Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Good article Stephen and it should be of concern to you. Thanks, by the way, for addressing my hostility towards Evangelical Christians. I don’t think that Christians should be killed or anything crazy like that; I just want the Evangelicals to keep their religious dogma out of government policy.

This is subject to debate. Is this just what we need for 2008? Assuming Bush does not do another war (although Iran is a strong possibility), we could be free from terrorism and foreign policy affecting us in the 2008 Senate and Presidential elections. I am all for it and thank President Jalal Talibani for the move. It should help us out, assuming we don’t go to another war. The reason being is because the mentality that I saw when campaigning for Kerry was, “Let Bush finish what he started.” This is a good situation for the Democrats and I know, no matter how much occupation we have, Iraq will forever in a state of terror, possibily. I think, with the US getting out, things will start simmering down. A lot of the terrorists back there are Iraqi nationalists and don’t want the US to be there. I guess that is understandable when Hussein, a man who has ran Iraq for over 40 years, is taken out and treated like a common thug. It does hurt the nation’s pride, no matter how much of a cock he really was. Now, the question is, whether or not we are going to war with Iran? I do think that the EU will join in because they don’t want to be labeled as terrorist sympathizers and Lord knows that the Bush Administration is getting for their help. It is subject to debate. Iran will be a far tougher war than Iraq.

On a sidenote****I find it ironic that the President’s last name is Talibani. It just reminds me of the Taliban, the exact government that we overthrew almost four years prior.

Stephen:

As a Repubican I hope he is right. As an American I hope he is right. When I read the article I realized it wan Jalal Talabani’s opinion not a order. For instance he said:

I think within two years, we can do it, and at the same time, we will remain in full consultation and coordination, cooperation with our American friends.

In addition he is only an interim leader. The final negotiations will be after the new constitution is written, and signed and approved, and then a new government elected. It is that government that will make the ultimate decision.

What is great is how fast and effective this new government is working. I think we can all rejoice in the progress so far, expecially since the January elections.

I also think Iraqi’s and Americans should work towards Jalal Talabani’s goal. Wow that would be even better than I expected!!

Craig

I’m really not as cynical as I sound, (I’m actually quite hopeful… it’s just that the signs aren’t quite right to invest this sorry affair with any hope, for the nonce). Listen. We’re not going anywhere. No matter what happens over there, i.e., civil war, hostile takeover, raving mullah makeover, whatever… it’ll be all the reason we need to justify our continued, heavily armed presence there to guard our precious oil. And guard our oil we will. Human lives will be, er… acceptable losses & collateral damage which regrettably reach unfortunate but unavoidable peaks just infrequently enough to allow us to conveniently forget between bloodbaths. Your mileage on the value of the blood/oil exchange rate may vary. $3.00 a gallon ain’t nuthin’ compared to what some folks are payin’ for our oil. Iraqi & American blood has purchased the current unfettered glut of American petrolium consumption. Better that than change our lifestyles a bit or (GOD FORBID!) get less dependent on the stuff by means of developing alternative power sources, using elctric/hybrid cars, et al. I’m thoroughly depressed by the clocklike precision with which every rotten outcome that was grimly predicted BEFORE the first bombs ever fell on Baghdad have come to pass. I’m a veteran, and have no fear of doing what’s right to protect my country and the constitution I took an oath to defend, but our enemies aren’t foreign, they’re domestic. Get comfortable with wasting blood and treasure until either (a) the shoe drops… don’t wanna think about it, or (b) Americans heave our swollen, spoiled, apathetic hulks out of our collective barca-lounger-and-TV-induced torpor, pop our collective heads out of our collective sphincters and get behind the mule and PLOW! Fixing the pottery barn should be Shrub’s job, (you break it, you buy it!) but he’ll be naught but a foetid, evil memory when the check comes due. Yet, the right thing is the right thing, and sooner or later, you (or can blow it off for your grandkids to deal with) have gotta do it. It’s like any cure; it’ll taste nasty at first, but after your’e feeling better, you’ll actually be grateful.
I’ve been part of the anti-war movement from the beginning, and everything we were afraid would happen did. Now, because Jim Henson’s muppets are sitting in chairs in Iraq with American fists up their behinds and guns at their backs, everyone is cautiously optimistic (pollyannish?) about Iraq’s future. I’m not saying that the Iraqi’s didn’t vote, they surely did. But you’ve got to understand that if we didn’t cull and vet any potential candidate like pushin’ a steer through a sieve, they’d’ve elected who THEY wanted instead of who we wanted. Bet the farm that in a real election, secular would be out, sacred would be in. We’re Iraq’s bloody future, until the oil runs out or the shoe drops.
If I were a gamblin’ man, I’d bet the farm that everyone in Darfur, the D.R. of Congo, East Timor, Indonesia & Rwanda are wishing they had America’s oil under their dirt, right about now. That’s how we do the “freedom” business. (Y’ever notice that the more freedom we give ‘em over there, the less we have over here? Funny old thing, life.) And the entire Iraq invasion is all just business. We’re there to stay. Period. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I won’t be. Talibani can say, “get out!” like the ghost in the Amityville Horror while hundreds of thousands protest with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and we’ll just hunker in the bunker, scramble a few Apache gunships, rev up the spin and keep on keepin’ on. Bush got his prize and he ain’t givin’ it up. I’m in total agreement with Thomas Jefferson, in that “I weep for my country when I reflect that God is just.” This isn’t the end. Far from it…. it’s the beginning.

Donny:

“On a sidenote****I find it ironic that the President’s last name is Talibani. It just reminds me of the Taliban, the exact government that we overthrew almost four years prior.”

GOD! WAS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT THE NEW GUY’S NAME DIDN’T HAVE “TALIBAN” IN IT?!?!?

Stephen,

“The question is, are we prepared to cut loose at the end of two years?”

Hm. There’s a lot of oil in Iraq… I’m not sure even WE could do it…

Stephen,

We better be ready to be gone in two years. It’s their country after all. I think that we should abide by their wishes, whether we are ready or not.

The two questions I would pose for further discussion are: 1)Can we wrap up this war in that time (give or take a year) and leave the place a Democracy, and 2)Will that Democracy last long or be torn apart by internal forces that issues our mistakes set up inside and outside the country.

Had the post war period been more peaceful, I would have something more than Guarded optimism for Iraq’s chances. Your thoughts, folks?

Stephen:

I think we should just follow the current plan. It’s impossible to predict a timeline. For instance, the insurgency could do some real damage to the current elected government that could put us all back to square one.

I liked this article I got from Drudge. It balanced yours real well, and filled in some details.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/11/politics/11military.html?ex=1270872000&en=39db7bf015026efc&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

I think we should leave on the first day after we are convinced Iraqi forces can handle their own defense.

CH

I’m with Jeff.

We’re not going anywhere in two years, especially since they’ve already built fourteen permanent bases in Iraq.
The neocon�s have long had this all planned out, and lest we forget, “Freedom’s On The March”!!!
They intend to get plenty of use out of those bases on behalf of all the investment bankers, and energy behemoths and arms merchants, not to mention all their good buddies in the construction and services cartels.
Recently I read where Bush now has a “secret watch-list” of 25 countries that are ripe for military intervention — so let’s not kid ourselves, these greedy bastards can�t help but be rubbing their mitts together over the prospect of MORE WAR.
Sure, they�re complete morons when it comes to waging it, but what the hell do they care when there are assloads of unfathomable profits to be made, and they can arrange it all using the American tax dollar?
According to Richard Perle and David Frum in “An End To Evil” (a book title I consider to be simply dripping with Irony) our men and women in uniform still have yet to reach a lot of their long held objectives.
Such as: “overthrow the terrorist mullahs of Iran”; force regime change in Syria by “interdict[ing] Syria�s arms supply”, cutting off its oil supply, and conducting “hot pursuit” raids into its territory; launch a “comprehensive air and naval blockade of North Korea”, plan a “preemptive strike against North Korea�s nuclear facilities”; and promote the dismantling of Saudi Arabia by supporting a breakway Shi�ite minority state in that country�s eastern province (which, surprise! surprise! just happens to be where all the oil is).

No, these gansters have four more years to wreck havoc with those fourteen permanent bases — and judging by the last four, I wouldn’t put anything past them.
Wherever it is they decide to go next, first they’ll bury anyone who tries to oppose them, then they’ll pull another lie out of their hat, or manufacture another crisis for their true believers (you know, the “heartland folk” who gave them their “mandate”) before doing exactly what they want.

Craig-

1)Let’s hope the Plan is good enough. Otherwise, let’s do better.

2)When we are convinced that Iraq can handle themselves, let us be convinced by good evidence, not wishful thinking about getting out, or getting things done with a particular plan (I think that covers both parties!)

Greetings, to amplify what Adrienne has said, and to better elucidate my point, I want to allow a Marine Corps general and winner of TWO congressional medals of honor, do the talkng for me… his name is Smedley Butler, and his speech is called “War Is A Racket” Please take the time to read this if you haven’t all ready.

Is there a problem with this?

The Iraqi have the right of self-determination. We helped them get it. It means they can ask us to leave if they want. If in two years time, the situation is stable, it will be great to have our guys come home. We will have achieved our fondest aspirations. If the situation is not good, it is likely the Iraqis will ask us to stay on and I seriously doubt that they will want all U.S. forces out in any case. They still live in a dangerous neighborhood.

This sets a worthy goal to which we can aspire. Everybody needs goals (often set by outsiders) to concentrate their efforts. tasks generally expand to take up all the time alloted them. Open ended committments lead to unending activity.

Things are already looking better and better. In two years, our job may well be done. It is important to know when your job is done and stop doing it.

Heh. Always nice that nobody ever gives definite dates anymore. Considering that Iran is supposed to be attacked in June, I am not surprised by all the positive rhetoric.

Regardless. Let us all salute the American GI in this. I am sure the all volunteer army will once again make us proud.

Aldous-
I’m sure our soldiers will. My worry, though, is that we’re running them kind of ragged. That will be a problem whether we attack Iran or not.

What makes this a potential problem is that even without another war to fight (third one’s the charm?), our soldiers are badly in need of relief, and we’re running out of soldiers to relieve them with. I doesn’t make it any better that this war’s had a disastrous effect on recruiting for the branches of our military that are fighting the ground war in Iraq.

I guess that’s part of where my strongest complaints come down on Bush’s military policy over the last four years: Bush has not used the military in a sustainable way. Our volunteer military is a marvel of technology and training. But it is a finite resource, and one that has been run through Iraq like beef through a meat grinder. We don’t have enough fresh troops to cycle back into Iraq.

This is what people mean when they talk about a broken force: an exhausted army, morale drug down by the constant tension and anxiety of a country that is one big war zone. Some conservatives, who have the luxury of speaking from nice comfy state-side locations, say that it’s only a matter of dedication. But even our fighting men and women, fearsome as they are, are only human, and these people have got to let the steam off, and remember what it feels like to be human again, or they’ll crack.

Maybe now’s the time to realize that the Democrat talk of fighting wars smarter was not a reflection of a wish to avoid war at all costs, but instead, the drive to fight the fights that are essential, and take care of the rest of our problems from a position of strength.

There are times when it doesn’t pay to be careful in war. But you got to let the war tell you when that’s the case, not the politician.

“1)Can we wrap up this war in that time (give or take a year) and leave the place a Democracy, and 2)Will that Democracy last long or be torn apart by internal forces that issues our mistakes set up inside and outside the country.”

In answer to the first question, yes, an Iraqi government should be in place. Some government figures represent US interests, some Iranian interests, etc. But as the recent demonstration by 300,000 Shia al-Sadr supporters shows, if there’s one thing Iraqis are united about, it is in their desire to see the US leave.

I think it’s noteworthy the Sunnis refrained from attacking the Shias during this demonstration. Not a good sign if anyone’s looking for gratitude from the Iraqis. Like I said, they want the US out.

It seems likely a deal will be done between the Shias and the US. Ready or not, there we go. US troops should start drawing down by the midterm elections of 2006 (my, what a coincidence!), and be substantially out by the 2008 election.

In the meantime, some are comforting themselves that attacks against US troops have dropped to an average of 40/day. Of course, attacks of Iraqis against Iraqis, at this point almost exclusively Sunnis against Shias collaborating with the US, have escalated. But a dozen dead Iraqis here, a dozen there, it doesn’t even register on the American radar.

An interesting side-note which escaped notice; several al-Zarqawi lieutenants were captured a few months ago. What was so interesting is that the lieutenants were all Iraqis. Think about it.

A training camp in Anbar province was destroyed, and dozens of Iraqi insurgents killed. Most people were content to take that as good news; after all, insurgents died. But think about that one for a moment. A training camp? A training camp?!” How many have already been trained? How many other camps are there?

Isn’t it peculiar, the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq? I feel sure the US will ‘declare victory and go home.’ At that point the Shias and Sunnis will have a clear shot at each other, no holds bar. And at the point, we’ll see the indisputable reason why the US should never have gone in. They’ll go at each like cats and dogs.

I know it is very unpleasant for those who thought the sixties were a good time to hear, but there are almost no particular similarities between Vietnam and Iraq other than the U.S. is involved in fighting an insurgency.

Vietnam was about a country and a nation, artificially divided and then reunited. How is that like Iraq? And remember this about Vietnam. The insurgency did not win the war. The insurgency was essentially destroyed during and right after the Tet offensive. After that, it was an infiltration by the North Vietnamese. The North conquered the South. It was like when Grant took Richmond. It was not little guys in black pajamas; it was infantry and armor as part of a regular army.

So no matter how much you like to think of Iraq as another Vietnam, it just ain’t so. Vietnam was more like our own civil war if we imagine the intervention of some European power. Iraq is a fairly unique situation. I can’t think of a real close parallel.

In the end, though, Tet served as a strategic victory, a breaking point for Americans who had been convinced by their government that this war had been going better than it really had been. The problem is, we relied on attrition to win a war that was more about getting the South Vietnamese on our side, so we wasted time trying to wear down an enemy that could more cheaply replace its troops than we could. We also backed political groups within Vietnam that really weren’t all that integrated as a political force with the people. It wasn’t conventional force alone that won the war. The South Vietnamese had that on their side with our equipment. No, their problem is, they couldn’t get South Vietnamese to be enthusiastic about fighting the North Vietnamese. They couldn’t match the commitment, they couldn’t match the resolve. We lost the opportunity to win Vietnam early in the conflict.

Lets hope the same doesn’t happen in Iraq.

Jack,
No similarities?

“Vietnam was about a country and a nation, artificially divided and then reunited. How is that like Iraq?”

As countries, both Vietnam and Iraq were artificial constructions from the colonialist era. Neither country could rely on a tradition of democracy when they achieved independence. Both shared intense resentment of foreign occupation, of colonialism.

In each case, armed US occupation was based upon a manufactured pretense, supposedly with a larger context of struggle. In Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie manufactured to convince the US population to support invasion & occupation, within a larger context of the war against communism. In Iraq, terrorism and WMD’s were used as a pretext to convince the US population to support invasion & occupation, within a larger context of the war against Islam and for its natural resource, oil.

In both countries, an early attempt to hold democratic elections failed. Vietnam split into North & South. As we all know, an insurgency followed, and ultimately Vietnam did not end well for US interests. Among the three major sections of Iraq- the Kurdish north, the Sunni center, and the Shia south- an election was held in which the Sunnis refused to participate. (Sorry, but as much as we like the image of blue thumbs waving in the air, that election failed). In both Vietnam & Iraq, substantial assistance to the insurgencies came from enemies of the US across porous borders.

Vietnam was artificially divided into halves. Currently, Iraq is artificially united, although the willingness of the Kurds to sacrifice autonomy for full participation remains to be seen.

In both Vietnam & Iraq, corruption substantially undermined the effort to install democracy. For example, in Iraq, Chalabi, a man convicted of financial fraud in Jordan, was allowed to control the Ministry of Finance; and for another example, $8.8 billion disappeared from the CPA.

Is Iraq ‘another Vietnam?’ No, of course not; they are not identical by any stretch of the imagination. But there are unquestionably similarities.

Beneath resentment of US occupation, ancient ethnic hatreds fuel the Iraqi conflict. It is a sealed pot of burning oil, and the pressure is building. Once the US lid is removed, it will boil over and catch fire. But we in the US cannot stand the increasing heat, and I’m sure we’ll get out of the kitchen sooner rather than later.

It’s a function of money, of limitations on our armed forces, of upcoming elections in the US, and of satisfaction that US access to Iraqi control will be maintained.

Hi Everybody,
I’m new to this blog, so I feel odd addressing you each individually. Anyway, two things about Talibani:

1.) According to a Vet friend of mine who served in Iraq in intel from 2003/2004, Jalal Talibani has a reputation of being just like Saddam.
2.)The office of the presidency is ceremonial, so I wouldn’t put too much stock in his prediction.

Other than that, I am in agreement with Jeff and Adrienne. We ain’t goin’ nowhere, especially as long we need their oil, and the neocons are in charge.

Phx8

You said it yourself. Vietnam was artificially divided; Iraq is artificially united. The North was working to reestablish a status quo that had existed for a long time. And the North conquered the South. And that is how that war ended. Absent the North’s military success, the South would not have fallen. I don’t know if Democracy would have worked there. It worked in South Korea.

There is no equivalent of North Vietnam in the region or Iraq. The Turks have a historical claim, but it is not in any way legitimate and they don’t have the power to conquer Iraq. Neither do the Iranians.

U.S. intervention in Vietnam was not a success, BUT the insurgency in Vietnam failed to topple the government. That is the historical lesson too. It is one we often overlook.

Things may not work out the way we want in Iraq. Who can say? But the insurgency shows no sign of being able to topple any government there either.

The Vietnam analogy is just much overused. I suppose because it was the defining life experience of the baby boon and they (we) have imposed this outlook on younger generations too.

Tapia

The U.S. didn’t need Iraqi oil or put a different way, we didn’t need to invade the country to get it. Saddam was willing to sell as much oil as we would let him at below market rates. Oil is fungible, so it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t sell directly to us. In a good year, Iraq produces about $20 billion in oil. It cost us many times that to fight the war and reconstruct Iraq. The war was about oil, as I wrote in another column, but not in the way the anti war protestor think.

Jack-
The insurgency was successful in turning the people against us. After that, their conventional victory was inevitable. The whole problem, as I see it, is we treated the Vietnameses as pawns in a greater game, rather than making them equals and partners. We perpetuated the old and the dysfunctional, rather than bringing in the new and the efficient. We backed governments that didn’t have the backing of their people, and did little to earn much from them but disgust and disrespect. The fact that it became mainly our war should be a red flag to you: they weren’t willing or able to fight it themselves.

In the end, what may save us in Iraq are lessons learned from Vietnam. We may just have managed to get the vast majority of Iraqis to feel better about helping us than helping the insurgents. Also, we have made them partners.

The question is whether this continues to be the case. The question is whether or not the mistakes we have committed will make our lessons learned insufficient to turn the tide. This is an open question, one that won’t be answered by committment alone, but rather how we choose to respond to the issues of this war.

Stephen

They didn’t manage to turn the population against us. The vast majority of the people didn’t really care either way. The large number of people risking death on the open seas in small boats indicated that not everyone was really happy with the new government.

The conventional victory of the North would not have been possible if there had been no North. Of course that is a tautology, but it is useful to recall that there is no equivalent of the North anywhere near Iraq. Remember once again. The insurgency did not bring down the South. The North conquered the South. It was much more like the Grant taking Richmond than the peasants storming the Bastille.

Jack-
I’m not saying there weren’t people who took our side, sided against the communists. What I’m saying is, The South Vietnamese government and our policies did little to make people care about our fight, much less their own. I mean, if I missed something here, stop me, but weren’t these people supposed to care that their country was getting overwhelmed by commmunists, invaded by the North Vietnamese? If most people there could care less about their situation, with the North Vietnamese and insurgents as committed as they are, why are we surprised we lost? Apathy is not an asset for an defending power.

Insurgencies are defeated when people stop providing assistance to them. Whether people give this assistance from fear and an unwillingness to get entangled further, or from admiration, and a willingness to oppose us, the result was the same. The conventional victory of the North required that we be out of there, and our inability to seal off territory permanently from the VC and NVA was a large part of why we came to believe victory was impossible and an honorable withdrawal was the best course of action. Only after we were out of there, did their conventional war really take its effect. Even there, the apathy had its effect. Who will be the better defender, the person who doesn’t care, or the person who will make the enemy pay in blood for every inch wrested from their side? If the South Vietnamese had wanted to defeat their northern neighbor, they could have.

I’m not saying this was like a peasant revolution, as you imply. I’m saying this was like a chess game, where not every move has to win the war- only the last.

The insurgency worked strategically. Tactically, they lost virtually every engagement. Strategically, though, they lost in such a way that they could keep going, and that we were confronted with more frustration of our aims in the war than satisfaction. Sooner or later, our lack of progress, our continual casualities, and the weak political justification for the war would combine with the economic costs of the war to make staying unfeasible. Winning wars is not about will. It’s about who controls the ground, and who has the moral force of the communities on their side. We didn’t lose the war because we cut and run, we lost them because we couldn’t get them to cooperate in the outcome we wanted. We lost that battle long before that helicopter took off from the roof of the Saigon Embassy.

Stephen

Both the people of North Vietnam nor the people of South Vietnam were apathetic.

The insurgents were supported by the North. They carried on an effective campaign of terror in the Stalinist mold that cowed or killed anyone who was likely to be less apathetic and do something constructive.

We defeated the insurgents. We didn’t defeat the North. We thought that was beyond our mandate, and we were probably right. I don’t believe our intervention in Vietnam was a good idea in general and I am not trying to defend our Vietnam policy.

What I oppose is the myth that the insurgency brought down the government of South Vietnam. If we buy into that myth, we will make many mistakes in assessing future threats. The North conquered the South because the Communists were better organized and more ruthless. They did not succeed because they were popular either in the South or in the North. The people accepted their superior power.

Insurgencies, in fact, rarely succeed in the face of a determined resistance and without a strong external backing. We remember Cuba or Algeria. We forget the many others that went nowhere.

The insurgency in Iraq has none of the hallmarks of a successful effort. There is no strong external backing, no easily reached safe haven. The geography doesn’t favor the safe movement of troops across the border. Three quarters of the country is actively hostile to the goals of the insurgents and there is no charismatic leader (not Fidel, no Ho, no Mao, not even a Daniel Ortega) to rally around. They are a pathetic band of foreign fanatics and ex-Baathists. They can be deadly, but they are not inspiring.

The U.S. policy is Iraq seems to be on the way to success. The world is never perfect and people will find a lot to complain about. And we have made some big mistakes. But I am proud of what my country has done so far and I think that historians of the future will see this as a positive development for the Middle East and the world.

Jack-
You accept too much of the propaganda on the war. The North WAS better motivated. That’s why they won. The insurgency didn’t have to win by itself. It didn’t have to win at all. It just had to prevent us from winning. Respecting them as a enemy is not siding with them. It’s not underestimating what your enemy is capable of. I don’t talk about the ugly statistic and ugly truths to inhibit us from going to war. I talk about them, because I believe the acceptance of non-ideal situations is the first step to resolving them in your favor. We lost in Vietnam because we sided with a corrupt obsolete government. We lost in Vietnam because we did not preserve its territorial integrity where it mattered: in the people’s hearts, in their communities.

We lost because our leaders refused to be honest with us when it counted, and blamed other people for reporting mistakes and problems rather than resolve them.

We lost because we assumed that endless tactical victories, bombing and attrition would lead somewhere, someday, even if the problem only escalated. We lost sight of the strategic situation, because were too busy trying to make an unsuccessful tactical approach work.

I don’t want us to scare ourselves into paralysis. I want us to be goaded into action by the problems, goaded to take care of issues rather than rationalize them until they become too crisis level to ignore. I want us to take military action that lends credibility to our nation’s foreign policy, rather than leave the world wondering what screw was loose in our nations leadership.

I want us to use the finite resources of this country to best effect. I want our leaders to be more serious about pushing for the truth than some agenda. This war got fought on assumptions, not knowledge, pretense, not this administration best guess.

I know you think that I’m just not letting things go, but the truth is, this war was a setback back for our larger fight against terrorism. We made a mess instead of cleaning it up, and now we’re struggling to break even on a war that should have put us ahead of our enemies. As for your charismatic leader, well your president left Mr. Bin Laden alive and free.

My question to you is why you are willing to settle for anything less than Bin Laden’s figurative or literal head on a plate?

Re Vietnam – yes the North (at least the leadership) wanted victory more. And they got it. I don’t deny that. What I deny is that it was a popular insurgency or any insurgency at all that won. I know we are covering the same ground, but Vietnam was more like our Civil War than an insurgency. If France or Britain had intervened to stop the North from winning in 1865, it might not have ensured the South a permanent victory, since the North might renew the war when it got the chance. North Vietnam waited us out and then conquered the South – like Grant took Richmond.

Re Bin Laden. I used to care about him, but now I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, it would give me pleasure to know that he had died a painful death, but on the practical side, I am not sure it is not better right where(ever) he is. He no longer has command and control of his people and he is constantly on the run. If he was killed, he might become a martyr. If he were captured, a lot of people would complain that he was being poorly treated. As of now, he is ineffective, but because he remains alive he blocks the way to a more active and virile leader. Let him waste away from something like kidney disease. Better than us taking him down in a blaze of glory.

It is generally accepted that 100,000 people in the north were killed by Uncle Ho,and 200,000 emigrated to the south. Not exactly an endorsement by those people.

The South Vietnemese were not organized, had a corrupt government in the beginning, and were not a militant people. The U.S. had no strategy, as mentioned, and questionable and sometimes stupid tactics. There was no political will at the top to win. The Generals played a cover your ass game which filtered on down.

It was a mess from the top on down. Draw your own parallels. It was a good idea (you should h elp a free people…if you can, if pragmataic), but bad execution. Been there.