OT: Obama is Conservative

[surveyor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]My problem is that I don’t have a great fear of Islamic hegemony. Were it an widely emerging popular ideology (which it is not) it would not of major concern. The last time there were large Islamic empires they existed as one of the pinnacles of Mediterranean development. They had great works, religious tolerance (for montheists) and tremendous economic and intellectual developments. The only Islamic regimes to be concerned about are the ones that would be of concern regardless of religion. Those are nations with great control of vital resources and no popular sovereignty or even consultative oligarchy. The religious aspect is a way of controlling dissent. With no social groups permitted they frame any social group, movement, or assembly as religious.[/quote]

Um, I figured you thought like this. =sigh= I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.

(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)

a) Gaffes – While the gaffes are not important to you, they are important to other people (including me). If I agreed with his policies, but he made gaffes, I would probably disregard the gaffes. However, combine the gaffes with his lack of knowledge in history, his lack of experience, and it just becomes a little disturbing. Yes, gaffes by themselves are immaterial, but Obama is supposed to be a great orator. If he doesn’t have that, he has little else left to offer other than the fact that he is not Bush. It’s not personal, but it is a lack of substance argument.

b) Kennedy – well let’s look at the event. Kennedy met with Krushchev similar to how Obama wants to meet with “rogue states”. It is generally acknowledged by most that Kennedy looked really bad and essentially got schooled by Krushschev. Even Kennedy said so. Do you want your adversary to find out you are weak? That’s what happened with “no preconditions.” Maybe Krushchev would have done the same thing, whether or not he thought Kennedy was weak, but he would have paused if he thought Kennedy was stronger.

Still, the larger point is that Obama looked at that meeting as a success for the U.S., when it was actually the opposite. Here is evidence that he has a limited understanding of history. You can argue about Kennedy all you want, but this is the point that Bolton makes, and he is correct in it. David Duke can tell you 1+1=2. It doesn’t matter that he’s a racist. Irrelevant. Hitler can tell you 1+1=2. He’s still right. You cannot just disregard someone’s analyses just because you think he is a wacko. See, that’s called “close-minded.” Also, it’s an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to refute the argument. It is a logical fallacy to think that just because John Bolton is not respected, that he is wrong. I cannot stress this enough. An ad hominem attack is a weak argument.

c)[quote=urbanrealtor] Regarding the cost of negotiation:
First, time is only expensive as an opportunity cost. If we would be using the time for negotiations. If meeting meant some top aids spending a week locked in some hunting lodge talking, I am not clear as to what opportunities that would cost us. We still keep vigilant and keep up pressure. Unless that week is one we would have spent bombing Tehran (which we have shown no signs of doing in 29 years), its not like it really hurts us to get to constructive conversation.[/quote]

You’re not sure what opportunities are lost to us? Well, when you don’t have time, you can’t go to the UN to help with Iran. You can’t. It’ll take months for a “non-binding” resolution. You can’t enact sanctions. They take time to work. You can’t all of a sudden pursue regime change. That takes time. Meanwhile, Israel is screaming that they’re going to be attacked by Iran and begging you to do something. Meanwhile, the Iranians are only a year away from a nuclear weapon. Guess what? When you have been painted into a corner, that is a FAILURE of diplomacy.

Hey, the Europeans have only been negotiating with them for more than FOUR YEARS. Let’s go ahead and order more. Not only does Obama want to have more negotiations, he wants negotiations without “preconditions.” I’ve already established that this is not a smart idea already, and yet this is exactly what Obama wants. If you think they’ll roll over for Obama after a week, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Yes, time is an opportunity cost. The opportunities to deal with Iran without having to go to the military option are now gone because of an adherence to the “diplomacy/negotiation” only policy. When you’ve lost leverage, you’ve lost options. Does that sound “smart” to you?

d)[quote=urbanrealtor]Second, Neville Chamberlain just doesn’t apply here. I mean seriously, he gave away a whole country to Hitler. He even signed it. Thats a lot different from discussing how to build more mutually beneficial relationship.[/quote]

The story of Neville Chamberlain is used as an example of failed diplomacy (although it was heralded as a success at the time). After four years of European negotiations, the Iranians on the verge of nuclear weapons, the promise of a new middle east conflict on the horizon, and few options available to the U.S., I’d say the analogy is apt. Disagree if you wish. I’m just wondering after four years of negotiations, when can you call it an abject failure?

Neville Chamberlain => example of failed diplomacy.
European-Iran negotiations = example of failed diplomacy.

I don’t know, it looks analogous to me.

[quote=urbanrealtor]Their conflict with us is based on the terrible things we did to that country (like taking out their prime minister in 1953). The animosity we have with their regime is primarily based on their rhetoric and the revolution (which had popular support). Unless we want to re-install a dictator there (or exterminate them), we have to try working things out at some point.[/quote]

Hrm, there’s that “blame America first” thought process. You really want to go negotiate with the Iranians with that mindset? So we should let them have nuclear weapons?

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding Italy:
Who really cares who they pray to?
I come from a country (my blood not my country of birth) that makes a point of not caring. That not just because anabaptists settled Manhattan Island or because our first president was a deist but also because there were lots of Jews in early America. My point is that these are essentially political fights. Thats why Tehran has the Mid-east’s larges Jewish community outside of Israel.[/quote]

=shrug= Here’s why it matters: Europe is becoming rapidly Islamic. The next few decades, they will become islamic by demographics. You obviously have a benign view of Islam. I’m afraid you’re in for a rude awakening.

(next book to read: America Alone, by Mark Steyn).

[quote=urbanrealtor]Actually I agree. We should be able to call him on it. However, my point is that these are cheap shots. You would make a better case by just saying that his policies are weak and then explain why. If you are looking to just do cheap shots, then I submit to you that this may be too intelligent a blog for you (and thats kind of sad). I don’t say this to be insulting. I say this because I would like to actually discuss policy with you. You have something good to say but you keep hiding it behind weak lines and cheap shots. Please step up dude. I’ll wait for you. I really would like to hear your real points. [/quote]

I hate to break it to you dan, but what you call cheap shots I call “weaknesses.”

[quote=urbanrealtor]Regarding religious tolerance:
It is widely accepted by historians that Christians and Jews lived well among the Muslims prior to the reconquista and various crusades. Also, citing examples of ethno-religious cleansing does not go far in making your point.[/quote]

And this is specifically what happens when you cite “trusted and respected” sources. You, sir, could not be more wrong. The idea that Christians and Jews lived well among the muslims is extremely false. I haven’t read Andrew Bostom’s “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism” but the details of how intolerant the muslims were towards “people of the book” (jews and christians) are there. Also a good read is the “Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades” by Robert Spencer.

(by the way, the Crusades were launched after CENTURIES of abuse, jihad, and conquering of christian territory by the muslims).

[jficquette]

Did you even watch the video??? If not watch it and pretend its a Republican talking and then ask if you really want him in the White House.

John

[jficquette]

Did you even watch the video??? If not watch it and pretend its a Republican talking and then ask if you really want him in the White House.

John

[jficquette]

Did you even watch the video??? If not watch it and pretend its a Republican talking and then ask if you really want him in the White House.

John

[jficquette]

Did you even watch the video??? If not watch it and pretend its a Republican talking and then ask if you really want him in the White House.

John

[jficquette]

Did you even watch the video??? If not watch it and pretend its a Republican talking and then ask if you really want him in the White House.

John

[gandalf]

Wow! Just when I thought we were throwing gutterballs again, Ka-Pow! Terrific debate here.

I’d like to point something out. It is PROBABLE that Iran already has nukes. Maybe 10-15, of Soviet origin. This from IAEA insiders. If true, you would agree this puts the Iranian issue in a different light, no?

In this light, I can’t emphasize enough what an incredible disservice to American interests it has been to go out in front with this idealogical “Axis of Evil” crap. The bellicosity benefits the hardline Iranian government, strengthens them, undermines Iranian moderates. Why on earth would we do that? Perhaps we are interested in a larger war… Perhaps over oil? Cheney’s energy policy was the first WHIG.

That is my view of where Bush-Cheney are attempting to take us and these last few months of Bush’s Admin are absolutely scary. We do not want war with Iran right now. Not because the hardliners aren’t evil. Not because we don’t have a great military.

Because we are in an AWFUL strategic position, AQ remains a threat, we are over-extended in Iraq, serious risks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we carry very grave disadvantages (vis-a-vis energy). It’s quite possible we would lose. Not invasion and surrender, but loss along the lines of Vietnam and damage to our position in the world.

As Obama has saying for over a year now, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Wahhabism is the primary threat to the United States at this point in time. The threat is common to most countries in the international community. Obama is seeking a break from past policies, advocating a return to pragmatic realism in foreign policy, focus on Al Qaeda, whose center of gravity is in Afg/Pak, and a realistic recognition of the limitations we face. That sounds like a winner to me.

And I fail to see how the points from surveyor or jfiq add up to anything more than random anti-aircraft fire. They don’t make even the slightest difference on this broader point and more essential point.

[gandalf]

Wow! Just when I thought we were throwing gutterballs again, Ka-Pow! Terrific debate here.

I’d like to point something out. It is PROBABLE that Iran already has nukes. Maybe 10-15, of Soviet origin. This from IAEA insiders. If true, you would agree this puts the Iranian issue in a different light, no?

In this light, I can’t emphasize enough what an incredible disservice to American interests it has been to go out in front with this idealogical “Axis of Evil” crap. The bellicosity benefits the hardline Iranian government, strengthens them, undermines Iranian moderates. Why on earth would we do that? Perhaps we are interested in a larger war… Perhaps over oil? Cheney’s energy policy was the first WHIG.

That is my view of where Bush-Cheney are attempting to take us and these last few months of Bush’s Admin are absolutely scary. We do not want war with Iran right now. Not because the hardliners aren’t evil. Not because we don’t have a great military.

Because we are in an AWFUL strategic position, AQ remains a threat, we are over-extended in Iraq, serious risks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we carry very grave disadvantages (vis-a-vis energy). It’s quite possible we would lose. Not invasion and surrender, but loss along the lines of Vietnam and damage to our position in the world.

As Obama has saying for over a year now, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Wahhabism is the primary threat to the United States at this point in time. The threat is common to most countries in the international community. Obama is seeking a break from past policies, advocating a return to pragmatic realism in foreign policy, focus on Al Qaeda, whose center of gravity is in Afg/Pak, and a realistic recognition of the limitations we face. That sounds like a winner to me.

And I fail to see how the points from surveyor or jfiq add up to anything more than random anti-aircraft fire. They don’t make even the slightest difference on this broader point and more essential point.

[gandalf]

Wow! Just when I thought we were throwing gutterballs again, Ka-Pow! Terrific debate here.

I’d like to point something out. It is PROBABLE that Iran already has nukes. Maybe 10-15, of Soviet origin. This from IAEA insiders. If true, you would agree this puts the Iranian issue in a different light, no?

In this light, I can’t emphasize enough what an incredible disservice to American interests it has been to go out in front with this idealogical “Axis of Evil” crap. The bellicosity benefits the hardline Iranian government, strengthens them, undermines Iranian moderates. Why on earth would we do that? Perhaps we are interested in a larger war… Perhaps over oil? Cheney’s energy policy was the first WHIG.

That is my view of where Bush-Cheney are attempting to take us and these last few months of Bush’s Admin are absolutely scary. We do not want war with Iran right now. Not because the hardliners aren’t evil. Not because we don’t have a great military.

Because we are in an AWFUL strategic position, AQ remains a threat, we are over-extended in Iraq, serious risks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we carry very grave disadvantages (vis-a-vis energy). It’s quite possible we would lose. Not invasion and surrender, but loss along the lines of Vietnam and damage to our position in the world.

As Obama has saying for over a year now, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Wahhabism is the primary threat to the United States at this point in time. The threat is common to most countries in the international community. Obama is seeking a break from past policies, advocating a return to pragmatic realism in foreign policy, focus on Al Qaeda, whose center of gravity is in Afg/Pak, and a realistic recognition of the limitations we face. That sounds like a winner to me.

And I fail to see how the points from surveyor or jfiq add up to anything more than random anti-aircraft fire. They don’t make even the slightest difference on this broader point and more essential point.

[gandalf]

Wow! Just when I thought we were throwing gutterballs again, Ka-Pow! Terrific debate here.

I’d like to point something out. It is PROBABLE that Iran already has nukes. Maybe 10-15, of Soviet origin. This from IAEA insiders. If true, you would agree this puts the Iranian issue in a different light, no?

In this light, I can’t emphasize enough what an incredible disservice to American interests it has been to go out in front with this idealogical “Axis of Evil” crap. The bellicosity benefits the hardline Iranian government, strengthens them, undermines Iranian moderates. Why on earth would we do that? Perhaps we are interested in a larger war… Perhaps over oil? Cheney’s energy policy was the first WHIG.

That is my view of where Bush-Cheney are attempting to take us and these last few months of Bush’s Admin are absolutely scary. We do not want war with Iran right now. Not because the hardliners aren’t evil. Not because we don’t have a great military.

Because we are in an AWFUL strategic position, AQ remains a threat, we are over-extended in Iraq, serious risks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we carry very grave disadvantages (vis-a-vis energy). It’s quite possible we would lose. Not invasion and surrender, but loss along the lines of Vietnam and damage to our position in the world.

As Obama has saying for over a year now, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Wahhabism is the primary threat to the United States at this point in time. The threat is common to most countries in the international community. Obama is seeking a break from past policies, advocating a return to pragmatic realism in foreign policy, focus on Al Qaeda, whose center of gravity is in Afg/Pak, and a realistic recognition of the limitations we face. That sounds like a winner to me.

And I fail to see how the points from surveyor or jfiq add up to anything more than random anti-aircraft fire. They don’t make even the slightest difference on this broader point and more essential point.

[gandalf]

Wow! Just when I thought we were throwing gutterballs again, Ka-Pow! Terrific debate here.

I’d like to point something out. It is PROBABLE that Iran already has nukes. Maybe 10-15, of Soviet origin. This from IAEA insiders. If true, you would agree this puts the Iranian issue in a different light, no?

In this light, I can’t emphasize enough what an incredible disservice to American interests it has been to go out in front with this idealogical “Axis of Evil” crap. The bellicosity benefits the hardline Iranian government, strengthens them, undermines Iranian moderates. Why on earth would we do that? Perhaps we are interested in a larger war… Perhaps over oil? Cheney’s energy policy was the first WHIG.

That is my view of where Bush-Cheney are attempting to take us and these last few months of Bush’s Admin are absolutely scary. We do not want war with Iran right now. Not because the hardliners aren’t evil. Not because we don’t have a great military.

Because we are in an AWFUL strategic position, AQ remains a threat, we are over-extended in Iraq, serious risks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we carry very grave disadvantages (vis-a-vis energy). It’s quite possible we would lose. Not invasion and surrender, but loss along the lines of Vietnam and damage to our position in the world.

As Obama has saying for over a year now, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Wahhabism is the primary threat to the United States at this point in time. The threat is common to most countries in the international community. Obama is seeking a break from past policies, advocating a return to pragmatic realism in foreign policy, focus on Al Qaeda, whose center of gravity is in Afg/Pak, and a realistic recognition of the limitations we face. That sounds like a winner to me.

And I fail to see how the points from surveyor or jfiq add up to anything more than random anti-aircraft fire. They don’t make even the slightest difference on this broader point and more essential point.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I want to isolate your comment about Vietnam and the aftermath to illustrate the problems with “misperceptions”.

The US military in Vietnam never lost a battle. Not one. The Tet Offensive of 1968, which Walter Cronkite (among other US newspeople) characterized as a US “defeat” was exactly the opposite. The US destroyed the fighting capability of the Viet Cong for the balance of the war and inflicted such massive casualties on the North Vietnamese Army that it took them years to rebuild their offensive capabilities. However, the American people believed that Tet was a defeat for US forces and the pressure increased on the homefront to end the war and get the troops home.

In 1972, the US launched the “Linebacker” campaigns, a series of sustained bombings against Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor (the main transhipment point for Soviet and Chinese military supplies and materiel). In large part, the campaign was designed to break the deadlock for the US/North Vietnamese peace talks and the overwhelming display of US firepower worked superbly.

Lastly, and most importantly, from 1973 through 1975, during Nixon’s “Vietnamization” program (the tranisition from US led operations to South Vietnamese led operations) the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam – the South Vietnamese forces) forces more than held their own against the North Vietnamese Army (communist). However, this success was entirely predicated on continued US military aid and materiel, and, in 1975 Congress pulled the plug on aid to South Vietnam and precipitated the complete collapse of the South.

I bring all of this up for two reasons: (1) Vietnam was not “Vietnam” in the conventionally held sense, meaning most of what we’ve been told or taught is in direct contradiction of the actual facts of the war, and (2) The parallels exist between Vietnam and Iraq, but not in the way(s) most people think.

Our precipitate withdrawal from Southeast Asia allowed the predations of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges, as well as those of the North Vietnamese. It also started a long slide for US prestige and power on the world stage, culminating with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the hostage crisis in Iran, both in 1979.

I would argue that our strategic position is not as awful as you imagine. I don’t think our bellicosity with Iran is the best approach, but I don’t think we’ll get much out of attempting to engage the people, either. The hardliners control that country in every sense of the word, and breaking that control will take years, if not a decade or longer. We don’t have that kind of time when it comes to Iran’s timeline to develop the bomb (and I would agree that they probably are already in possession of one or more). We need to develop a strategy that works now and includes possible options that the Europeans won’t countenance, such as military strikes or action by proxy (Israel).

I was also being serious when I asked your opinion of what the heck “American Realism” is. What school of thought is this? Wilsonian? Emersonian? Kissingerian?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I want to isolate your comment about Vietnam and the aftermath to illustrate the problems with “misperceptions”.

The US military in Vietnam never lost a battle. Not one. The Tet Offensive of 1968, which Walter Cronkite (among other US newspeople) characterized as a US “defeat” was exactly the opposite. The US destroyed the fighting capability of the Viet Cong for the balance of the war and inflicted such massive casualties on the North Vietnamese Army that it took them years to rebuild their offensive capabilities. However, the American people believed that Tet was a defeat for US forces and the pressure increased on the homefront to end the war and get the troops home.

In 1972, the US launched the “Linebacker” campaigns, a series of sustained bombings against Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor (the main transhipment point for Soviet and Chinese military supplies and materiel). In large part, the campaign was designed to break the deadlock for the US/North Vietnamese peace talks and the overwhelming display of US firepower worked superbly.

Lastly, and most importantly, from 1973 through 1975, during Nixon’s “Vietnamization” program (the tranisition from US led operations to South Vietnamese led operations) the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam – the South Vietnamese forces) forces more than held their own against the North Vietnamese Army (communist). However, this success was entirely predicated on continued US military aid and materiel, and, in 1975 Congress pulled the plug on aid to South Vietnam and precipitated the complete collapse of the South.

I bring all of this up for two reasons: (1) Vietnam was not “Vietnam” in the conventionally held sense, meaning most of what we’ve been told or taught is in direct contradiction of the actual facts of the war, and (2) The parallels exist between Vietnam and Iraq, but not in the way(s) most people think.

Our precipitate withdrawal from Southeast Asia allowed the predations of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges, as well as those of the North Vietnamese. It also started a long slide for US prestige and power on the world stage, culminating with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the hostage crisis in Iran, both in 1979.

I would argue that our strategic position is not as awful as you imagine. I don’t think our bellicosity with Iran is the best approach, but I don’t think we’ll get much out of attempting to engage the people, either. The hardliners control that country in every sense of the word, and breaking that control will take years, if not a decade or longer. We don’t have that kind of time when it comes to Iran’s timeline to develop the bomb (and I would agree that they probably are already in possession of one or more). We need to develop a strategy that works now and includes possible options that the Europeans won’t countenance, such as military strikes or action by proxy (Israel).

I was also being serious when I asked your opinion of what the heck “American Realism” is. What school of thought is this? Wilsonian? Emersonian? Kissingerian?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I want to isolate your comment about Vietnam and the aftermath to illustrate the problems with “misperceptions”.

The US military in Vietnam never lost a battle. Not one. The Tet Offensive of 1968, which Walter Cronkite (among other US newspeople) characterized as a US “defeat” was exactly the opposite. The US destroyed the fighting capability of the Viet Cong for the balance of the war and inflicted such massive casualties on the North Vietnamese Army that it took them years to rebuild their offensive capabilities. However, the American people believed that Tet was a defeat for US forces and the pressure increased on the homefront to end the war and get the troops home.

In 1972, the US launched the “Linebacker” campaigns, a series of sustained bombings against Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor (the main transhipment point for Soviet and Chinese military supplies and materiel). In large part, the campaign was designed to break the deadlock for the US/North Vietnamese peace talks and the overwhelming display of US firepower worked superbly.

Lastly, and most importantly, from 1973 through 1975, during Nixon’s “Vietnamization” program (the tranisition from US led operations to South Vietnamese led operations) the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam – the South Vietnamese forces) forces more than held their own against the North Vietnamese Army (communist). However, this success was entirely predicated on continued US military aid and materiel, and, in 1975 Congress pulled the plug on aid to South Vietnam and precipitated the complete collapse of the South.

I bring all of this up for two reasons: (1) Vietnam was not “Vietnam” in the conventionally held sense, meaning most of what we’ve been told or taught is in direct contradiction of the actual facts of the war, and (2) The parallels exist between Vietnam and Iraq, but not in the way(s) most people think.

Our precipitate withdrawal from Southeast Asia allowed the predations of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges, as well as those of the North Vietnamese. It also started a long slide for US prestige and power on the world stage, culminating with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the hostage crisis in Iran, both in 1979.

I would argue that our strategic position is not as awful as you imagine. I don’t think our bellicosity with Iran is the best approach, but I don’t think we’ll get much out of attempting to engage the people, either. The hardliners control that country in every sense of the word, and breaking that control will take years, if not a decade or longer. We don’t have that kind of time when it comes to Iran’s timeline to develop the bomb (and I would agree that they probably are already in possession of one or more). We need to develop a strategy that works now and includes possible options that the Europeans won’t countenance, such as military strikes or action by proxy (Israel).

I was also being serious when I asked your opinion of what the heck “American Realism” is. What school of thought is this? Wilsonian? Emersonian? Kissingerian?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I want to isolate your comment about Vietnam and the aftermath to illustrate the problems with “misperceptions”.

The US military in Vietnam never lost a battle. Not one. The Tet Offensive of 1968, which Walter Cronkite (among other US newspeople) characterized as a US “defeat” was exactly the opposite. The US destroyed the fighting capability of the Viet Cong for the balance of the war and inflicted such massive casualties on the North Vietnamese Army that it took them years to rebuild their offensive capabilities. However, the American people believed that Tet was a defeat for US forces and the pressure increased on the homefront to end the war and get the troops home.

In 1972, the US launched the “Linebacker” campaigns, a series of sustained bombings against Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor (the main transhipment point for Soviet and Chinese military supplies and materiel). In large part, the campaign was designed to break the deadlock for the US/North Vietnamese peace talks and the overwhelming display of US firepower worked superbly.

Lastly, and most importantly, from 1973 through 1975, during Nixon’s “Vietnamization” program (the tranisition from US led operations to South Vietnamese led operations) the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam – the South Vietnamese forces) forces more than held their own against the North Vietnamese Army (communist). However, this success was entirely predicated on continued US military aid and materiel, and, in 1975 Congress pulled the plug on aid to South Vietnam and precipitated the complete collapse of the South.

I bring all of this up for two reasons: (1) Vietnam was not “Vietnam” in the conventionally held sense, meaning most of what we’ve been told or taught is in direct contradiction of the actual facts of the war, and (2) The parallels exist between Vietnam and Iraq, but not in the way(s) most people think.

Our precipitate withdrawal from Southeast Asia allowed the predations of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges, as well as those of the North Vietnamese. It also started a long slide for US prestige and power on the world stage, culminating with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the hostage crisis in Iran, both in 1979.

I would argue that our strategic position is not as awful as you imagine. I don’t think our bellicosity with Iran is the best approach, but I don’t think we’ll get much out of attempting to engage the people, either. The hardliners control that country in every sense of the word, and breaking that control will take years, if not a decade or longer. We don’t have that kind of time when it comes to Iran’s timeline to develop the bomb (and I would agree that they probably are already in possession of one or more). We need to develop a strategy that works now and includes possible options that the Europeans won’t countenance, such as military strikes or action by proxy (Israel).

I was also being serious when I asked your opinion of what the heck “American Realism” is. What school of thought is this? Wilsonian? Emersonian? Kissingerian?

[Author]

Posts