In the fall of 2004, as I was getting closer to finishing my undergraduate education, I began to breathe easier knowing that I’d soon be leaving the constant barrage of “left-wing propaganda” at the University of Oregon. Like many current college-aged conservatives - I was holding on for dear life to the mainline conservative mantras in the hope that I would pull through my college experience without succumbing to the mind-washing ideologies surrounding me.
No conservative agenda was more attacked than the War in Iraq, and naturally, I defended that war all the more fiercely. But that began to change when I took a seemingly unrelated class on the history of Vietnam. Reading former Communist Minister of Justice Truong Nhu Tang’s book A Vietcong Memoir allowed me to look at a conflict similar to Iraq without being concerned about the current political debate.
An Overview of Ideology in Vietnam
For Americans on the outside looking in, the politics around the Vietnam War were commonly drawn up in the oversimplistic terms of American might versus the global Communist revolution. Yet for those within South Vietnam’s nationalist struggle for independence, like Truong, the War and the time period surrounding it meant something completely different. Starting from his first encounter with Ho Chi Minh until his eventual exile a few years after the War, Truong and many like him in the various organizations he helped pioneer and participate in, saw independence as the ends of a struggle that employed various means.
He did not want to see Vietnam be the subject of a colonial power (such as France), occupying country (such as the United states) or global ideology (such as Communism). Truong was above all, a nationalist who wanted to see an end to foreign occupation, influence and manipulation in the South as well as a strong, liberal, free and democratic government structure to eventually be unified with the North through peaceful means.
How Violence Becomes the Answer
Why was an otherwise peaceful, democratically-minded individual like Truong drawn to ally himself with such radical and violent communist groups? After all, Truong was not a communist, nor was he sympathetic with their ideology, methods or goals - however, he hated seeing his country occupied. He wanted to be free - left alone by the powers of the world so that he, and his countrymen, could make for themselves a society that reflected their values and culture.
But the US, the latest in a line of occupying powers, was not leaving anytime soon. Moreover, they subverted these noble ideals as illegitimate regime after regime was set up by US agencies. For people like Truong, it was clear that the US was not going to be bargained with and that war was the only alternative left open to them in order to secure freedom. The communists were the most prepared for war and they had plenty of funding from China to make things painful for the US in the South.
The Iraq Parallels
In a war against occupiers, people who would otherwise be enemies (communists and nationalists in this case) are drawn into tight alliances. In many ways, we are seeing the same thing in Iraq - there is strong support for democracy oriented movements in the middle-east. Iraq was burgeoning with such a movement before the US-led invasion, hence the easy sell to the public by US officials. Vice President Dick Cheney, for example:
I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
But liberation soon turned into another long occupation in their land and those who originally welcomed us are ready for us to go and let them pick up the mess. But we aren’t leaving, and our leaders and future leaders are pledging years of occupation. Naturally, at some point, after seeing his family and friends traumatized by the violence surrounding him, the typical peace-minded Iraqi is going to give up on waiting and instead join with terrorists and insurgents. Though he is probably a moderate Muslim and hates the terrorists, he hates the US (and the occupation it represents) more and would rather ally with radical terrorists and try to do something about it than sit back as his life is destroyed as collateral.
In fact, we should consider that imitation is the best form of flattery. Many of the insurgents, rather than hating US ideals, are demonstrating the universality of freedom and liberty. They love those ideals which founded the US - and they are fighting an occupying power just as our founders did some two centuries ago.
Consider the state motto of New Hampshire, “live free or die” - it is a noble phrase, and yet in many ways, it is the rally cry of those moderate Iraqis who have joined with their enemies (and ours) to fight the US.
This article is about two years behind the times. Well-written, but vastly mistaken. Iraqis today are doing quite the opposite, joining with the American forces to wipe out the remaining terrorist strongholds.
This need to live in the past seems to be quite typical of discussion on here regarding Iraq. Also, Colin, your article is inherently flawed in that it assumes that the Iraqi government that the IRAQI PEOPLE ELECTED is equal to (and thus just as illegitimate) as the leadership that the U.S. propped up in Vietnam.
Furthermore, you have neglected a rather obvious difference between the Vietnam “insurgents” and the Iraqi version. In Vietnam, the target was ALWAYS the Americans and any pro-American leadership or forces (or anything/anyone that supported the continuation of that system). In other words, every target had a political goal: to disrupt the status quo and undermine the American occupation. Of course there was collateral damage, but as long as the target was the enemy, then it was tolerated (as all collateral damage is tolerated in war). Also, those doing the acts of terror were mostly a part of the native inhabitants.
Contrast that with the war in Iraq. The target is NOT always the Americans or government leadership, and many times doesn’t even have a political goal in mind, but rather an ideological or religious one: to indiscriminately kill or purposely kill fellow Muslims, with the intended appearance that such killing is due to religious enmity. Plus, those doing most of the actual killing are NOT native inhabitants, but foreign terrorists sent there to create havoc. Thus, while the Iraqis are not all keen on the Americans sticking around (though polls still show that a significant number still want us there), they much prefer that option over the alternative of civil war.
On a big picture level, I find comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq to be unhelpful. The biggest difference is Islam. Its influence in Iraq makes it nearly impossible to apply the lessons learned in Vietnam, where Islam played no part. The worldviews and motivations of the people in Vietnam and Iraq are so far apart that we cannot draw a meaningful parallel. Iraq is not and will never be a second Vietnam. (Maybe it will in the limited sense of being an unpopular American war, but not beyond that.)
I still think America should leave Iraq as soon as possible, i.e., within the next 12 to 18 months.
See, I think the big-picture concepts are the most valuable for comparison. We don’t need to look at Islam vs. Communism and the detailed differences. In reality they are both:
- supra-national ideologies
- radical
- employ non-traditional military tactics
- are meeting the US in an occupied country
- are allied with local insurgents who otherwise would oppose them
Obviously Communism and radical Islam are apples and oranges pragmatically, but in terms of the nature of the dispute with the US - they could not be more alike. While 1960’s Vietnam and modern Iraq are miles apart (in more ways than one), the climate that has arisen directly in resistance to the US military is almost identical in both places.
I agree with Darius and Jew that comparisons to Vietnam are unhelpful. Our goal in Iraq was to remove its leader from power and prevent the stockpile of WMDs. We accomplished both, though it appears that EVERYONE (including high profile people from both US parties and other national governments) was wrong about the stockpiles. If we leave Iraq today, we will have achieved our national security goals.
It was my hope going in that we could do that, set up a local government quickly, and get out. The reason we have had to stay is that a variety of groups have tried to jump into the power vacuum with military force to subvert the will of the Iraqi people as expressed in their election. The target of most of the attacks has NOT been US or Iraqi government forces (which I would agree could be a legitimate insurgency), but against civilian targets of fellow Iraqis (which is how I DEFINE terrorism). What is worse, Al Quaeda got involved, and we’ve had an obligation to fight them while the Iraqi government is unable to do so (leaving would give them a victory against the US and a training ground for future attacks). We cannot entirely cease combat in Iraq until Al Quaeda is driven out or the local government is able to assume this role.
The US badly miscalculated in sending in a small force initially. The tactical planning was great, and allowed us to very quickly take Baghdad with little loss of troops. The problem was that we were not able to secure the munitions or establish any kind of law and order while the Iraqi government re-organized. The recent troop surge was what was needed from month 1, and what has successfully quelled the violence. The Iraqi people now have the opportunity to establish their government and determine their own future. If they now refuse to organize, we have no choice but to leave them to their fate, but we’ve at least given them a real chance now. Disrupting their government and then not establishing order so as to allow them the chance to rebuild would have been unconscionable (and led to future problems in the Middle East that would negatively affect US interests).
Jew, you had me til “America should leave Iraq… in 12 to 18 months”
Do you support leaving before relative peace has been secured? In other words, do you support leaving thousands or millions of people to be massacred? Or are you hoping that in 12 to 18 months, relative peace will be found?
I really have no problem (and don’t really see why anyone would) with us have SOME troops there for many years to come; a la Korea. And, like in South Korea, our troops would have almost no involvement in Iraq but rather use it mostly as a base and a staging ground for any other military operations in the Middle East.
Atanamis, I agree completely. If the Iraqis choose to not come together politically, we should leave. But until that has been clearly shown, we must stay.
So tell me, is the war in Iraq going well or is it going badly? I can never quite tell. See, when I criticize the war, they all tell me it’s going swimmingly. Then when I suggest we bring the soldiers home, they tell me things are so bad that if we leave, millions will die. So which is it? Are things going well, or is Iraq teetering on the brink of a genocide that only the righteous American army can prevent?
You’re giving us a false dichotomy. It’s not either/or. It’s both. It is going quite well right now, but the stabilization is pretty shallow yet, and could collapse if we were to leave immediately. Just because a war is going well doesn’t mean that it is already won and we can pack up our bags. When Patton was sweeping across Europe, things were going quite well. But we could have still lost had we decided to let up early.
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
Politicians make no difference.
We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you would like to read how this happens please see:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/halliburton200711
Through a combination of public apathy and threats by the MIC we have let the SYSTEM get too large. It is now a SYSTEMIC problem and the SYSTEM is out of control. Government and industry are merging and that is very dangerous.
There is no conspiracy. The SYSTEM has gotten so big that those who make it up and run it day to day in industry and government simply are perpetuating their existance.
The politicians rely on them for details and recommendations because they cannot possibly grasp the nuances of the environment and the BIG SYSTEM.
So, the system has to go bust and then be re-scaled, fixed and re-designed to run efficiently and prudently, just like any other big machine that runs poorly or becomes obsolete or dangerous.
This situation will right itself through trauma. I see a government ENRON on the horizon, with an associated house cleaning.
The next president will come and go along with his appointees and politicos. The event to watch is the collapse of the MIC.
For more details see:
http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2007/02/warped-priorities.html
Atanamis wrote:
Our goal in Iraq was to remove its leader from power and prevent the stockpile of WMDs. We accomplished both, though it appears that EVERYONE (including high profile people from both US parties and other national governments) was wrong about the stockpiles. If we leave Iraq today, we will have achieved our national security goals.
Congratulations, we’ve achieved our goals. Too bad the real world isn’t video games where reaching goals = success. We may have reached our national security goals but are we really safer or more secure? We’re we unsafe or unsecure before? Or have we punched the hornets nest because we were afraid of getting stung? Our goals could have been to steal Hussein’s toupe and give free ice cream to the poor, and it won’t convince me that we should have been in there in the first place. And yes, this harkens back to the first Bush administration.
It was my hope going in that we could do that, set up a local government quickly, and get out. The reason we have had to stay is that a variety of groups have tried to jump into the power vacuum with military force to subvert the will of the Iraqi people as expressed in their election.
You give our benevolence too much credit. Go to the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) and it reads like a current playbook. We care less about toppling regimes and “giving civilians a chance” and more about establishing footholds in the middle east for American promotion. I tire of hearing the “we should have swept in huge, delivered them from evil, set up a magical perfectly stable central government, then backed out like fairy godmother” talk. We NEVER were going to back out, we were ALWAYS going to have an occupying presence of some sort (see: 140 bases worldwide). Besides, your above quote Atanamis was the biggest “no duh” I’ve heard in a while. Anyone with any knowledge of history could have told you about the power vacuum and the fall into civil unrest. Whether the U.S. or a military coup stages the overthrow, such power vacuums almost always appear, and warring factions break out. Fundamentalist religion thrown into the hopper just makes it more crazy and fun (sarcasm).
I really have no problem (and don’t really see why anyone would) with us have SOME troops there for many years to come; a la Korea. And, like in South Korea, our troops would have almost no involvement in Iraq but rather use it mostly as a base and a staging ground for any other military operations in the Middle East.
Sounds good, Darius. I’m sure you wouldn’t mind that North Korean base in Key West or that German base in San Diego. THIS is why we create more problems than we help. Keeping bases in foreign areas in order to “be there” for “future military operations” WILL make surrounding countries nervous. And as it should. Just read about the Cuban Missile Crisis sometime and you’ll see what I mean.
Remember Atanamis, we’re stupid fools and ignoramuses to the enlightened Ornot. To him, all regimes, governments, societies are morally equivalent; thus his “North Korean base in Key West or that German base in San Diego” comment. As long as that’s the case, how can you discuss foreign policy with the guy?
You know Ornot, you really would make a great liberal.
I think many of you are missing the boat on this one. Colin wasn’t doing a “play by play” comparison of Vietnam and Iraq, but merely pointing out the similarities between the structures of the two. They ARE quite alike, even in the social outcome in this country. I thought I’d die the first time I saw a “I support our troops. Bring them home!” signs when this Iraqi conflict first began, as it harkened me back to books and newspapers from the Vietnam time with nearly the same slogans. Sure, the current inner struggles of both insurgents AND terrorists and their combination (with Moslems now) thrown into the mix…but much of the similarities do exist, and I think Colin pointed that out, and did it well. Analogies are not meant to be perfect comparisons, but then again, much of history is an analogous comparison, not an exact replica. The saying “history repeats itself” never meant to be a statement of carbon-copy.
Colin said this above:
- supra-national ideologies
- radical
- employ non-traditional military tactics
- are meeting the US in an occupied country
- are allied with local insurgents who otherwise would oppose them
I find those points hard to argue with.
Oh, and to whomever was talking about the targeting of civilians in Iraq, and how that never happened in Vietnam…please pick up a book, and read. Marketplace and restaurant bombings, etc etc. There were various groups in Vietnam…those supportive of the US in the fight against the North Vietnamese, those opposed to both, the involvement of Cambodia, etc etc. Outside forces did indeed influx in from the East and North, seeing this as opportunistic.
They really are more alike than you think.
Just so we’re clear, how has having a base in South Korea caused future problems? It would seem to me that our presence has averted problems, such as North Korea invading the South. Yes, recently some young ungrateful South Korean idiots have protested our presence there. But until North Korea stops being an insane asylum, South Korea will be in danger.
Let’s apply that situation to Iraq… even if things become stable enough for us to mostly pull out, don’t you think there just might be a chance that things could go bad again, especially considering all the nearby governments who would love to see that happen? So, it would seem wise to have at least some military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. I don’t want us policing the place for 20 years, but having a peace-time base wouldn’t seem so out of the question.
Remember Atanamis, we’re stupid fools and ignoramuses to the enlightened Ornot. To him, all regimes, governments, societies are morally equivalent; thus his “North Korean base in Key West or that German base in San Diego” comment. As long as that’s the case, how can you discuss foreign policy with the guy?
You know, you always do take it to that level, don’t you? I never called or have ever assumed you are stupid, ignorant or foolish. Yet, it seems to be what you like to assume when backed in the corner. Or when you really have nothing else to say.
While I may be guilty of equalizing things, you do a fantastic job of raising our own moral equivalent. See, it’s hard to discuss foreign policy with you when you assume yourself morally superior to others. You assume what’s good for the gander, is only good for the gander. Notice how I placed Germany in there…could have been the U.K., France, Switzerland…does it matter? I would say, in a moral equivalency, that Switzerland or France or the U.K. are our peers. Would you still allow their bases in the US? In our backyard? I sure wouldn’t like it very much.
Ornot, I said that all attacks in Vietnam were with a political goal in mind, and always aimed at pro-American people or anything that supported the status quo (i.e. teachers, professionals, etc). In Iraq, many attacks are intended to indiscriminately kill Muslims, hopefully to enrage Shiite against Sunni. Both sides are beginning to see through this charade and assisting the American forces in wiping out the terrorists.
Darius, even though I’m sure you’re joking about the liberal comment due to the smiley, I’ll answer that anyways. I’d make a horrid “liberal” as we have nothing in common. While my ideas and outcomes may occasionally be the same, our methods and methodology behind such assertions are vastly different.
Um, remember how Germany was part of the Axis of Evil? So when you said North Korea or Germany, it seemed rather obvious that you were implying Germany circa 1943.
“I never called or have ever assumed you are stupid, ignorant or foolish.”
Hmm… no, but you sure are good at implying it over and over and over and over. And I quote:
“Congratulations, we’ve achieved our goals. Too bad the real world isn’t video games…”
“I tire of hearing the “we should have swept in huge, delivered them from evil, set up a magical perfectly stable central government, then backed out like fairy godmother” talk.”
“please pick up a book, and read.”
Balls in your court, brother.
I was joking, but occasionally it amazes me how close your foreign policy thoughts are to most radical liberals. You may come to your conclusions from vastly different directions, but that they are the same conclusions is interesting.
Just so we’re clear, how has having a base in South Korea caused future problems? It would seem to me that our presence has averted problems, such as North Korea invading the South. Yes, recently some young ungrateful South Korean idiots have protested our presence there. But until North Korea stops being an insane asylum, South Korea will be in danger.
Let’s apply that situation to Iraq… even if things become stable enough for us to mostly pull out, don’t you think there just might be a chance that things could go bad again, especially considering all the nearby governments who would love to see that happen? So, it would seem wise to have at least some military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. I don’t want us policing the place for 20 years, but having a peace-time base wouldn’t seem so out of the question.
It can cause future problems. Will it? Possibly not. Then again, that’s not the point. As a whole, I disagree with the “speak softly and carry and big stick” policy…I don’t want us as the world’s policeman, which is what we’ve become. My point is, if we were never there, we’d never have the NEED to quell something we helped cause.
Personally, I just find the idea of a “peace-time” base to be an oxymoron. While we may be helping to keep North Korea out of South Korea, why don’t we allow our allies to build military strongholds to protect U.S. soil from another terrorist attack, aka 9/11? We have been told we have legit reason to believe we’ll be attacked again, so I see this as quite similar. I wouldn’t like it very much.
From a historical perspective, it is much in the same ways, similar to the Quartering Acts of British Parliment in the late 18th century. While from a simplistic point of view, it was the illegal quartering of soldiers in personal homes during peace-times when barracks were full….but the colonists found the idea of required standing armies during peace time to be intolerable, especially when the colonists never asked for troops. Many state constitutions make reference AND amendments in this regard. New York State’s constitution says “He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.” In fact, some of the reasons for the Second Amendment were due to the mistrust of standing armies at peacetime, since they were generally regarded as future tools of oppression, hence the need for a strong militia presence. Can you not sympathize with foreign countries in this regard? While our intentions may indeed be good, do you not agree it may be a threat to personal sovereignty?
Ornot, I said that all attacks in Vietnam were with a political goal in mind, and always aimed at pro-American people or anything that supported the status quo (i.e. teachers, professionals, etc). In Iraq, many attacks are intended to indiscriminately kill Muslims, hopefully to enrage Shiite against Sunni. Both sides are beginning to see through this charade and assisting the American forces in wiping out the terrorists.
Enraging Shiite against Sunni is not for merely benign religious fervor. Establishment of a political regime based on one religious sect of Islam is part of the intention as well. I see this in much the same way as the killing of civilians sympathetic to a particular cause/side in Vietnam. The difference? I would say in modern Iraq the outside terrorist cells are much more organized, this is obvious. Still, ignoring the existence of such cells in Vietnam during the 1960’s as dis-similar does injustice. People haven’t changed that much in the past 40 years.
Um, remember how Germany was part of the Axis of Evil? So when you said North Korea or Germany, it seemed rather obvious that you were implying Germany circa 1943.
“I never called or have ever assumed you are stupid, ignorant or foolish.”
Hmm… no, but you sure are good at implying it over and over and over and over. And I quote:
“Congratulations, we’ve achieved our goals. Too bad the real world isn’t video games…”
“I tire of hearing the “we should have swept in huge, delivered them from evil, set up a magical perfectly stable central government, then backed out like fairy godmother” talk.”
“please pick up a book, and read.”
Balls in your court, brother.
I will admit, perhaps Germany was a poor choice. I was referring to modern Germany, not WWI/WWII Germany. My mistake. Though, you still haven’t answered my question.
As for the rest of it, I was being sarcastic. Saying “we’ve achieve our goals” proves nothing. Achieving goals = success is only in the eye of the beholder, and video games. I was pointing out the illogic behind such statements. Much the same as how many Ron Paul supporters are saying “reaching a goal of $12 million = success”. No it doesn’t. It means we made the goal of $12 million. It is not a predictor of his campaign success or future success. And this coming from a Ron Paul supporter!
And I do tire of that above talk. Because the same people saying that we should have “swept in and swept out” ignore the fact that we weren’t going to “sweep out” anyways. We wanted a foothold in the middle east, that much was for certain.
Was I being sarcastic? No. Was I calling out stupidity? No. I was pointing out illogic.
Still, we are arguing semantics. For future reference Darius, so that we don’t have this discussion again ad nauseum…when I want to call people stupid/ignorant/etc. I’ll just go ahead and say it. So until I do say it directly, rest assured that I don’t find you stupid.
I see what you’re talking about. Whether or not we should have a standing army in peacetime is a separate issue, though linked to the foreign base debate. I appreciate that some people in South Korea and, when we get to that point, Iraq, do and will get upset that we have a military base in their country. However, what THEY have to appreciate is that it was THEIR country (or part of their country, in the case of South Korea) that caused us to have to be in there in the first place. Until the day arrives when we can leave without any worries that war will break out (or we completely change our foreign policy to an isolationist one), they will have to put up with some encroachment on their sovereignty.
Some of the reasoning for having a peacetime base probably stems from a perceived need to counteract what the Soviets did when they “freed” a country. The last thing we wanted to happen in Korea was an “East Germany” version of South Korea.
I was joking, but occasionally it amazes me how close your foreign policy thoughts are to most radical liberals. You may come to your conclusions from vastly different directions, but that they are the same conclusions is interesting.
Well, it really isn’t so interesting. On the surface they may appear to be the same…such as “Pull the troops”…but how I approach the matter is vastly different from how a “radical liberal” would approach it. Which probably means the aftereffects of such conclusions would be entirely different. Which means, maybe the conclusions weren’t too much the same.
Don’t forget, both the KKK and the Moral Majority oppose gay marriage. Yet, I’m pretty sure both groups are vastly different on their reasons why and how it would go about.
Ok, saying that you were implying stupidity on either Atanamis or my behalf is probably inaccurate. You were “merely” being condescending.
Whether or not we should have a standing army in peacetime is a separate issue
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problems with the U.S. maintaining a standing army on our soil. This is wise from a defense perspective. I do, however, have a problem with a standing army on foreign soil in peacetime. This is occupation, and I find it a threat to both their personal liberty/sovereignty, and my own. I do have a healthy fear of a “greater good” personal occupation, so history has taught us.
Until the day arrives when we can leave without any worries that war will break out (or we completely change our foreign policy to an isolationist one), they will have to put up with some encroachment on their sovereignty.
And see, this is where you and I will perpetually disagree. I believe personal liberty and sovereignty to be both God-given and un-alienable. Such such a thought as “putting up with encroachment” to be deplorable, as I would never personally suffer such things on my own soil.
Some of the reasoning for having a peacetime base probably stems from a perceived need to counteract what the Soviets did when they “freed” a country. The last thing we wanted to happen in Korea was an “East Germany” version of South Korea.
And from my point of view, I see this as a “two wrongs don’t make a right” thing. All too often we perceive intentions as changing outcomes. Whether we “free” a country or the soviets “free” a country, much of the time, we see the same breakdown and blowback. THIS is why I’m a non-interventionist. I’m not an isolationist at all (N. Korea is isolationist), I just refuse to enforce my good intentions on anyone.
Ok, saying that you were implying stupidity on either Atanamis or my behalf is probably inaccurate. You were “merely” being condescending.
See, that’s better. Calling someone stupid is sooooo childish. Being condescending is much more insulting.
See Darius, we can have good discussions without yelling at eachother! It’s a new day for us! YAY!!
Maybe we’ve discussed this before, but how would you have handled World War II, as far as America’s involvement in Europe was concerned? After all, Germany never really attacked us, and most likely would have stopped its spread at the Atlantic. I will leave out the Japanese part of WWII, since obviously they attacked us and we had to respond. However, assuming Japan never got into the war, what would you have done? Obviously, we were slow at helping our allies for quite some time as it was, but we did eventually respond. Do you disagree with our assistance in Europe?
On a side note, how demonically-possessed must Hitler have been, cause he made some extremely stupid and unwise decisions (attacking Stalin, Africa, all of Europe; using trains that were badly needed to haul supplies to the front line as transportation to gas a bunch of harmless Jews)?
“Morning has broken, like the first morning…Praise with elation, praise every morning”
Maybe we’ve discussed this before, but how would you have handled World War II, as far as America’s involvement in Europe was concerned? After all, Germany never really attacked us, and most likely would have stopped its spread at the Atlantic. I will leave out the Japanese part of WWII, since obviously they attacked us and we had to respond. However, assuming Japan never got into the war, what would you have done? Obviously, we were slow at helping our allies for quite some time as it was, but we did eventually respond. Do you disagree with our assistance in Europe?
Do I disagree? Not at all. After all, it was our attack from Japan that brought us in. Our retaliation (rightfully so) caused Germany to declare war on us in January of 1942 (I think). After all, we joined/formed the American-British-Dutch-Australian Command (ABDACOM) as a United Front against the Japanese in the South Pacific. This pulled us into the European conflict, and pulled Germany into the Japan conflict.
So should we have been there? History tells us “yes”. Yet if you read a bit, even Roosevelt was torn over WWII in Europe up until the declaration of war by Germany, due to validation in a sovereign sense. Yet if a declared ally is attacked, I personally don’t have a problem with joining a war, unless the ally was the invading army without true purpose.
On a side note, how demonically-possessed must Hitler have been, cause he made some extremely stupid and unwise decisions (attacking Stalin, Africa, all of Europe; using trains that were badly needed to haul supplies to the front line as transportation to gas a bunch of harmless Jews)?
Well, Napoleon tried to invade Russia as well. And well, failed….HORRIDLY. I guess Vizini was right (in The Princess Bride)…one should never get involved in a land war in Asia!
But seriously, the lust for power is truly that enticing. It wasn’t just the Jews (though they were a convenient jumping off point)…just read “Mein Kampf” for insight into such a twisted and troubled mind.
Addendum: Forgot to say it outright above…if someone declares war on us, I don’t have a problem at all with responding.
Ornot, does that apply only to recognized governments? For example, what if a loosely linked global network of terrorists declared war on the United States?
Good point, Jew. Also, Ornot, does the country/government have to explicitly declare war on us or can they do so implicitly? For example, Iraq’s plot to kill the first President Bush.
Furthermore, does that mean you support the first Gulf War? After all, we were merely helping an ally (Kuwait).
I know I am not Ornot, but these are good questions to answer in the context:
…does the country/government have to explicitly declare war on us or can they do so implicitly? For example, what if a loosely linked global network of terrorists declared war on the United States?
Any entity, be it a state or terrorist network declares war by formal declaration and/or attacks. Many of Bin Laden’s and other terrorist folks have made such declarations both in word and deed.
However, do we go after every little band of thugs with a couple homemade bombs and fightin’ words in any country we want? Or do we evaluate each declaration or attack and respond appropriately. For instance, we tend to laugh at Hugo Chavez, and rightfully so - guy is a total blowhard. However, even Ron Paul voted that we go beat the crap out of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11.
…does the country/government have to explicitly declare war on us or can they do so implicitly? For example, Iraq’s plot to kill the first President Bush.
“Iraq” (this was actually just a couple of cadres in Saddam’s regime) can make all the threats and plots they want. I highly doubt they could even come close to an assassination. Moreover, such “plots” are not declarations of war against the state of America. Even 9/11 wasn’t a declaration of war really, just a terrorist operation.
Ken,
Thanks for the great comments. I agree that we are clearly looking at a MIC conflict here. There is no doubt that it’s perpetuation has almost nothing to do with national security goals (as most experts have declared this war is actually putting at greatest risks) and a lot to do with monopoly military contractors needing a reason to exist.
Ornot, does that apply only to recognized governments? For example, what if a loosely linked global network of terrorists declared war on the United States?
Good point, Jew. Also, Ornot, does the country/government have to explicitly declare war on us or can they do so implicitly? For example, Iraq’s plot to kill the first President Bush.
Furthermore, does that mean you support the first Gulf War? After all, we were merely helping an ally (Kuwait).
Colin did a pretty good job explaining most of my reasoning, but I’ll take a stab anyways.
I guess if you want to think of it that way, a group of meth-infused soccer moms could declare war. It is just up to us to decided if the threat is legit enough for a response. I had no problems with us declaring return-attacks on Al Qaeda, since we were attacked, those who were responsible should be hunted down.
As for the first Gulf War…well, I’m still a little torn. For starters, I don’t believe we ever had a declaration of war from Congress (please correct me if I’m wrong). Second, I’m not sure if Kuwait is considered an “Ally”. Perhaps my definition differs from official, but I would more consider them a business associate. I don’t believe we receive measurable support militarily and strategically like we did from Britain during WWII. I see Kuwait as similar to Saudi Arabia…we are on “good” terms socioeconomically, since we have infrastructural ties with them economically. Yet I doubt SA exactly jumps to our aid during attacks.
The fact is, while I don’t agree with the invasion of Kuwait, Kuwait was not an innocent bystander. They were, in fact, that bratty little cousin that spits in your food on Thanksgiving just to spite you. It is well known that Kuwait was side-drilling oil illegally from Iraq, as well as violating water treaties and so forth. Now Hussein, being crazy and evil, decided that full-out invasion handled the problem better than settling the dispute the diplomatic or reasonable way. While this in no way justifies the invasion, I’m not sure if Kuwait really didn’t have it coming a bit. I think out military presence and force at that time had less to do with “protecting a sovereign ally” as it was “protect our interests”. If we hadn’t had economic ties with Kuwait, we probably would have treated it like we treat much of Sudan and Darfur and certain tiny South American nations….we waggle a finger, we watch closely, and we focus on other things.
Colin said: Even 9/11 wasn’t a declaration of war really, just a terrorist operation.
I’m not sure that’s entirely true. Al Qaeda has made it known they are at war with the West, and this definitely was an act of aggression. I feel that a foreign attack on home soil is indeed considered an act of war. The difference being, this wasn’t an excuse to invade a non-involved country. Like I said, I agreed with our pursuits of the people behind it.
I’m not sure that’s entirely true. Al Qaeda has made it known they are at war with the West, and this definitely was an act of aggression.
Let me clarify: there are stark differences between something like Pearl Harbor (which is compared to 9/11 ad nausium)and 9/11. 9/11 is more of a criminal action than a declaration of war - and our response was framed in that light as well - we went after the criminals who did it to obtain justice.
Actually, Bush never framed it as a criminal action. Clinton did so whenever he “responded” to terrorist attacks. But we (post-Clinton) framed the “War on Terror” (I prefer War on Islamic Fascism) as a military response. We not only went after Bin Laden, we went after every single one of his associates, even if they were not involved in 9/11.
Let me clarify: there are stark differences between something like Pearl Harbor (which is compared to 9/11 ad nausium)and 9/11. 9/11 is more of a criminal action than a declaration of war - and our response was framed in that light as well - we went after the criminals who did it to obtain justice.
I can see that, and I indeed was not comparing Pearl Harbor to 9/11. I guess some of the lines are a bit blurred, though. While I agree that a non-country can declare war and that we respond accordingly…I guess it is a bit confusing at times. Bin Ladin has indeed made known his declaration of war, then we were attacked by him. So I would almost say we’d be legit in declaring war on the central Al Qaeda entity, ie those who were responsible for the attack. I believe we have legal ground to consider them the enemy, hunt them down, and dispatch.
We not only went after Bin Laden, we went after every single one of his associates, even if they were not involved in 9/11.
Well, not really. We sorta diverted to Iraq less than a year later, Bin Laden became a back-burner side project, and we were quite dismissive of Saudi Arabia (where a majority of the terrorists held citizenship).
Next time, we might be attacked by terrorists who are mostly from Britain (as was the case with the London attacks). Does that mean we attack Britain? The 9/11 terrorists were not trained in Saudi Arabia, they just came from there originally. However, Saudi Arabia is primarily responsible for exporting Wahhabism, which is feeding Islamic fascism around the world. Militarily, Saudi Arabia is not (and should not be) a target. Culturally and economically, they should be our primary target. SA, not global warming, is the main reason we need to find a viable alternative to oil or being using our own vast oil resources. Because SA is so rich, they have exported their extreme religion to all parts of the world, including here in the United States.
Try this one on for size and ask yourself who is raping who:
http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/ispol/119606955056620.xml&coll=2
Ron Paul has said in numerous interviews that he couldn’t, in good conscience, be vice president for someone with whom he has mass ideological differences, such as Mr. Kunich.
I wasn’t saying anything about Paul, just thought it was funny. The left kook wants to team with the right kook. Now that is about the funniest thing I’ve seen in quite some time. Admit it, it’s hilarious.
Ornot said: “It is just up to us to decided if the threat is legit enough for a response.”
So how do you square that with going to war against Germany in WWII? Germany was no threat to the United States, even after she declared war.
And for that matter, Japan was no threat to America either. The only reason Japan bothered us in the first place was because we were extending ourselves over the whole globe (Hawaii and the Philippines) when we really should have stayed home in North America.
So how do you square that with going to war against Germany in WWII? Germany was no threat to the United States, even after she declared war.
And for that matter, Japan was no threat to America either. The only reason Japan bothered us in the first place was because we were extending ourselves over the whole globe (Hawaii and the Philippines) when we really should have stayed home in North America.
As I said, we were attacked by Japan. Japan and Germany were allies, and were were allied with many of the allied forces whom were helping us in the Pacific. Germany declared war on us, so we were pulled in by both the axis and the allies.
Also, I will plead a bit of ignorance historically on the nature of our extensive occupation in the pacific prior to WWII. I just haven’t read enough to have a full comment on that. Though, I will say, I guess it goes to show just how much trouble we’ve gotten ourselves into by extending ourselves so far for so long. I guess the founding fathers, while flawed, did have good insight into the inner workings of empires and pre-empires, and established themselves as non-interventionalists so as not to even go down that road.
I disagree about the founding fathers… how they dealt with the Barbary pirates is quite instructive. Furthermore, it teaches us that radical Islamic fascism has nothing to do with OUR foreign policy and everything to do with THEIR religion.
Well, after paying tribute for 15 years the U.S. had a couple of naval battles and raided a port of the Barbary States. That’s pretty much the modern equivalent of a air bombing campaign.
That’s not a large troop commitment for years occupying foreign territory, followed by permanent military bases.
http://www.eatthemushroom.com/mag/article.asp?id=1002&catID=1
I don’t agree with the writer’s choice of Giuliani, but he is very accurate in his analysis of why Ron Paul is such a kook.
I don’t agree with the writer’s choice of Giuliani, but he is very accurate in his analysis of why Ron Paul is such a kook.
Clearly, the writer of that article is a kook. Using the Civil War as an example of a “non congress declared war”? What? Of course the Civil War was never declared by congress, it was a civil war. Kinda hard for the South to declare war legally through congress when they had seceded. Does this guy have pudding for brains?
Also, pointing out that the president is the commander in chief in no way gives the commander in chief the authority to declare war. It merely gives him the power to deploy and direct the troops. It’s not a matter of “poor interpretation”, but constitutional legality. Only Congress can declare war. Just because perhaps presidents have been unlawfully declaring war for years doesn’t make it correct, which is EXACTLY Ron Paul’s point.
Besides, the Barbary skirmishes are not equivalent to foreign occupation and permanent overseas bases on foreign soil.
Don’t you think if it was actually unconstitutional, Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t have done it? Just maybe??? He kinda is one of the founding fathers… Ron Paul doesn’t have a clue what “constitutional” means.
Jefferson tested the limits of the Constitution just like every President has. That Congress let him get away with it is unfortunate, but that doesn’t change the plain meaning of the Constitution. America has a long tradition of giving lip service to the Constitution but flouting its terms. That’s one American tradition we should not take pride in.
OR maybe you’re misinterpreting the Constitution…
I watched a great PBS program dealing with this exact subject. This is a major doctrine of Dick Cheney and the article cited is just a verbatum regurgitation. Here is the full show, well worth the watch
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/
I’m not saying that Bush hasn’t stretched the limits, but Paul is equally wrong in his view of Presidential power.
Bush hasn’t done jack. This one actually is Cheney, and it’s well documented.
Ok, when I say Bush, I mean his administration. Bush is ultimately responsible, even if the one pushing for it is Cheney.
Jefferson also pushed the Louisiana Purchase even though he knew it was unconstitutional. He originally wanted an amendment, but his advisors convinced him that would take too long.
Also we had unconstitutional central banks right at the start of our country as well.
The founding fathers set things up because they knew they’d all try and one-up each other on using the power of government. Just because there is a long and historic precedent for abusing the constitution does not make modern abuses fine.
Darius wrote: “http://www.eatthemushroom.com/mag/article.asp?id=1002&catID=1
I don’t agree with the writer’s choice of Giuliani, but he is very accurate in his analysis of why Ron Paul is such a kook.”
What a horribly written article! The fact that something happens all the time does not make it legitimate. Let’s take it down to the most basic level: murder has happened an uncountable number of times in the nation’s history, but this does not justify murder.
This author didn’t make Ron Paul look like a kook, he made himself look like a wackjob! Until we find the Philosopher King, let’s adhere to the Checks and Balances.
I think what the author is trying to say is that if the founding fathers didn’t mind doing it, then maybe, just maybe, they interpreted the constitution differently than some, such as Ron Paul, want to now. Perhaps the founding fathers were wrong, but it does seem odd that they would set up the constitution only to start breaking it immediately.
Until we find the Philosopher King, let’s adhere to the Checks and Balances.
Gurr8, this is exactly correct. The founding fathers were well read on Plato and his critics. I think they all realized that no one among them was fit for a king and so they reacted by creating the foundation they did.
I think what the author is trying to say is that if the founding fathers didn’t mind doing it, then maybe, just maybe, they interpreted the constitution differently than some, such as Ron Paul, want to now.
Darius, differently as in what - the “rule of law was made to be broken” philosophy? Or, “we keep some parts of the constitution but throw away the ones we don’t like.” There is no record of this whatsoever.
Perhaps the founding fathers were wrong, but it does seem odd that they would set up the constitution only to start breaking it immediately.
Of course they would - they are men. There is no difference between the men of 1786 and the men of 2007 - none. Just as greedy, dishonest and power-hungry. The fact is that the best in these men happened to show through for a brief time in the face of a major conflict and they put it to consistent and historic law in the founding documents. But even getting there was a battle of wills and greed.
It’s ironic (and I am speaking in general, not to Darius) that many protestants abhor the notion of sainting great men and women in church history, yet will stick people like Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Washington on plateau of good intentions and higher morals. Even political perfection of the Platonic model.
I think what the author is trying to say is that if the founding fathers didn’t mind doing it, then maybe, just maybe, they interpreted the constitution differently than some, such as Ron Paul, want to now. Perhaps the founding fathers were wrong, but it does seem odd that they would set up the constitution only to start breaking it immediately.
I see what you are saying Darius, but I think you are coming at it from a wrong direction. One must look at context. The founding fathers found central power to be the downfall of nations. We even fought a civil war about centralized vs decentralized power! Hence the reason why we made checks and balances, with three branches of government. They understood the danger of having one person wield the power of a standing army…it was too much like a king. History tells us that he who controls the army, controls the power. After all, Caesar rendered the Roman senate moot by doing such a thing. So I have to look at intentions for interpretation. If you read the Constitution, much of it is hard to decipher in any other way than how it is written, especially with the knowledge of the founding fathers intentions. I think it was for the benefit of the nation, as well as themselves. While far from perfect, I think many of them possessed enough intuition to know the temptations of power. Did many of them still fall into the trap? Yes. But can you imagine where we may be now, and what may have been the case, had the Constitution not been ratified, and had there not been at least a handful of men who paid more than lip service to it? This is why I agree with Ron Paul on this issue. The actions of past presidents don’t validate their actions as much as show what has been known since the dawn of time…that the lust for power often overwhelms even the greatest of intentions. The actions of the past do not lead to a conclusion of misinterpretation, when the intentions have been clear from the start…we, as flawed people, just really don’t like paying attention.