Is it 1968 or 2009?

“Sticking it out seems to be a 10-year project and I am not sure we have the political capital and financial capital to do that. Yet withdrawing, that seems awfully high as well. So we have the wolf by the ear.”
- Lt Col. Douglas A. Ollivant, USA, Ret. – A former NSA staffer for both President Bush and President Obama, quoted in the New York Times, August 23, 2009 about the war in Afghanistan.

An earlier generation saw every diplomatic exchange as a potential Munich, so this one sees everything as a potential Viet Nam.

This Sunday, August 23, 2009, The New York Times ran a piece exploring the parallels between President Obama and President Johnson. After saying such a comparison was fatally flawed the writer made that comparison anyway. The similarities are obvious - a progressive President who has an ambitious domestic agenda, but also inherits someone else’s war. That war could overwhelm his agenda and hijack his presidency.

Yes it could happen.

It is just a likely that it won’t.

Before I go any further, let me say that this is not a discussion on whether or not the war in Afghanistan is good or bad, one of necessity or choice. It is a discussion of the threat it poses to Obama’s Presidency.

There are several critical differences between Obama in Afghanistan and LBJ in Viet Nam.

First, in Viet Nam there was no real compelling US geo-political interest to fight there. One of the main drivers to stay was the fear of being accused of repeating the mistakes of Munich. “If we back down to the commies like Chamberlin backed down to Hitler, the Russians will take over everything! We must show strength!”

Even greater was LBJ’s fear of being accused of having “lost” Viet Nam the same way Harry Truman was accused of having “lost” China. So pride and fear, rather than compelling need, cost young men their lives. In the end we lost the war, South Viet Nam fell, and we now have a new trading partner for, and manufacturing base of, American goods.

That is not the case in Afghanistan.

There is a compelling geo-political argument for America to be involved. It is called Pakistan. Were the Taliban to take over Afghanistan, they would continue to destabilize Pakistan. As it has the bomb, destabilization of Pakistan, has broader implications than the destabilization of say Laos or Cambodia. It is not far-fetched to say that the only thing standing between the Taliban and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is the US military.

So Obama does have a compelling case for intervention that LBJ did not.
The reach of Viet Nam into American society was deeper because of the draft and the size of the military commitment. Eventually it was this reach that helped destabilize American society. The way America tore at itself apart was what drove LBJ from office.

Today America is not tearing itself apart in the same way. There are no riots or protests in the streets. War is not dividing Americans. Shouting against Obama is driven by a small minority with little broad base of support.

This brings us to the third and most crucial difference between Obama’s political situation and LBJ’s. In 1968, the Republicans were able to present themselves as a viable alternative to Johnson and the Democrats. Today Obama is not faced with an opposition that is capable of presenting a viable alternative to anything. It is hard to imagine North East Liberals and California Progressives flooding into the arms of the current Republican party in the same way Southern and Blue Collar Democrats did between 1968 and 1980. Progressive Democrats will look at the party of Michelle Bachman and vote the party of Michelle Obama no matter their feelings are about Afghanistan.

His greater risk is not Afghanistan but Iraq.

The people elected Obama to end the war in Iraq. His early opposition to the war was the difference Democratic primary voters saw between Obama, Clinton and Edwards. It was also the difference that Independents and conservative Democrats saw between Obama and McCain. Failure to end American involvement in Iraq by the end of his first term presents a greater danger to him politically than staying in Afghanistan.

His whole entrance into the presidential scene was his opposition to the war in Iraq. Failure to end the war in Iraq could be his exit – but only if people see the Republicans as a capable alternative.