|
October 30, 2009
In The Future, Every War Will Be Vietnam For 15 Minutes
Today we learn JFK was advised by morons. Well, at least one. America's unwise, unwarranted, and sadly unwinnable war in Afghanistan--hastily initiated and then abandoned for Iraq by President Barack Obama's ideologically blinded predecessor and dumped into Obama's lap in the worst possible way--is beginning increasingly to smell like the 1964-68 war in South Vietnam that swallowed up the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. Something smells, all right. Remember when Iraq was the unwinnable war and Iraq-Vietnam parallels were all the rage? Now, in a hilarious irony, our unexpected victory has become the fashionable excuse for losing in Afghanistan. It all sounds familiar. A powerless leader (whether Vietnam's Diem or Afghanistan's Karzai) with a corrupt family and little support in the countryside, who refuses to undertake the reforms (land, tax, electoral, and administrative) that the U.S. president tries to press upon him, therefore endangering the regime's stability against the guerrilla extremists (once communists, now Taliban). It's hard to believe Sorensen was actually around for the Vietnam War, let alone advising the leader of the free world. The guerrillas lost that war; they were never a factor after their decimation during Tet. It was an NVA armored column, built in Russia, that took the South for Communism (also rounding up and imprisoning their erstwhile guerrilla allies), and that only happened because we abandoned them. This isn't exactly hard to find out, either. The Kennedy-Johnson team, like the Obama team, was called "the best and the brightest"--but nobody's perfect. I don't actually remember anyone accusing Obama's team of being the best and brightest. I do remember one calling himself a Communist, another saying in public that Mao was her favorite philosopher, and another being Joe Biden. They were last seen picking a fight with Fox News that everyone agrees was idiotic, and getting in another public fight with their own handpicked general over the strategy they announced earlier this year. But the Vietnamese people, who had long resisted complete occupation and domination by the French, Japanese, and others, were not so easily grabbed, and were determined to drive any would-be occupying power from their land, And thus they heroically drove their own South Vietnamese government from the land, after signing the Paris Accords to get rid of us. On the other hand, the Communist bloc were determined to enslave the country, and after we left they did so despite all native resistance. There was little the U.S. could do to stop the flow of arms and enemy combatants into South Vietnam across its porous border with North Vietnam, just as there is little the U.S. can do now to stem the flow of arms and enemy combatants pouring across Afghanistan's porous border with Pakistan Sure there was: we could bomb the North. It worked so well we forced them to sign a peace treaty, which kept the South free until Congress announced we would not, under any circumstances, bomb them again. (I've been studying Clausewitz this week and I have yet to encounter the chapter of On War in which he explains the virtue of publicly announcing one's pre-emptive surrender. Must be toward the end.) The United States was not responsible for Vietnam's suffering under colonialism, nor was it responsible for Afghanistan's suffering under colonialism; but in neither country did American soldiers or diplomats know much about the history, language, culture, traditions, or needs of people that the U.S. hoped to win over. No, but idiots like yourself are responsible for Vietnam's subsequent decades suffering under Communism and current status as one of the poorest, most repressed populations in the world. Re-education camps and ag-slavery aren't fun no matter what your history, language, tradition or culture. I erred in predicting at the outset of this essay that Afghanistan could become, in the future, Obama's Vietnam. What the hell. Why didn't you go back and fix the outset of this essay then? Are you using a typewriter? How do you not have an edit function? Anwyays, it's too late. Every future war has already become Vietnam, and not the real Vietnam but some ideologically defeatist revisionist-history version where our efforts were always foredoomed for reasons that bear little resemblance to reality. The best we can hope for is that such comparisons will be swiftly debunked, preferably within 15 minutes of their appearance. posted by Dave on 10.30.09 at 06:42 PM
Comments
Dave , you are a brave man to have the guts to actually finish that load of crap,I started to read the article earlier and had to stop it was so ridiculous in it's naivete and revisionism if that's possible,Great Fisking! Bobnormal · October 30, 2009 09:54 PM but in neither country did American soldiers or diplomats know much about the history, language, culture, traditions, or needs of people that the U.S. hoped to win over. Base slander against our soldiers. Obama's diplomats? It's probably spot on, considering that Hillary (who wanted to know who painted Our Lady of Guadalupe) and J Effen Kerry. Veeshir · October 30, 2009 10:55 PM Obama's diplomats Will · October 31, 2009 03:20 AM Give Sorensen his due, he is a great writer. But always remember: Sorensen registered as a conscientious objector during WWII !!! artwebster · November 1, 2009 05:03 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Israeli Settlers Shelter Gay Palestinian
Bringing the war home? Dede Has Taken Tim Leary's Advice Happy Halloween! Oil Supply And Demand Is tobacco the new pot? In The Future, Every War Will Be Vietnam For 15 Minutes In order to reduce carbon emissions, we'll have to increase them! Theocons vs Communists Palin Calls For Hoffman - GOP Folds
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The most distresssing thing about reading the Sorensen piece is that people take him seriously as a historian. The man merely mouths conventional 'wisdom' as cranked out by the sort of journalists who think M4 barrels get white hot. How can he possibly write useful history?
Yours,
Tom DeGisi