Petraeus: Afghanistan is not Iraq or Vietnam

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Afghanistan

At The First Draft of History conference in Washington, D.C. today, U.S. commander in the Middle East and Central Asia David Petraeus discussed why, in his mind, it is unwise to draw close comparisons between Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam or assume what worked in one conflict will work in another.

"I'm trying to resist the notion that what worked in Iraq will work in Afghanistan," Petraeus said. Check out his comments at left.

Earlier in the conversation, Petraeus defined victory in Afghanistan as "similar to what we had in Iraq, where we can hand off" a stable security situation to the Afghans.

He also said the reason the United States in Afghanistan is the same it was eight years ago - "to make sure it does not become a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other transnational terrorists."

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

More from the "First Draft of History" Conference:
Lindsey Graham Hits Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly
Geithner: Goal is not to Save People From Mistakes
Doctor: U.S. Needs to Control "Tsunami of Obesity"
McCain Pushes for More Troops for Afghanistan

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

10 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by DevoutlyReligious October 4, 2009 11:21 PM EDT: If he runs for president, he gets my vote.; Reply to this comment


by decotoguy October 2, 2009 1:37 AM EDT: Oh yes,understand "you are getting sleepy,sleeeppyy,you are getting
sleeppyy"Oh yes MUSH FOR BRIANS Americans this is just a small incursion,somewhat like a correction.Oh Johnny boy has the best equipment
money can BUY....Good luck folks.; Reply to this comment


by babooph October 2, 2009 1:21 AM EDT: Maybe more like Washington & his insurgent force,beating the Hessian contractors,after xing the delaware.....; Reply to this comment


by prajaowain October 2, 2009 12:06 AM EDT: Well here is my 2 cents and I do not care who likes my opinion or not. I do not care about F.B.I or C.I.A boogie men either. In this country we have free speech. If you do not like what i say skip it.
I don't think we can win a war against militant islam using guns and bombs. I think the U.S made a mistake taking on islamic militants in this manner and these wars will go down in history as major mistakes in U.S foreign policy. The U.S government is killing people in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and the C.I.A is assassinating people around the globe. I disagree in assassination. I do not believe governments have this right to take people out without a trial. The Israeli Masad does it all of the time so does the C.I.A, The Russians do it and many other governments.
No political entity has the right to police the globe as the U.S does. People who know what is really going on on planet earth understand the fact that Pax Americana is trying to dominate the worlds ecomony and that capitalism is its religion. They want the control so bad they will kill for it and violate the atonomy of foreign nations.
I believe the best way to deal with our so called enemy is negotiation and both sides must make concessions to the other. These wars are only causing hatred. New islamic militant are being created daily by our bombs. The U.S strategy of war and occupation is a stupid policy and will only backfire on us in the future. Social and political change must evolve over time. We can not force democracy on other societies and cultures that may not be ready yet. Besides something better than democracy may evolve from a particular society or culture if left well enough alone to do so. Peace not war and words not sticks.; Reply to this comment


by fedup12 October 1, 2009 9:05 PM EDT: Id say get the F out of there but I would like to get the real reason for 9/11 taken care of. Ol Bin Laden needs to die.

Too bad W took us over to his elective war in Iraq. Laden should already be dead.

Heck bush wasnt even smart enough to plant some WMD materials to make us feel good about going there.; Reply to this comment


by nearl451 October 1, 2009 8:36 PM EDT: I don't think that Patreas is an idiot.

He studies and planned and estimated correctly in Iraq. He may or may not be correct in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is in some ways a bigger challenge because:

(1) The economy is not sustainable as is. It would be if Poppies industry were promoted and taxed.
(2) Terrain
(3) Tolerance from the American Public on sending more troops
(4) Unnecessary Rigging of the last election.; Reply to this comment


by stn_sage October 1, 2009 8:26 PM EDT: A couple of points here:

1. Any good general knows each new battlefield is unique onto itself! So,
general, you keep resisting the urge to think 'Stan is the same as 'Nam!
Evaluation of 'Stan as a fresh battlefront should have been done years ago!

2. Considering the geography: it's highly mountainous. Fighting would likely be small group skirmishes, raids, ambushes! Such wars last DECADES!

3. Again, victory in 'Stan as defined by Petraeus could conceivably take DECADES to achieve---if at all!

4. The reason for being in 'Stan as defined by Petraeus as preventing it from becoming a sanctuary is NOT really relevant! The point is: if 'Stan were to become untenable as a base of operations, Al Queda or any other group will simply migrate somewhere else---but, they won't go away!

Finally, no disrespect intended toward General Petraeus but he wasn't selected by Bush because he was SENIOR general, he was selected because he was cooperative and likely didn't persist in pointing out the 'ugly reality' of certain situations in wars and combat!

While he may be a fine general, undoubtedly there were many fine generals
who were equally as intelligent and capable---if not more than him---who were passed over for his last and current positions because they DIDN'T
compromise their military knowledge and views to attain those jobs---also known as 'playing politics'!; Reply to this comment

by nextgenman09 October 1, 2009 7:27 PM EDT

Petraeus: Afghanistan is not Iraq or Vietnam - No, but it could be its own quagmire, just ask the Russians.

Reply to this comment


by gomzee69 October 1, 2009 8:16 PM EDT: The Russians attempted to take over Afghanistan...make it a part of the Soviet Union.

The U.S. is continuting to retaliate against al Queda, and the Taliban, for 9/11. As GW took troops out of Afghanistan, and sent them to Iraq, the Taliban AND al Queda grew stronger. And now, we have two problems. Pulling out of Iraq, and stepping up operations in Afghanistan, with troops that have served 3-5 tours in Iraq.

This must be weighing heavily on the President's mind, as well as the General's in the field.

This is not a decision that is made easily. However, I believe the President will follow the advice from his Generals in the field, for the most part.


by dprice123-2009 October 1, 2009 6:36 PM EDT: Afghanistan is not Iraq or Vietnam..............Then what is it....WWII ?

We had to make a 40 year commitment to western Europe to protect from the Soviet Union. If we are going to protect Afghanistan it is going to require the same commitment; Reply to this comment