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.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

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
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025
Top image credit: Dabari CGI/Shutterstock

The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025

Media

I spent the last few weeks asking experts about the foreign policy books that stood out in 2025. My goal was to create a wide-ranging list, featuring volumes that shed light on the most important issues facing American policymakers today, from military spending to the war in Gaza and the competition with China. Here are the eight books that made the cut.

keep readingShow less
Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war
Top image credit: People walking on Red square in Moscow in winter. (Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock)

Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war

Europe

After its emergence from the Soviet collapse, the new Russia grappled with the complex issue of developing a national identity that could embrace the radical contradictions of Russia’s past and foster integration with the West while maintaining Russian distinctiveness.

The Ukraine War has significantly changed public attitudes toward this question, and led to a consolidation of most of the Russian population behind a set of national ideas. This has contributed to the resilience that Russia has shown in the war, and helped to frustrate Western hopes that economic pressure and heavy casualties would undermine support for the war and for President Vladimir Putin. To judge by the evidence to date, there is very little hope of these Western goals being achieved in the future.

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.