OT: Obama is Conservative

[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?

[NotCranky]

It’s about time you show up Dan. A strong debater with your views is very welcome. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts.

Surveyor already knew that.

[NotCranky]

It’s about time you show up Dan. A strong debater with your views is very welcome. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts.

Surveyor already knew that.

[NotCranky]

It’s about time you show up Dan. A strong debater with your views is very welcome. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts.

Surveyor already knew that.

[NotCranky]

It’s about time you show up Dan. A strong debater with your views is very welcome. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts.

Surveyor already knew that.

[NotCranky]

It’s about time you show up Dan. A strong debater with your views is very welcome. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts.

Surveyor already knew that.

[gandalf]

That’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.

BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).

My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.

I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.

Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.

[gandalf]

That’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.

BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).

My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.

I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.

Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.

[gandalf]

That’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.

BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).

My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.

I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.

Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.

[gandalf]

That’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.

BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).

My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.

I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.

Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.

[gandalf]

That’s interesting, AFF. Thought-provoking. And I think I see the connection you’re drawing to Iraq.

BTW, do you think “The Surge” seems to be following same path as the events you describe in Vietnam? I don’t have a military background but I find it hard to imagine that ‘adding 30,000 troops’ has made THE DIFFERENCE. We’ve got what? 150K troops in uniform plus how many more thousands of contractors? I imagine it’s upwards of 50K off-books (GWB’s preferred approach to accounting).

My take, the perceived improvements in conditions, as reported in the American MSM, are part statistical tom-foolery, plus real improvements due to better understanding of conditions on the ground, better counter-insurgency strategy and tactics, better leadership from Petraus, elimination of dreadful mistakes such as Abu Ghraib, mistakes by AQ that have turned local population against AQ, especially in Sunni areas, and partly peaceful ethnic cleansing and management of civil strife via security walls, mangaging transit, checkpoints, etc.

I’d suggest that the overall narrative of the surge seems to be following the same path as Vietnam events, distorted for politics back home. McCain especially seem intent on using it to weaken Obama. I disapprove of playing this kind of politics with issues of war and peace. Falsehoods seem to come back to haunt us, with absurd impacts on outcomes in the long-term. This seems to be one of the lessons from Vietnam, as you describe above.

Have to work today, but I’ll check in later. Appreciate the questions.

[gandalf]

FYI, I think the weakness in our strategic position is chiefly economic, depletion of wealth and imbalance of accounts (staggering flow of capital out of the country over the past 20 years), and very specifically, our energy infrastructure.

I think economic aspects were ALWAYS part of Bin Laden’s game plan, if not the central strategy. Bankrupt us. Is is fair to say the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was in part due to the staggering costs of the war?

Seems like we tend to credit America as being a bit more responsible for winning the Cold War than we actually were. Glasnost and Perestroika were as much about the failure of Soviet systems internally as they were about us. Sure we helped. We held the line and applied tremendous pressure. But the Soviets were primarily responsible for their own demise.

Could similar breakdowns occur to American institutions and systems of governance, politics, economy, society? It’s quite possible that we’re witnessing some of this occurring before our very eyes. Pax Cathay. What a scary thought.

Overall, I’m optimistic. I think we can turn things around (get past Iraq and the mortgage crisis, for example). But I think we have to start addressing our collective future in earnest, in a non-partisan way, and it starts with re-inventing and re-tooling our energy infrastructure. That’s the challenge of our time.

In the interim, I think we have to be ‘realistic’ about national security and what we can achieve with our foreign policy. That would be “American Realism” to me — simply being pragmatic about what we can achieve. We have finite (but effective) resources.

War has a time and place. Iraq is not at the top of the list. In my view, Obama, though not a ‘policy wonk’, has correctly prioritized and identified a sound overall direction. I think his comprehension, values and vision are correct. Remains to be seen if he governs effectively.

My take, for what it’s worth.

[gandalf]

FYI, I think the weakness in our strategic position is chiefly economic, depletion of wealth and imbalance of accounts (staggering flow of capital out of the country over the past 20 years), and very specifically, our energy infrastructure.

I think economic aspects were ALWAYS part of Bin Laden’s game plan, if not the central strategy. Bankrupt us. Is is fair to say the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was in part due to the staggering costs of the war?

Seems like we tend to credit America as being a bit more responsible for winning the Cold War than we actually were. Glasnost and Perestroika were as much about the failure of Soviet systems internally as they were about us. Sure we helped. We held the line and applied tremendous pressure. But the Soviets were primarily responsible for their own demise.

Could similar breakdowns occur to American institutions and systems of governance, politics, economy, society? It’s quite possible that we’re witnessing some of this occurring before our very eyes. Pax Cathay. What a scary thought.

Overall, I’m optimistic. I think we can turn things around (get past Iraq and the mortgage crisis, for example). But I think we have to start addressing our collective future in earnest, in a non-partisan way, and it starts with re-inventing and re-tooling our energy infrastructure. That’s the challenge of our time.

In the interim, I think we have to be ‘realistic’ about national security and what we can achieve with our foreign policy. That would be “American Realism” to me — simply being pragmatic about what we can achieve. We have finite (but effective) resources.

War has a time and place. Iraq is not at the top of the list. In my view, Obama, though not a ‘policy wonk’, has correctly prioritized and identified a sound overall direction. I think his comprehension, values and vision are correct. Remains to be seen if he governs effectively.

My take, for what it’s worth.

[gandalf]

FYI, I think the weakness in our strategic position is chiefly economic, depletion of wealth and imbalance of accounts (staggering flow of capital out of the country over the past 20 years), and very specifically, our energy infrastructure.

I think economic aspects were ALWAYS part of Bin Laden’s game plan, if not the central strategy. Bankrupt us. Is is fair to say the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was in part due to the staggering costs of the war?

Seems like we tend to credit America as being a bit more responsible for winning the Cold War than we actually were. Glasnost and Perestroika were as much about the failure of Soviet systems internally as they were about us. Sure we helped. We held the line and applied tremendous pressure. But the Soviets were primarily responsible for their own demise.

Could similar breakdowns occur to American institutions and systems of governance, politics, economy, society? It’s quite possible that we’re witnessing some of this occurring before our very eyes. Pax Cathay. What a scary thought.

Overall, I’m optimistic. I think we can turn things around (get past Iraq and the mortgage crisis, for example). But I think we have to start addressing our collective future in earnest, in a non-partisan way, and it starts with re-inventing and re-tooling our energy infrastructure. That’s the challenge of our time.

In the interim, I think we have to be ‘realistic’ about national security and what we can achieve with our foreign policy. That would be “American Realism” to me — simply being pragmatic about what we can achieve. We have finite (but effective) resources.

War has a time and place. Iraq is not at the top of the list. In my view, Obama, though not a ‘policy wonk’, has correctly prioritized and identified a sound overall direction. I think his comprehension, values and vision are correct. Remains to be seen if he governs effectively.

My take, for what it’s worth.

[gandalf]

FYI, I think the weakness in our strategic position is chiefly economic, depletion of wealth and imbalance of accounts (staggering flow of capital out of the country over the past 20 years), and very specifically, our energy infrastructure.

I think economic aspects were ALWAYS part of Bin Laden’s game plan, if not the central strategy. Bankrupt us. Is is fair to say the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was in part due to the staggering costs of the war?

Seems like we tend to credit America as being a bit more responsible for winning the Cold War than we actually were. Glasnost and Perestroika were as much about the failure of Soviet systems internally as they were about us. Sure we helped. We held the line and applied tremendous pressure. But the Soviets were primarily responsible for their own demise.

Could similar breakdowns occur to American institutions and systems of governance, politics, economy, society? It’s quite possible that we’re witnessing some of this occurring before our very eyes. Pax Cathay. What a scary thought.

Overall, I’m optimistic. I think we can turn things around (get past Iraq and the mortgage crisis, for example). But I think we have to start addressing our collective future in earnest, in a non-partisan way, and it starts with re-inventing and re-tooling our energy infrastructure. That’s the challenge of our time.

In the interim, I think we have to be ‘realistic’ about national security and what we can achieve with our foreign policy. That would be “American Realism” to me — simply being pragmatic about what we can achieve. We have finite (but effective) resources.

War has a time and place. Iraq is not at the top of the list. In my view, Obama, though not a ‘policy wonk’, has correctly prioritized and identified a sound overall direction. I think his comprehension, values and vision are correct. Remains to be seen if he governs effectively.

My take, for what it’s worth.

[Author]

Posts