Obama's Vietnam

What do all occupations of foreign lands have in common? Answer: they all fail.

It was with great consternation that I learned of Obama's plan to send 4000 more troops to Afghanistan on the heels of the 17,000 he sent last month. This time, the 4000 are labeled as trainers, and a new fanciful strategy that involves letting the Afghans slowly take over has been revealed.

When I heard the word "trainers" bells began to go off like it was the fire of the century. This is how we first began to dig our hole in Vietnam. Support troops who would train the indigenous population to fight for themselves. Like Vietnam, the Afghans are already fighting for themselves. Against us!

Witnessing the French get their behinds whipped taught us nothing about the foolhardiness of the folly in Vietnam. Apparently, the long history of the "graveyard of Empires," has taught us nothing as well. Whether it's 4000 trainers or 17,000 troops or for that matter, 170,000 troops, history shows us that Afghanistan is remarkably resistant to occupation and invasion.

Why then is Obama doubling down on Bush's blunder? I believe that he is aware of history (something I was never sure about with Bush) so this action seems all the more curious. Is it that he is simply playing against the right wing that want so desperately to call him weak on defense? Is it that he really believes he can do something in this place that no one has been able to do before? Or is there some reason that we are not being told?

Whatever the reasons, this seems to be the biggest blunder of the administration. I remember how the Soviets were ridiculed for their efforts to control Afghanistan. Over two thousand years ago the world likely laughed at Alexander the Greats efforts here as well.

Today, I am not laughing and this is no joke. Almost eight years into this futile effort and we are upping the ante. Read history, this is just like Vietnam, only it's Afghanistan, and historically, that's been even worse.