I don't see the relevance to the trade.
You stated:
"Talks a few years ago, because we had what amounts to a date certain for pulling out, might have had some value. Now, when they know they'll have forced us out and be able to claim victory in only a year or so....why would they give up anything of substance in any talks?"
Simply put, your statement takes the prisoner exchange and negotiations out of the larger political context.
This paragraph is the
context you are missing to understand the Administration's desire to exit Afghanistan and Iraq.
Again, you brought up Vietnam, and again the two wars have direct parallels which you, admittedly, don't understand. You seem to either not know, have forgotten, or conveniently ignore the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used to rally public and thus Congressional approval for the Vietnam War. Described as a sneak attack on Americans in international waters.
The further relevance of the reiterating the nature of the Vietnam war is so that further context can be brought in to understand the nature of modern American warfare. More often than not in recent history, America has engaged it's enemies for commercial or geopolitical purposes and not what would normally be considered defensive purposes. Korea, Vietnam, the CIA's involvement with guerrillas in South America, Iran, Iran-Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq II; all examples of this.
The conversation simply cannot take place in such a narrow framework as "the prisoner exchange" when you make comments about dates for withdrawal, and then say things like this:
Human Q-Tip said:
The talks wouldn't be about us actually obtaining peace. They'd be about us wanting a piece of paper we can wave around, and so claim that our withdrawal was negotiated, rather than unilateral. It'd be worth a hell of a lot less than the Vietnam treaty that ended in disaster, because at least that had a promise of significant U.S. military force behind it. This will have...essentially nothing
I'm responding to the line of reasoning here.
The reason I brought up Vietnam was only to draw a distinction between the Paris Peace Accords and whatever deal we may be bringing here. The Paris Peace Accords were negotiated while we still had forces in country, and were promising to retain significant air and naval assets there. That gave North Vietnam a real incentive to make peace.
Q-Tip, this is simply
not the case. It was widely known that American withdrawal of forces was
imminent. Vietnam was a lost war long before the Paris Peace Accords, both politically and militarily. There was never
any doubt that North Vietnam would eventually resume their offensive, as they had been doing so for
10 years. The withdrawal of American forces was imminent.
With respect to the Accords themselves, they offered
nothing substantially different than the original draft in 1968 under the Johnson administration. In fact, this was one of the motivations for one of the failed Articles of Impeachment against Nixon in the House of Representatives. Specifically, that Nixon delayed the withdrawal of U.S. forces, needlessly, and waged a secret war against Cambodia and Laos as a
negotiation tactic for talks in Paris with the North Vietnamese.
The worst part of all this is, again, that the final agreed upon terms did not substantially differ from what the North Vietnamese had originally agreed to in 1968; so the final years of the war, the expansion into Laos and Cambodia, several known war crimes, the deaths of half a million Vietnamese, Chinese, and other Southeast Asian people, the displacement of millions, and with regards to the United States the deaths of some 21,000 American soldiers whose lives may have been spared by a speedier withdrawal.
So again, with respect and context. Vietnam is a perfect analogy to Afghanistan - but you're viewing it in a historically inaccurate lens I think.
That is not the case here because we've already told them we're leaving,
We told the Vietnamese we were leaving in 1968. The American people made it clear on international television. Congressional approval made this clear, and the Soviets had informed the North Vietnamese that we were preparing to withdraw forces. All of this happened
prior to the Accords.
and so have given up virtually all of our real leverage.
We have no leverage. The withdrawal isn't happening in a vacuum or within only the context of the negotiations themselves. America has a timetable for withdrawal, the Afghans are aware of our political climate and situation and are aware of the fact that the American people are tired of this conflict. It's a weak position to be in at the negotiating table, but the point is that we know we've failed when we're negotiating with the Taliban with regards to our own withdrawal.
Of course, the Paris Peace Accords fell apart when we refused to provide the promised Air and NGF support in '75, but here, we don't even have the threat of that support.
The North Vietnamese never took those threats seriously. Without troops on the ground, in the tens of thousands; nothing was going to stop the North Vietnamese from storming the country.
Nothing. This was not a war that could be won with air power alone. The North was backed by an unlimited supply of resources, finances, training and even personnel from the entire communist world, particularly China and the Soviets. America's only option would been to have given billions to the South knowing full well most of the money would never be used for military purposes, but instead be funnelled off by corrupt politicians.
Nixon, according to Kissinger and H.R. Haldemann (see his book
The Ends of Power) is known as having discussed adopting our Berlin policy towards defeating the Vietnamese as it was the only financially and politically feasible option; that being, the use of nuclear weapons.
Again, I don't see any relevance at all to the issue of this prisoner exchange.
You've made the link between Vietnam and Afghanistan. You've then continued that with this line of reasoning regarding our withdrawal of forces from both countries. You're making an argument and then walking away from the response. That's fine, but don't then say I'm not addressing your point --
I am, in a broader and
more relevant context.
But I will disagree that our involvement in Vietnam was "brought about entirely by the exact same thinking that got us involved in Afghanistan." What got us involved in Afghanistan was an attack on American soil.
You realize that without the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, America would have never been at war with Vietnam. It was Johnson's pretext to the American people to justify an offensive and limitless invasion and bombing campaign.
Iraq is a different story, and there's no point in debating that here. I just don't think a little thing like the murder of 3000 Americans should be overlooked.
Neither did the perpetrators of 9/11. And they got exactly what they wanted too, a drawn out American/Islamic confrontation in the middle of absolutely nowhere. There where how many Saudi's supposedly on those planes? 15 out of 19? How many Afgans or Pakistanis were on those planes? None right? No Taliban...
The conflict is just more so much more complex than "omg we got hit, attack
Afghanistan!" Why not affect change in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?? Why solely focus on a pointless military invasion of Afghanistan?
Honestly though, I doubt I could ever really get that across simply over an internet forum. My post will be too long, or you'll think I'm calling you out, or whatever it might be; but the point is that the reason I wrote the initial post was to provide you with some historical context to the fact that your view of history - which has subsequently shaped your worldview and line of reasoning - is flawed. Take that how you will. If you're open minded about it, cool... If not, then that's okay too.
Again, so what? IF we're pulling out in a year anyway (except for leaving 8000 or so targets behind), and won't have any ability to enforce any treaty that is signed, then why do we give a fuck about it anyway? It won't be worth the paper it's printed on. That's the point.
Agreed.. So why go there to begin with.. That's the Administration's point that you seem to be missing? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. In the eyes of the Democratic Party at large, Afghanistan is now pointless. We're at a political and strategic stalemate so, why remain there at great expense and peril? No greater "victory" can be achieved.
There's a lot of crap in there, but it's not really worth debating a war than ended nearly 40 years ago. Leaving all the politics out of it, I'll just say that you may want to read a book or two about what happened militarily between the withdrawal of U.S. ground combat elements, which was essentially completed in 1972, and the Fall of Saigon in 1975. Linebacker II and the Easter Offensive would be a good starting point.
And the ad hominems..... never fails. tiring, really..
First off, I'm familiar with
all of the events you just listed, I don't know why you'd assume that I'm not. In fact, in a thread last year you can find me discussing Vietnam, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon at length. In two other threads you can find me discussing Kennedy/Johnson and Vietnam, again, for pages. As far as it goes, for not having an academic background in history, I'd consider myself extensively knowledgeable with regards to the subject.
So you making the assumption that you somehow know more than me seems silly -- I made no assumptions about
your knowledge level. Seems like you're offended that I questioned your viewpoint.
But more to the point, I've been posting here a long time man.. Long time. Everyone who knows me knows I'm pretty knowledgeable guy, and I never comment with regards to things I know little about.. I've read many books about what happened both militarily and
politically (i.e. context) which is something you don't
seem too familiar with.
But, if you don't want to debate it fine, that's cool. But at the same time, don't try to discount
my account of history as being misinformed. Instead, just politely disagree, and walk away. Otherwise, debate your point and leave it their to be critiqued.
