Letters to the Editor
-
what if we had won?
The one question that goes unanswered is what if we had won? How would the world have been different? Would communism have collapsed sooner, would the wall have fallen sooner? In the grand sweep of history even if they had would it have made much of difference if those things had happened sooner? It was 17 year between 1972 and the fall of communism.
Some will argue the suffering of the boat people could have been avoided. What about all the civilians who would have died in the continued fighting? As I recall the S.Vietnamese government we were supporting was not exactly Jeffersonian Democracy at work.
-
Hearts and Minds.....
It seems that everybody remembers what happenmed in Vietnam, but no one remembers what the world looked like at the time. The US was locked in a seemingly mortal conflict with the forces of "Godless Communism" but because of the world-ending nature of Nuclear warfare, it was necessary that all our battles be fought in small containable proxy wars.
It was also true that score was kept over who was winning this global conflict by the number of "proxy states" that could be claimed by each side. One of the results of this though was that the competition for allies involved both the carrot and stick sides of the equation. The US and USSR competed heavily for allies by spreading aid around like candy (both in military hardware and food/economic aid.) In that context, it was important that we not be seen as irreparably evil. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind still matters and carpet bombing civilian popuations is not the best way to differentiate yourself from the evil commies.
-
Depends on your definition of "debate".
Bush, Lieberman and plenty of others made the same point in defining the difference between "responsible" and "irresponsible" debate.
Responsible debate is: "We should fight the war using X Tactic or Y Tactic."
Irresponsible debate is: "We should't be fighting this war."
Fair point, Glenn. And yes, I realize from the outset how "debate" is being constrained. By that same logic one might as well "debate" how the crew of the RMS Titanic should have best arranged the deck chairs on the port side of the ship after it hit the iceberg.
Dear gods, do this idiots really think this occupation is "winnable" in any meaningful way? Or are they simply trying to run out the clock and hand the mess to the next Administration?
Rhetorical question, although one has to wonder if McCain is really prepared for the distant possibility he might actually win in November. Its not as if he's actually offered a plan for 'victory' or anything.
-
Re: Begging the question: How to decide when a war is won or lost
That's a political consideration.
The Military tends to think in terms of tactical and strategic objectives. You'll still hear people debating the outcome of Israel's last incursion into Lebanon. Who came away with what victory, tactical or strategic? The IAF could not take out Hezbollah's command and control structure. The communications system the U.S. backed Lebanese government just demanded Hezbollah relinquish. Now the U.S. baked Lebanese government is basically hiding out in their own country. Two guesses who wanted Hezbollah deprived of that capability.
-
I don't think he's delusional...
I think the public has tolerated fear of the boogeyman that a select 20% of the country propagates. Just kill the bad guys and wreck their games. The problem lies in the fact that it's OUR Constitution and OUR rule of law to be forfeited to the warmongers. Their perpetual cycle of economic benefits from engaging in destruction as a business is just too good of a thing to not continue for those who it embrace it. Obama has been called Chamberlain and Marx. I think the right is very clear about sustaining this fear of the boogeyman. It's simply preserving their own best interests. We need more Russ Feingold, less Joe Liberman.I'm constantly amazed by how little real power the legal profession has when it comes to fighting this administration. Couple of books, a few seminars, Glenn, Scott Horton but really what has changed? Michael Mukasey is still attorney General isn't he? He's a liar isn't he? Well?
-
Dolchstoßlegende
If only ihre Volken had the political will to see through to the end The Great War, our beloved Vaterland would not have sunk into recession, we would not have been humiliated in the eyes of the world, our young blonde soldiers not died needlessly due to the callousness of the communist-influenced liberal class.
The fault lies not with our great Kaiser Wilhelm, a brave and patriotic man of the Volk, but with the sniveling Jewish liberal merchant class, whose congenital defeatism and constitutional weakness betrayed the virile impetus of The German Empire.
---
that's exactly what you sound like to me, shooter.
-
@ GlennGreenwald
Iokannan in the Well:
Does anyone catch how contradictory that is? How do you have a "debate" when only one side is allowed?
You're allowed to debate the best tactics for winning (troop numbers, bombing strategies, etc.), just not whether we should be fighting the war.
...
Responsible debate is: "We should fight the war using X Tactic or Y Tactic."
Irresponsible debate is: "We should't be fighting this war."
Now, now, Glenn, it's not quite that bad. I'm sure we're also allowed to debate whether we should be fighting the war as long as we don't do it anywhere the bad guys can hear us. Or anywhere The Troops (tm) can hear, either, of course.
(They're the biggest, baddest, most highly-trained fighting force in the world, but everyone knows how vulnerable they are to someone suggesting that they might not be fighting for a totally and unquestionably honorable cause. They might swoon at just the wrong moment.)
So we're allowed a serious debate ... as long as no-one hears it.
-
Funny you should say that
As I recall the S.Vietnamese government we were supporting was not exactly Jeffersonian Democracy at work.
-- keepingitstraight
The North Vietnamese were probably closer to the Jeffersonian agrarian model.
Shhhh! Don't tell the wignuts.
-
@Iokannen
Dear gods, do this idiots really think this occupation is "winnable" in any meaningful way? Or are they simply trying to run out the clock and hand the mess to the next Administration?
The second one. As exemplified by shooter242, there is a segment of the populace who truly believes it is the educated liberal class that brought down the US Army in Iraq.
Any way that the mess of the war and the mess of the economy can be even a quarter-way plausibly pinned on the Democrats, they will be.