Follow us on social

google cta
Mitch McConnell deploys ridiculous Vietnam analogy in Afghanistan withdrawal debate

Mitch McConnell deploys ridiculous Vietnam analogy in Afghanistan withdrawal debate

By invoking the fall of Saigon in 1975, the Senate Majority Leader only reveals his ignorance.

Analysis | Global Crises
google cta
google cta

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s criticisms of the Trump administration's decision to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan from 4,500 to 2,500 by January 15, 2021, by comparing it with what he claims were disastrous decisions made in Vietnam in 1975 and Iraq in 2011 are without merit and misleading.

McConnell claims the consequences of what he called a premature exit from Afghanistan would be reminiscent of the humiliating departure of U.S. troops from Vietnam in 1975 and President Obama's withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011, which he argues, fueled the rise of ISIS and a new round of global terrorism.

We did not withdraw troops from Vietnam in 1975. We actually ended the American military involvement in that disastrous war in Vietnam in January 1973 by signing the Paris Peace Accords. By April 1975 most of the South Vietnamese army — which had been trained and supplied by us for over a decade — had refused to effectively carry out their mission of protecting their country from the counterinsurgents and the North Vietnamese military. We had to evacuate 5,000 Americans from our embassy, but they were all civilians. The only military people were the Marines guarding the embassy, which they do in every country.

Vietnam became a unified country in 1975. The United States formally recognized the country at the urging of Vietnam War veterans and heroes Senators John McCain and John Kerry, during the Clinton administration. Today, Vietnam is an integrated member of the globalized capitalistic economy and has normal relations with the United States. In fact, each year thousands of Americans visit the country (including President Trump) and this year an American aircraft carrier, the USS Roosevelt, actually paid a port call there.

What would McConnell have had us do? Should we have kept fighting and not signed a deal with both North and South Vietnam in 1973? The first American soldiers were killed there in 1959 and by 1973, almost 60,000 had died and millions more had suffered physical and mental wounds. As the peak of our involvement, we had about 550,000 troops, most of whom were draftees, in that country.

And we dropped more bombs than we did in World War II and still could not achieve our objective of preventing Vietnam from becoming a communist country because the people of Vietnam did not support our ally, the government of South Vietnam. Moreover, our unfair draft system placed the burden of that war on the lower classes. Many of our future leaders, including four presidents and Mr. McConnell himself, avoided serving in that war through educational or medical deferments.

Tied to a status of forces agreement signed by his predecessor George W. Bush, President Obama had to withdraw from Iraq in 2011. During the 2008 presidential campaign, when I was part of the Obama foreign policy team, I met with the Iraqi foreign minister and asked him if we had to set a specific date to leave. He said Iraq would not sign an agreement unless we agreed on a fixed date for departure. (Something I relayed to a surprised Dennis McDonough.) Bush signed the agreement after Obama won and before inauguration, in December 2008.

The Iraqis were clearly serious about this. In a meeting arranged by Obama's future secretary of defense Chuck Hagel in December 2011, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki insisted that we had no choice but to take U.S. troops out of the country — he said essentially you made an agreement, you must keep it. At the same meeting General James Jones, Obama's first national security adviser, said Obama was willing to leave up to 10,000 troops. Would McConnell have wanted us to violate the sovereignty of the elected government in Iraq?

We have been in Afghanistan longer than in Vietnam. And while the cost in lives and treasure is not as great, the fact of the matter is that the Afghan government, like the South Vietnamese government, does not have the support of the majority of the Afghan people. And many members of the Afghan military do not fight with the same intensity as the Taliban.

Moreover, although I believe that our intentions are not the same as foreign countries like the United Kingdom or Russia, many citizens of Afghanistan see us in the same manner. I remember one night in Vietnam in 1966, when we got lost and came upon a Catholic monastery. The monks fed us and gave us directions but asked why we thought we would make out any better than the French. For many in Afghanistan we are the second coming of other imperial powers.

Similarly, after ISIS came into Iraq, the Iraqi government asked us to return and we not only came back, but with the help of the Iraqi military, we defeated ISIS and remain there to this day, with the permission of the Iraqi government.

Just as we were correct to end our involvement in Vietnam in 1973 and Iraq in 2011, Trump is right to begin leaving Afghanistan despite the Majority Leader’s concerns.


South Vietnamese refugees walk across a U.S. Navy vessel. Operation Frequent Wind, the final operation in Saigon, began April 29, 1975. (U.S. Marine Corps in Japan, official photo)|Photo: Christopher Halloran via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Global Crises
Meet Trump’s man in Greenland
Top image credit: American investor Thomas Emanuel Dans poses in Nuuk's old harbor, Greenland, February 6, 2025. (REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier)

Meet Trump’s man in Greenland

Washington Politics

In March of last year, when public outrage prevented Second Lady Usha Vance from attending a dogsled race in Greenland, Thomas Dans took it personally.

“As a sponsor and supporter of this event I encouraged and invited the Second Lady and other senior Administration officials to attend this monumental race,” Dans wrote on X at the time, above a photo of him posing with sled dogs and an American flag. He expressed disappointment at “the negative and hostile reaction — fanned by often false press reports — to the United States supporting Greenland.”

keep readingShow less
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump delivers remarks at a press conference at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, following Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela leading to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

The new Trump Doctrine: Strategic domination and denial

Global Crises

The new year started with a flurry of strategic signals, as on January 3 the Trump administration launched the opening salvos of what appears to be a decisive new campaign to reclaim its influence in Latin America, demarcate its areas of political interests, and create new spheres of military and economic denial vis-à-vis China and Russia.

In its relatively more assertive approach to global competition, the United States has thus far put less premium on demarcating elements of ideological influence and more on what might be perceived as calculated spheres of strategic disruption and denial.

keep readingShow less
NPT
Top image credit: Milos Ruzicka via shutterstock.com

We are sleepwalking into nuclear catastrophe

Global Crises

In May of his first year as president, John F. Kennedy met with Israeli President David Ben-Gurion to discuss Israel’s nuclear program and the new nuclear power plant at Dimona.

Writing about the so-called “nuclear summit” in “A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion,” Israeli historian Tom Segev states that during this meeting, “Ben-Gurion did not get much from the president, who left no doubt that he would not permit Israel to develop nuclear weapons.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.