LyrArc Article Gist
Questions readers raise about Lewis Sorley's account of wins in the latter part of the war in Vietnam. The idea presented that had the country stood behind the war effort it could have been turned around. Here President Johnson's own deputy national security advisor, Francis Bator, who is Professor emeritus at the Harvard Kennedy School, refutes this notion by saying that: "in Vietnam the goal was clear but unattainable by any means not grossly disproportionate to the American stake." He goes on to say that false inferences from that failure will not help President Obama with the hard question of deciding what feasible goals and means in Afghnistan and Pakistan and other places will minimize chances of amajor terrorist attack on the United States, whaterver its origating location. And doing this in a cost-effective way. The wording is designed to first focus on what is the minimum that America wants- safety from another attack. Second, to focus on doing this in a cost-effective way. At some point resources added become disproportionate to the American stake in Afghanistan. An infantryman in the Vietnam war describes a people in villages that he was supposed to protect who would not even alert American soldiers of bombs when they knew exactly where they were placed. People in villages who were basically indifferent to the central government in South Vietnam. Are the Afghan people any different? See the links to this.