Monday, August 15, 2005
Defeating the Vietnam syndrome.
One of the major factors in the neocon rush to war was to once and for all squash the so called Vietnam syndrome. This syndrome was the reluctance of the American people to become involved in drawn out quagmires with increasing body counts in countries half the world away in wars that aren't necessary. The neocons I'm afraid have if anything re-inforced this syndrome.
Iraq is not Vietnam. If anything the implications of defeat in Iraq are far more deadly to our national safety than the defeat in southeast asia. The communists got a unified Vietnam as a result of our misguided war there. Vietnam never really was about communism v.s. capitalism in the great struggle of ideas between the two sides in the cold war. It was simply a civil war in which the south turned to the west for support, and the north out of necessity turned to the Soviets. Basically it was a big pissing match in the cold war and we lost. Did the rest of Asia topple to the Soviets? In spite of the rights dire predictions of the time... no.
Iraq on the other hand has turned into a big pissing match in the war on terror. A needless pissing match I might add. A defeat in this struggle may very well give the terrorists, a current non state affiliated group, a client state, or 2 or 3 from which they may openly foment further destruction on our interests. I suspect when all is said and done there will be 3 states in the current Iraq, those being the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis. The Shi'ite state will most likely be a wholly owned puppet state of Iran. The Sunni's will hold a grudge that will fester for generations over this war. And given a choice between support of Turkey or Kurdistan who will America side with? If history is any map, it will be Turkey. 2, and maybe 3 of these 3 states will be against us in the global war on terror. A decided loss of gigantic propotions in the war on terror, all brought about in a misguided effort that included the goal of defeating the Vietnam syndrome.
But guess what? This war has if anything STRENGTHENED the syndrome it was fomented in part to defeat. After Iraq can you imagine another president fighting a war of choice? Much less decieving the public and alienating the world to do so? Bush noise over Iran not withstanding, the next time we go to battle it will be an unmistakable necessity, as was the case in Afghanistan. I doubt very seriously if President Bill Clinton could have pulled off his masterful handling of the Balkans affair post Iraq.
The Vietnam syndrome is here to stay thanks to the neocon folly of Iraq. And this actually may be for the best interests of America. We need to fight wars of necessity, based on honesty where the national interest is clearly threatened. Iraq and Vietnam are/were wars of choice that should never have been embarked upon.
For confirmation of the stated neocon goal of defeating the Vietnam syndrome with a war in Iraq all you need to is google search Iraq Vietnam syndrome for 60,500 hits on the subject, many of which cover this particular war goal specifically.
Iraq is not Vietnam. If anything the implications of defeat in Iraq are far more deadly to our national safety than the defeat in southeast asia. The communists got a unified Vietnam as a result of our misguided war there. Vietnam never really was about communism v.s. capitalism in the great struggle of ideas between the two sides in the cold war. It was simply a civil war in which the south turned to the west for support, and the north out of necessity turned to the Soviets. Basically it was a big pissing match in the cold war and we lost. Did the rest of Asia topple to the Soviets? In spite of the rights dire predictions of the time... no.
Iraq on the other hand has turned into a big pissing match in the war on terror. A needless pissing match I might add. A defeat in this struggle may very well give the terrorists, a current non state affiliated group, a client state, or 2 or 3 from which they may openly foment further destruction on our interests. I suspect when all is said and done there will be 3 states in the current Iraq, those being the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis. The Shi'ite state will most likely be a wholly owned puppet state of Iran. The Sunni's will hold a grudge that will fester for generations over this war. And given a choice between support of Turkey or Kurdistan who will America side with? If history is any map, it will be Turkey. 2, and maybe 3 of these 3 states will be against us in the global war on terror. A decided loss of gigantic propotions in the war on terror, all brought about in a misguided effort that included the goal of defeating the Vietnam syndrome.
But guess what? This war has if anything STRENGTHENED the syndrome it was fomented in part to defeat. After Iraq can you imagine another president fighting a war of choice? Much less decieving the public and alienating the world to do so? Bush noise over Iran not withstanding, the next time we go to battle it will be an unmistakable necessity, as was the case in Afghanistan. I doubt very seriously if President Bill Clinton could have pulled off his masterful handling of the Balkans affair post Iraq.
The Vietnam syndrome is here to stay thanks to the neocon folly of Iraq. And this actually may be for the best interests of America. We need to fight wars of necessity, based on honesty where the national interest is clearly threatened. Iraq and Vietnam are/were wars of choice that should never have been embarked upon.
For confirmation of the stated neocon goal of defeating the Vietnam syndrome with a war in Iraq all you need to is google search Iraq Vietnam syndrome for 60,500 hits on the subject, many of which cover this particular war goal specifically.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
