LBJ Rides Again

The era is different. The terrain is different. The culture is different. Yet the similarities between Barack Obama and Lyndon Johnson are remarkable, and the chances of history repeating itself are an odds-makers dream. The Vietnam conflict ruined LBJ’s presidency and derailed his domestic agenda, just as Afghanistan will likely doom Obama’s presidency at a time in America’s history when the country can least afford for him to fail.

LBJ feared the political consequences of appearing weak on Vietnam just as Obama is deathly afraid of appearing wimpy on Afghanistan. Like LBJ in Vietnam, Obama desires to “finish” the job in Afghanistan, though what that job is remains a shifting target.

The US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 in order to root out al-Qaeda terrorists, their Taliban supporters, and to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Superior military firepower allowed the US to rout the Taliban, but Osama bin Laden remains at large, possibly hiding in Pakistan. It is unlikely bin Laden would still be free or alive without a wink and a nod from the Pakistani government – a purported ally of the US in the Global War on Terror and a major recipient of US funding. Pakistan is a key but wildly unpredictable variable in the Afghanistan conflict; for good or ill we’re in bed with a country we cannot trust any more than we can trust the government of Hamid Kharzai.

There’s an element of Keystone Cop in the U.S.’s pursuit of bin Laden. Bill Clinton tried to take bin Laden out with cruise missiles; W. Bush used cowboy rhetoric and an invasion and occupation that have cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars; and now Obama seems determined to continue Bush’s misadventure. Despite all this, not to mention the best efforts of the CIA, NSA, DIA and NATO, bin Laden is still alive and dreaming of global jihad.

Now, after months of careful deliberation that has been criticized by the GOP as “dithering,” even though the GOP’s man, W. Bush, bumbled around in Afghanistan for nearly seven years, Obama will dispatch some 30,000 more American troops to the Afghan quagmire. While the number of troops is less than requested by Stan McChrystal, the American commander, Obama will ask, beg, plead, browbeat and threaten our NATO allies to give 6,000 or more additional troops to the meat grinder, providing McChrystal the magic number he wanted from the beginning. Why NATO countries should cough up more soldiers is a mystery, since Afghanistan is clearly America’s war.

By sending fewer than 40,000 American troops, Obama can claim that he’s not a puppet of the Generals, even though he is because not sending thousands more troops was never a serious policy consideration. This is another of those instances where failure is redefined, packaged and sold to the public as success. Will the people buy it? Probably. Millions of Americans are distracted by the rigors of everyday life, deeply worried about keeping or finding a job, making the mortgage payment, or putting food on the table. The economy is fucked – at least for people who work for wages, but things aren’t yet so bad that our government can’t waste billions chasing phantoms in Afghanistan.

When he addresses the nation next Tuesday to justify the troop increase, Obama will appear and sound reasoned, reasonable, realistic and resolved; he will talk about our national security, our freedom and perhaps our way of life in language that will soar and may even inspire. Unlike W. Bush, Obama probably won’t refer to the American people as the chosen ones or toss in many references to God, and in itself this will be a relief, but the bottom line is that the U.S. will be stuck in Afghanistan for years and perhaps decades to come, unable to “win” the conflict or cut its losses and leave. The Soviets poured more than 100,000 soldiers into Afghanistan in the 1980’s and got their clocked cleaned.

I’m afraid the same unfortunate fate awaits us. History may not repeat in exactly the same way, but repeat it does when people are too stupid or stubborn to heed history’s lessons.