al Qaeda. Nor did the second Bush seem more belligerent — until 9/11, which left the nation and the world cheering as we toppled the Taliban.
But Schwarzkopf did devise a limited and doable Iraq strategy, which had one aim: winning.
Today, as the Taliban have noticed, winning — dealing a decisive blow to the enemy — is no longer our goal. For over a decade, we’ve been bogged down in nation-building, development goals and policing missions.
So now the public is tired of war, and policymakers are reluctant to even hint at the use of force.
Indeed, as the Taliban impolitely point out, we no longer pathetically declare
victory and run; our (even more pathetic) Aghan formula is to transfer security and run.
To be sure, the Taliban may not triumph. America may still support a favorable Afghan government and maintain a reduced-but-adequate level of the “covert” drone-based war on the terrorists, which is working pretty well now. If we stay engaged, the terrorists and their Taliban hosts may be kept at bay.
But those are big ifs.
President Obama rightfully claims Osama bin Laden’s scalp, but he never uses the term “war on terror.” He also erased the word “victory” from our military vocabulary. Instead, his rhetoric regularly centers on his “the tide of war is receding” theme.
Certainly, Obama’s America increasingly shies away from military intervention. But American retreat (as in the 1970s) isn’t yielding a more peaceful world.
If all we do in Afghanistan is turn our back and pretend that war is over, the place could quickly turn as dangerous as it was before we went in after 9/11.
And not only there.
Navi Pillay, the UN human rights commissioner, on Wednesday revised the estimate of the Syrian civil-war death toll — up to 60,000. The years of fighting have President Bashar al-Assad about to fall; jihadists may take over — or “merely” gain control of Assad’s huge cache of chemical weapons.
Yet, as Syria clearly has become a menace to itself, its neighbors and us, our policy makers keep reminding us of the pitfalls of intervention there — while ignoring the dangers of sitting it out entirely.
Meanwhile, Iran is likely to get enough fuel for up to three nuclear bombs this year. Diplomacy predictably drags on toward nowhere, yet most arguments from Washington concentrate on the dangers and foolhardiness of stopping the project militarily.
And now Obama has named one Vietnam vet, John Kerry, to be his chief diplomat and may name another, Chuck Hagel, to head the Pentagon.
From their postwar days through long stints in the Senate, both men have constantly preached extreme caution about involving America in war. Both believe almost religiously in diplomacy and international cooperation as the only methods of confronting evil. Obama’s new team is likely to reinforce his most non-interventionist instincts.
Yes, those sensibilities are very popular politically: Again, Iraq and Afghanistan have left America tired of war. Perhaps the Reagan-Schwarzkopf cure for the syndrome was just temporary.
Or maybe the syndrome has its own time limits. As the Taliban taunts indicate, even a retreating America remains in the crosshairs of dangerous enemies.
Wish away the tides of war, and they may just follow you home.