--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I honestly don't know why the lessons of history > manage to go > unlearned, Dan. I only know that they do.
Well, you think that _your_ lessons of history go unlearned. Other people (people who, among other things, _know_ a lot more of the history) might think that those lessons are very different, or that they don't apply in this situation. > > > And going through your points, I'm not sure how > many of them could > > possibly > > be lessons from Viet Nam. For example, how could > one call Robert > > McNamara > > an old war dog? > > I didn't, and wasn't referring to him anyway. I > referred specifically > to Rummy and Cheney. Well then, how, exactly is anything about them a "lesson from Vietnam"? > > I wasn't comparing McNamara to them; rather, I was > indicating that > their hawkish tendencies and failures in previous > administrations > should dang well have been warnings not to employ > them any more. But it > seems that, in every level of government employment, > nothing succeeds > like failure. What failures in previous Administrations, precisely? > Both Nam and Iraq are about nothing but conquest. 30 > years ago it was > about overthrowing Communism; now it's about a "war > on terror"; but the > subtests of BOTH conflicts were "liberating the > people" of those > nations, whether they wanted to be liberated or not. Vietnam was about nothing but conquest? Really? South Vietnam wasn't an independent country? By your standard, I point out that _World War 2_ was about "nothing but conquest", as it too was about "liberating the people" of the natoins of Europe and Asia. We could, after all, have just pounded Japan after Pearl Harbor and left Germany alone. For that matter, Japan would never have attacked us had we not gone to great efforts to protect China from Japanese conquest. We kind of assumed that they wanted to be liberated from the Nazis, and we were right. Most historians of the Cold War think that the American reaction was _defensive_ - that's why our strategy was called "Containment". You've heard of it? We were trying to stop them from conquering us. > > The terminology has changed but the focus hasn't, > and unfortunately the > techniques haven't changed either. So why anyone > would be surprised > that we ran into the same problems after applying > the same tactics to > at least partially similar situations is something I > just don't > understand. Well, because a lot of people who know the history and the period think that the situations aren't that similar - and, for that matter, that we aren't applying tactics that are all that similar either. > In which conflict? Iraq, when we were told -- by > Rummy -- that our > soldiers would be met with open arms and flowers? Or > Nam, when if it > weren't for those stubborn VC holdouts, we might > have "liberated" the > entire country ever so much sooner? Well, the government of South Vietnam was, in fact, on our side, so I've never heard of anyone, anywhere, who referred to Vietnam as a war of liberation. That might suggest that your historical analogy, is, umm, weak. > > In both cases the US was the occupying force, in > both cases the US met > much heavier resistance than anticipated, and in > both cases the US was > caught off guard. I don't know why holders of > advanced degrees can't > see the parallels. They seem pretty plain to me. Well, among other things, because your first statement is false and your third statement is questionable. How exactly were we caught off guard? McNamara was blitheringly incompetent, surely, but he wasn't _surprised_. > But Dan, for every expert you can mention who was > caught flatfooted by > Iraq, I'm pretty sure I can find another in the same > field who was > predicting disaster from the beginning. For > instance, we had US armed > forces commanders predicting *precisely* the series > of events we're > seeing now, and these men were ostensibly students > of military history > to a depth at least as great as anyone you can cite. His point - which I think is obvious - is that if there is a lot of disagreement among those experts, it's a little strange that you're so absolutely certain that you're right. > I don't know why I have to perennially cite evidence > for OPINION in the > Court of Gautam the Almighty. But if he's incapable > of looking at > nightly news reports and drawing conclusions based > on them, > particularly if he's got a background in history, it > seems that his > view, not mine, is the indefensible one. > > Now if Gautam wishes to address this issue further > he's welcome to do > so, but I won't carry on a discussion by proxy. Why not? Dan's doing at least as well as I could. If you want to talk to me directly, e-mail me off-list. This is a mailing list - expect other people to chime in on conversations. It's part of the deal. In this case, though, we're both pointing out that you are making extraordinarily sweeping statements about the historical record - that is, you are implying the use of evidence - but that actual record is (let me be kind) only debatably supportive of your points. Opinion unsupported by evidence is pretty meaningless. Radical opinions that pronounce other people to be ignorant that are unsupported by facts are unlikely to persuade anyone of anything, really. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
