Still Fighting The Last Anti-War

Hell, some of them are still upset that we didn't lose fast enough in Vietnam to suit them.

If you're going to lose a war, you're better off losing it as fast as possible; or better yet, don't fight it in the first place. War does not give you an A for effort.

On that note, now that we are "winning" in Iraq, it's as plain as ever that we're not winning anything that we want. Prime Minister Maliki asked us to go home. And remember those helpful Anbar Awakening Councils? The central government has issued arrest warrants for them. This goes hand in hand with what Maliki has said several times, that Iran is their brotherly neighbor.

Then too, the Iraq war doesn't make sense unless Iraq deserves to be more than half of our entire foreign policy. We've had some reminders this month that some other countries could be a little more important than Iraq.

In point of fact we did not lose the Vietnam war. North Vietnam never defeated anybody capable of shooting back at them, on any level of combat. By late 1972 their ability to wage war was largely exhausted and South Vietnam had far greater material strength. Thus the peace treaty permitted both sides to replace materiel on a one for one basis but forbade either side from arming beyong the level of supplies pssessed when the treaty was signed. Thus North Vietnam had been forced to accept peace on terms which would never allow it to resume its aggression. The next two years saw a remarkable execution of policy on the part of the US Congress. The Congress, in my opinion deliberately and maliciously, and certainly in violation of treaty obligations, stripped South Vietnam of the means with which to fight by refusing the one to one replacement of materiel required by the treaty. At the same time they encouraged the massive illegal rearmament of North Vietnam by the Soviet Union. All of those tanks and guns and bullets and bombs with which North Vietnam invaded the South in 1975 simply did not exist two years earlier and the United States Congress had done everything in its power to insure that nothing, particularly the United States government, would interfere with their delivery. By the end, the once powerful South Vietnamese Army had little besides empty tubes to point at its enemy. It is very important to understand that a variety of sources, published at the time and since, show that the North Vietnamese government had no real expectation the the United States was going to betray South Vietnam in so grand a fashion.
Winning, and then switching sides, does not constitute losing.
It's interesting to note that just after the fall of Saigon and Phnom Penh, the "anti war" types held a big rally in Central Park at which many were wearing T-shirts that read, "We won in South Vietnam and Cambodia." Thus proving that they had never been truly anti-war, just on the other side.

North Vietnam never defeated anybody capable of shooting back at them, on any level of combat.

You're right that North Vietnam didn't defeat the United States, because that's basically impossible. (North Vietnam did rout the Khmer Rouge in 1979, but that's a separate issue.) We lost in the sense that we defeated our own strategic interests. In Vietnam, it was that South Vietnam was a limp puppet that could never stand on its own. In Iraq, it's that our "ally" in Baghdad is actually against us and wants us to go home.

And again, in both Vietnam and Iraq, the larger question was whether either of these two medium-small nations could ever be worth more than half of our entire foreign policy.

Michael, so true and so discouraging. Strong as we are I wonder how long we can survive the rot from within...

Boy, Jim, are you ever wholly disconnected from reality. I don't even see the point of arguing with you on this point -- one wouldn't know where to begin. But you could do worse than go read Michael Totten's reporting from beginning to end.

But you could do worse than go read Michael Totten's reporting from beginning to end.

I have read plenty of Michael Totten's web site. You can always count on Michael Totten to report the truth, but certainly not the whole truth. For instance, suppose that he's reporting on the Anbar Awakening Councils, and suppose that the Sunnis on these councils are terrified of the Iraqi hospital system because the Health Ministry is controlled by Shiite militias. Suppose also that the councils are paid entirely by the United States because the central government refuses to send them a dime. Then in reality, these are devastating contradictions of our interests in Iraq. But in Michael Totten's version, they're just little details that he might mention now and then.

Again, the most glaring omission of all is the fact that despite everything going on with China, Russia, and Pakistan, Iraq is still more than half of our entire foreign policy. Totten undoubtedly knows that too, but he hasn't treated it as important.

You can always count on Michael Totten to report the truth, but certainly not the whole truth.

Uh...Jim, pardon my French, but how the fuck would you know? I mean, the guy has been all over Iraq for years, knows it top to bottom, goes out into the field with the jarheads and sees it all up close and personal. Furthermore, his early reporting, even when it contradicts the Conventional Wisdom, has been proved right again and again.

And your ability to second-guess this expert comes from...exactly where? Been there yourself as much, or more? Know family and friends all over Iraq? Got a spy network that would make the CIA cry with envy? Or is it just obvious, if you have the right theoretical frame of mind? Kind of like Augustine's argument for the existence of God? (It's obvious! QED.)

Uh...Jim, pardon my French, but how the fuck would you know?

Because I read other equally expert sources. In fact some of them are a lot more credible, for one reason because Totten doesn't speak Arabic. Totten has made such a big deal of the fact that we have supposedly won the hearts and minds of these Awakening Councils. But then many other sources point out that we pay them. So of course they sound loyal. We pay them to do that.

We pay them to sound loyal, we pay them not to shoot at us, and some cases that's all that we pay them to do. There are villages that were wracked with insurgent attacks, but when the officers came in with money bags and set up Awakening Councils, boom, days later the attacks disappeared. It's just common sense that we're not really winning in these places, we're paying protection money.

In fact Michael Totten himself often reveals what he downplays. I'm sure that he knows that we pay the Awakening Councils. He's probably said so or implied it here and there. He just acts like it's not important. Basically his site has everything going for it except common sense.

> We pay them to sound loyal, we pay them not to shoot at us,

We also paid occupied Germans and Japanese to sound loyal and to not shoot at us.

Why is Iraq different?

We also paid occupied Germans and Japanese to sound loyal and to not shoot at us.

No, we paid for national reconstruction. We most certainly did not pay individual Germans and Japanese not to shoot at us. Such individuals were arrested, not paid.

Jim,
Forget Totten then if you don't trust him. I've suggested several times here, to you and others, to find some of the people who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ask them, especially repeaters, what they think. Ask them how different and better it is.

After you've listened to them, tell us what you think of the war and the cost in lives and dollars.

I've suggested several times here, to you and others, to find some of the people who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afgahnistan is very different from Iraq, but in any case I've read what they have to say.

Tell us what you think of the war and the cost in lives and dollars.

Am I supposed to believe that one country, Iraq, with 1/200 of the world's population, deserves most of the foreign policy of the United States? Let's say for the sake of argument that Iraq is now a paradise. It's nothing of the sort, but let's say that it was. Why would these few people deserve so much more of our time and effort than the rest of the world?

There are so many other countries where we could make a positive difference, from India to Pakistan to Brazil. In the big world, the one whose countries played at the Olympics, people have written off American foreign policy, whether or not they like America. They figure that we'll be busy "winning" in Iraq for years to come, and therefore that we won't have time for much else.

Maybe if Dick Cheney had been drafted, he and Rush Limbaugh could
have won that war all by themselves, Instead of leaving it to
John Kerry to win 3 Silver Stars over there.

We'd know more about John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry if he'd ever RELEASED his full military records, John.

Can you think of a reason he STILL hasn't?

(cough cough Big Chicken Dinner cough cough)

I agree with you though: Only soldiers should have any political voice in this counry, and slimy civ's should just shut up and keep to their place.

Of course, the military votes 70% Republican, so I guess that would leave YOU in deep kimchi.

Afgahnistan is very different from Iraq, but in any case I've read what they have to say.

What? Couldn't find anybody to actually talk to you?

Hey John Smythe, I suppose you'll be voting for McCain then over Obama?

Because I read other equally expert sources.

Um...such as who? C'mon, don't keep them a secret. Who are you reading who is as credible and informed, but sees things very differently?

Am I supposed to believe that one country, Iraq, with 1/200 of the world's population, deserves most of the foreign policy of the United States?

Oy, so many logical errors here:

(1) What makes you feel the "foreign policy" of the United States is some odd finite tangible resource, a zero-sum game, so that if X of the "foreign policy oil" is burned on Iraq, then there will be X less left to burn on Brazil or Ossetia?

Yes, I realize this is one of the Left's talking points, but think it out for yourself. Don't succumb to groupthink. What, exactly, is in limited supply here? Condi Rice's airline travel budget? The amount of breath Senators have available to pontificate on the Senate floor? The number of pages in the President's foreign leader phone number Rolodex? The number of staffers the President can hire to read the main daily newspaper in the capital of Foobaristan and take careful notes?

I suspect the problem is you're approaching this from your personal experience, as if you (and you alone) were running the show, and thinking boy, I couldn't solve all those problems at once. And, of course, you couldn't.

But that's what international-level managers are good at: finding responsible people to handle all the leg work, freeing themselves up to guide the big picture. How do you think the CEO of GE or IBM or Daimler/Chrysler can handle all the zillions of tasks involved in running such a huge corporation? What if they have some merger, and the company doubles in size? Does everything go to hell?

No, it doesn't. When you reach a certain level of organizing and managing ability, the mere addition of more things to manage of the same type you're already managing is pretty trivial. You're already managing a sales force, so adding another 50 sales reps is easy, you just hire a sales manager (which you know how to do), delegate, and off you go.

The President is already handling foreign policy. Adding more is easy, unless -- and you haven't argued this -- the new policy is somehow fundamentally different from any other foreign policy he's handling, so that he'd be taking on a totally new type of responsibility he doesn't know how to delegate.

(2) What makes you think any part of the world is suffering from "neglect" in American foreign policy? Is there evidence that State is putting foreign leaders on hold for hours and hours? The President and Senate are pulling all-nighters to finish up a new treaty or trade agreement by the deadline, because they've been too busy to get to it during regular hours?

I don't see it. Far as I can see, Congress acts like it has all the time in the world, can easily afford to blow off days and weeks holding hearings on major-league baseball steroids, what, exactly, was said when by who in 2002 (six years ago!) to justify the war in Iraq, and so on. They don't seem to be feeling any pressure. Nor do I hear of any foreign leaders saying, geez, the US promised to get back to us about this, and they haven't, always saying they're too busy, the check is in the mail, yadda yadda.

You may not like the foreign policy choices of the President, but I see zero evidence that any of those choices are default choices from lack of time and attention. They all seem to be deliberate choices.

(3) Can you think of any foreign policy actions the US should be taking, but isn't? What do you want to do in respect to India, Pakistan, Brazil? Send them money? Threaten them with warships? Negotiate treaties to do....uh....what, exactly? Again, you may not like cozening up to Musharraf, but that isn't a policy chosen from lack of time to consider other options. It was a deliberate choice.

(4) I don't think you ought to measure the importance of foreign policy areas by the population living there. Otherwise, our policy vis-a-vis Nigeria (population 120 million or so) is more important than our policy vis-a-vis France, Germany, the UK, Poland, or Australia. And who cares about those handful of Ossetians? Or the tiny numbers of Pacific Islanders threatened by sea rise?

For that matter, if you applied that reasoning at home, you'd ditch affirmative action and civil rights -- who cares about the concerns of a mere 11% of the population (black Americans)? We need to focus on the larger groups!

The President is right about one thing: Iraq is uniquely important, because it is the only realistic chance that's ever arisen for a reasonably enlightened and tolerably well-off democracy to arise in the Arab Middle East, midwifed by the United States. Other countries (Egypt, Saudia Arabia) have deeply entrenched tyrannies, are boutique states (Qatar), or are irreparably poor (Syria, Jordan). One could have made a case for Lebanon, but that ship sailed 25 years ago.

How important is it for a tradition of liberal democracy to gain a solid foothold among (1) the major oil-producing region of the planet, and (2) in the birthplace of terrorism, and (3) in the birthplace of Islam? How will the light of this beacon, if lit, shine on the rest of the world? You could argue that, historically speaking, it's the equivalent of setting up liberal democracy in Japan and Germany in 1945. Or ask what might have happened had it been set up in Russia in 1917.

Whether the Presidence succeeds or not, or is following the right course to succeed or not, are matters where reasonable men can disagree. But the long-term importance of success is clear to careful thinkers, to those not blinded by the urgency of achieving an immediate political advantage, like those narcissistic fucks now shamefully driving the party of Truman and FDR into the ground.

I respect John McCain, I've given him money.

However, With all due respect, Senator McCain is now far too old to be
President and CinC. The Job of president will break many a younger man,
even GW Bush, the laziest man to be president is aging under the
strain.

Ronald Reagan was clearly fading into alzheimers in his second term, and
was having serious mental deficiencies in his second term when he
was in his middle 70's.

John McCain is about to turn 72, he would be as old as Ronald Reagan in his
second term, in his first term, which would provide the unique and very
discomforting prospect of both a lame duck and a decrepit man as leader.

Many an unpopular president has had the youthful vigor to get out and
stump for policies, in their second term, while being a lame duck.

Senator McCain would be suffering badly from the beginning, and this
country needs a leader with vigor and energy now more then ever.

A president too old to remember the difference between Iraq and Iran
is unlikely to be able to handle the critical decisions coming now as
china and Taiwan begin to spar, as Pakistan disintegrates and Iran and Iraq
require management.

So in that respect, no matter what I may think of Senator Obama, I don't
believe Senator McCain can do the job.

Michael wrote:
In point of fact we did not lose the Vietnam war. North Vietnam never defeated anybody capable of shooting back at them, on any level of combat. By late 1972 their ability to wage war was largely exhausted and South Vietnam had far greater material strength. Thus the peace treaty permitted both sides to replace materiel on a one for one basis but forbade either side from arming beyong the level of supplies pssessed when the treaty was signed. Thus North Vietnam had been forced to accept peace on terms which would never allow it to resume its aggression. The next two years saw a remarkable execution of policy on the part of the US Congress. The Congress, in my opinion deliberately and maliciously, and certainly in violation of treaty obligations, stripped South Vietnam of the means with which to fight by refusing the one to one replacement of materiel required by the treaty. At the same time they encouraged the massive illegal rearmament of North Vietnam by the Soviet Union. All of those tanks and guns and bullets and bombs with which North Vietnam invaded the South in 1975 simply did not exist two years earlier and the United States Congress had done everything in its power to insure that nothing, particularly the United States government, would interfere with their delivery. By the end, the once powerful South Vietnamese Army had little besides empty tubes to point at its enemy. It is very important to understand that a variety of sources, published at the time and since, show that the North Vietnamese government had no real expectation the the United States was going to betray South Vietnam in so grand a fashion.

Actually Michael is Completely wrong on matters of fact, which is not surprising.

North Vietnam never defeated anybody capable of shooting back at them, on any level of combat.

1) The Viet Minh certainly defeated the french in the field not just at Dien Bien Phu, but certainly at An Khe. The French Foreign Legionaires were no weaklings,
and they got creamed twice in a month.

2) 70,00 NVA Vietnamese reservists took on a chinese assault force of 200,000 men with 400,000 reserves and over 400 tanks, and killed over 60,000 chinese soldiers in the
third Indo-chinese war. This was in 1979, just 4 years after they took apart the ARVN forces. This was while their main Battle force was occupying Cambodia and reducing
the Khmer Rouge forces.

3) The Viet Minh certainly handed the hats to the 2/7th Cav at Ia Drang and later to the Americal Division at FireBase MaryAnn as well as the ARVN's at many a battle
from Ap Bac to Lap Song 17. The ARVN were rarely able to make effective use of tactics, material or american support, suffering from severe political and institutional
problems.

4) The ARVN were collapsing in 1965, that is why American Forces were committed to the fight, 10 years later, when american forces withdrew the
situation returned to status quo. The ARVN began disintegrating, and the North Vietnamese pushed and it collapsed.

Who are you reading who is as credible and informed, but sees things very differently?

Among others, Anthony Cordesman and Dexter Filkins.

What makes you feel the "foreign policy" of the United States is some odd finite tangible resource

Above all, money is a finite resource. Most of what the US government spends on other countries, it spends on Iraq.

What makes you think any part of the world is suffering from "neglect" in American foreign policy?

Entirely apart from military expenditures, a lot of people in other countries are wondering why Iraqis are uniquely entitled to development aid. In that respect as well as others, our foreign policy in Pakistan in particular is indeed craven and neglected.

Can you think of any foreign policy actions the US should be taking, but isn't?

Pakistan has five times the population of Iraq. If it received even half as much development aid as Iraq, it would do a great deal to win hearts and minds of Pakistanis. Maybe you can think of some reasons that that's important, beginning with Al Qaeda and ending with nuclear weapons.

I don't think you ought to measure the importance of foreign policy areas by the population living there.

Again, terrorism and nuclear weapons are two other measures by which Pakistan stands out. But yes, the fact that Pakistan is five times the size of Iraq should also matter.

The President is right about one thing: Iraq is uniquely important, because it is the only realistic chance that's ever arisen for a reasonably enlightened and tolerably well-off democracy to arise in the Arab Middle East

That's a steaming pile. Iraq is not nearly as enlightened or affluent as Lebanon and no one expects it to be for decades to come. Iraq is an extreme oil welfare state while Lebanon has a real market economy; despite Iraq's vast oil supply, Lebanon's GDP per capita is several times higher. As for enlightenment, Iraq almost didn't make it to the Olympics because it destroyed its own Olympic committee in a sectarian purge.

Your lofty vision of Iraq's future is similar to the Taliban's promises that they would make Kabul like Paris.

"Your lofty vision of Iraq's future is similar to the Taliban's promises that they would make Kabul like Paris."

Now Jim... stop saying nasty things about your allies. They're the only friends you have, after all.