It is not often that any of us lives long enough to see history repeat itself in such a demonstrable fashion. However, when and if President Obama announces that he intends to send 30,000 more ground troops to Afghanistan, the historians among us will see the repetition of history in the making.

Just to refresh your memory, today’s Vietnam was once a colony of France. French control of South East Asia went back to 1887. During World War II, French Indo China, as it was called, was under the control of the French Vichy government and the Japanese. In 1945, the Communists under Ho Chi Minh rebelled and the rest, at least for the French, is history. Of course, faced with the rebellion of the Communists, the government of France made the grievous error of pouring more men into that far away nation, only to be slaughtered in the ensuing war.

All of this was well known history to President Jack Kennedy ( D – Mass) who felt both a religious drawing to Vietnam, along with a fervent political need to fight the alleged threat of Communism in that part of the world. According to his administration, if South Vietnam fell to the Communists, the Domino Effect of such an event would spread Communism throughout South East Asia.

Following both the lead of Eisenhower, that being of limited military action when required, as early as 1961, but not heeding Ike’s warning about becoming too deeply involved in that part of the world as did the French, Kennedy sent, between 1961 and 1963, up to 16,000 military advisors and Special Forces troops to assist the South Vietnamese Army. None of this was “enough,” as Generals came and went and strategies constantly changed.

By 1963, it was apparent that the pro Communist Vietminh and Vietcong were effectively decimating the South Vietnamese Army, under the Roman Catholic President Ngo Dinh Diem, whom Kennedy had originally put his faith in and in whom Kennedy had hoped for, perhaps for reasons of common faith, better relations between South Vietnam and the United States. All of this came apart when it became apparent that Dinh was moving toward a negotiated peace with the rebels and a place for the Communists in a coalition government.

Kennedy gave tacit approval for a coup d’etat by the South Vietnamese generals, which resulted in an obfuscated killing of Diem. Although, according to Robert McNamara, Kennedy was planning a withdrawal of troops from Vietnam after his re-election in 1964, but it was never to be. In addition to Kennedy’s assassination, Lyndon Johnson’s (D-Tx) indecision despite numerous Senators advising otherwise, plus his fear of public opinion and a possible loss of his first real Presidential election in 1964 should he pull us out of Vietnam, left us with a ten year war, 50,000+ dead, and a Communist victory in an area of the globe which means very little to the United States today. The Domino effect never occurred, and the lesson, learned by the French, proved itself to be true. Defeating a non conventional enemy, fighting on its home soil, is difficult, if not impossible, for a conventional army thousands of miles from home. Once again, history cried out but no one listened.

After two such summary lessons in foreign warfare, both President Bush I and II went to war in Iraq, the former not completing the task at hand, which may have been a wise choice at the time given the fact that moving to overthrow Hussein would have escalated what was then a short war without many casualties. In addition, that was an “oil” war and the oil fields occupied by Iraq were returned to their rightful owners. Bush II went to war in both Iraq and Afghanistan in an attempt to draw out Al Qaeda and force retribution upon them for the acts of 9 – 11. What position “oil” played in his thinking, obscures the real picture. His intent was also similar to that of Kennedy, albeit involving a far different political mind set, in an attempt to keep the spread of radical islam in the region. Oil supplies, whether a major or minor factor, pale in comparison to the threat we see today from the spread of this radical view of islam. And yet, the end result of both the Kennedy and Bush policies will turn out to be the same.

Thus, it is difficult to argue with the original thinking behind the invasions of Iraq, to conquer Saddam, and Afghanistan, to conquer radical islam. We often react out of the fervor of the moment without looking back on history. Did not we declare war on Japan for killing 3,000 soldiers and sailors and civilians at Pearl Harbor? How did that sneak attack differ from the twin towers, where 3,000 died? Is not an enemy and enemy, no matter what his political pursuasion?

Nevertheless, what’s done is done, and history is telling us that, as with the Vietminh and Vietcong, we are fighting in an inhospitable land against an enemy which will not be defeated, either by time or by numbers. Guerilla warfare does not suit a conventionally trained army, and the U.S. forces are supremely trained to fight the battles of WW II and less well trained to fight a guerilla war. In addition, the enemy is defending its homeland – we are the invader, whether right or wrong. It should be apparent to most that adding more U.S. troops to the fight, one in which our own troops are forced to fight under the rules of the Geneva Convention and its rules of military engagement, against rebels who don’t even know where Geneva is located, only adds more potential targets for the enemy.

Thus, despite General McChrystal’s experience in military affairs, history tells me that this is a lost war against a phantom enemy in a nation which will never adjust to modern politics and mores. After all of this historical perspective, it should become apparent that “good” does not necessarily conquer “evil,” and that the United States, and for that matter all other democracies and republics, cannot impose “a government of the people, by the people and for the people” on all other nations, even if such is the best form of government for a people. Sooner I hope, rather than latter, the United States is going to have to understand that, for security purposes, a strong and prepared military, an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and secure borders are our most important weapons against any form of enemy.

Yes, there will be times when we shall have to come to the aid of another ally, which is being threatened by forces intending to destroy a republican or democratic form of government. However, at the same time, we must also understand than when our government makes that decision to subject our young soldiers to “harms way,” at the same time it must also make the decision to “fight to win,” rather than “fight and follow the rules of engagement.” Such times of honorable combat are long gone, as our modern enemies no longer accept the rules of engagement that even an enemy, such as Nazi Germany, recognized. Fighting with one hand tied behind your back has never made any sense, and yet we simply refuse to recognize the obvious. To the enemy, we are not the good guys.

If Mr. Obama announces, in his upcoming speech, that he is escalating this war in Afghanistan to the next level, I believe that we shall be on the threshold of another long term war of attrition, which will make for beautiful memorials to the fallen in this nation but which will make absolutely no difference in Afghanistan when all is said and done. Afghanistan is what it is and what it shall always be. He who fails to understand his history is doomed to repeat it.

JLK