The Ugly
"We are all members of the 9/11 generation."My only response is to send you to this Onion article from February 21, 2007: Giuliani To Run For President Of 9/11. When the absurd passes without notice, satire is dead.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Whom we choose to talk to is as important as what we say... Holding serious talks may be advisable even with our adversaries, but not with those bent on our destruction..."Essentially Giuliani's conception is diplomacy is one of imperial diktat. Which is to say, it is exactly the same as Bush's vision of diplomacy his first 6 years in office (there are signs his stance on diplomacy is changing) and it will fail.
"...This is not to say that talks with Iran cannot possibly work. They could -- but only if we came to the table in a position of strength, knowing what we wanted."
"The lesson is never talk for the sake of talking... the theocrats in Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot..."
"The time has come to refine the diplomats' mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the rest of the world."
And as for talks with Iran from "a position of strength", that would require us leaving Iraq, as our 150,000 soldiers in Iraq are basically hostages to Iranian goodwill (see page 5 about American logistics in Iraq). In addition, our carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf are easily within range of Iran's Yakhonts and Raad cruise missiles, against which the U.S. Navy has no reliable defense, and our bases in the Persian Gulf are within range of Iran's 12 (at least) Kh-55 cruise missiles. The military situation between the US and Iran is one of offense and counter-offense, rather than defense, which points towards high casualties on both sides. The recent American tradition of launching airstrikes or cruise missiles on a third-world country with impunity is not applicable here. The American position of strength against Iran is a long-term economic one, not an immediate military one, so if Giuliani refuses to talk to Iran except from a position of strength, there is the prospect of a collapsing Iranian regime launching a war designed to capture southern Iraqi oil resources to shore up its own economy and solidify popular support. Such a war would be one American diplomacy could have prevented.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"For U.S. diplomacy to succeed, the U.S. government must be united... Members of Congress who talk directly to rogue regimes at cross-purposes with the White House are not practicing diplomacy; they are undermining it."This is a direct attack against Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress for visiting President Bashar Assad of Syria, a (bipartisan) visit that drew a lot of criticism from people who think Democrats should stay home and leave the Congressional trips to meet the Syrian dictator to Republicans like Arlen Specter, Frank Wolf, Robert Aderholt, etc. The notion that the President is the sole determiner of foreign policy is at odds with American history, but totally congruent with the Bush/Cheney vision of how government works.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"America must remember one of the lessons of the Vietnam War... Many historians today believe that by about 1972 we and our South Vietnamese partners had succeeded in defeating the Vietcong insurgency and in setting South Vietnam on a path to political self-sufficiency. But then American withdrew its support, allowing the communist North to conquer the South. The consequences were dire... a newly energized and expansionist Soviet Union, and a weaker America. The consequences of abandoning Iraq would be worse."Giuliani repeats the myth that America's defeat in Vietnam was because it was "stabbed in the back" by liberals, Democrats, antiwar protesters, hippies, "the Other". The reasoning goes that since America never lost a major tactical battle yet lost the war, it must have been betrayed by un-American elements at home. This is similar to the reasoning of Paul von Hindenburg, Erich Ludendorff, and other Germans about Germany's loss of World War One. Both arguments are false. America lost Vietnam because its Army felt a possible conflict in Europe against the Soviet Army was a higher priority than the ongoing conflict against Vietnamese Communists (similar to John Nagl's argument), because of the irrationality, fear and overreaction of the policymakers who conceived and executed the policy (Barbara Tuchman's argument), and a variety of other reasons. The notion that many on the Right have that Democrats are "aiding the enemy" is scarily similar in my opinion to the "stabbed in the back" view in 1919 Germany and 1975 America.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, Giuliani's essay demonstrates the same obsession with power that I wrote about earlier. His view of the world as driven by the twin engines of power and ideology pervades the entire piece. Such a Welanschauung leaves no little room for compromise - ideology structures goals, which, being ideological, are non-negotiable, and power determines the ability to accomplish those goals. For more on this by a better writer than me, see Glenn Greenwald's essay on Giuliani's authoritarian traits.
And what did Giuliani ignore? In 6000 words, he says nothing about global climate change, an indication of the audience he is playing to. There was also nothing about Pakistan, particularly odd as it is pivotal to the century-defining conflict Giuliani believes in. I assume this is because in the case of Pakistan, Giuliani's approach of American imperial dictation based on hard power is not only practically impossible but conceptually impossible, as it is widely acknowledged that we have no leverage over any key actors.
Giuliani still scares me.
16 comments:
First thoughts:
"When the absurd passes without notice, satire is dead."
"Essentially Giuliani's conception is diplomacy is one of imperial diktat"
Huh?
While I disagreed with your assessments of the "good" and the "bad," you generally made reasonable claims and tried to back those up. In this post, it sounds like you're abandoning reasoned argument and going straight into rhetoric.
I understand you have an emotional reaction to Giuliani's words, but you do your perspective no credit but allowing emotional to crowd out reasoned judgement in your words.
"And as for talks with Iran from "a position of strength", that would require us leaving Iraq, as our 150,000 soldiers in Iraq are basically hostages to Iranian goodwill (see page 5 about American logistics in Iraq). I"
Agreed.
I agree with your other assessments of Iran, which are both reasonable and perhaps not relevent to a critique of Giuliani. That said:
"The American position of strength against Iran is a long-term economic one, not an immediate military one, so if Giuliani refuses to talk to Iran except from a position of strength, there is the prospect of a collapsing Iranian regime launching a war designed to capture southern Iraqi oil resources to shore up its own economy and solidify popular support."
Iran experiences fuel riots not from a limit on oil, but from a limit on refined petroleum. One might as well say that Sudan is planning on solving their fresh water shortage by seizing the Red Sea.
Re: which brance of government shall execute foreign policy
The Pelosi-led Congressional power grab is the reason I apologized for supporting the Democratic Party.
Congress's desire to go beyond legislation into execution is not only foolish, but of questionable constitutionality.
What power shall they claim next -- jurisprudence?
"Giuliani repeats the myth that America's defeat in Vietnam was because it was "stabbed in the back" by liberals, Democrats, antiwar protesters, hippies, "the Other". "
While certainly your summary is neither completely historical nor completely honest (who, and what is this address, of this "the Other"?), Giuliani is hardly reciting a myth. The US successfully completed its counterinsurgency role in South Vietnam shortly after the Tet Offensive. Following the withdraw of American forces in 1972, North Vietnam (the sole remaining combatant against us) saw its position deteriorate dramatically, losing large-scale conventional battles against ARVN and facing the first of several island seizures from a hostile China.
Sadly, the ARVN was designed to run with American parts, the purchase of which required American financing. Congress revoked the financing, essentially imposing an embargo against our former ally. Lacking parts and material, the ARVN of course lost the next round of conventional battles, falling to the Social Republic of Vietnam's army in due course.
Your analogy to 1919 Germany is entirely specious. The Empire fell because of a collapse in available labor (a significant cadre of the young male class required to fight in the trenches had been killed off or otherwise rendered unfit for duty). The United States faced neither labor, capital, nor land pressures in 1974: rather she succumed to an anti-anti-Communist hostility in Congress and an exceptionally weak President.
Diplomacy is about building relationships and trust, not about "presenting U.S. policy to the world." Giuliani has no idea what diplomacy is.
re: a hypothetical Iranian land grab; a) closed governments under pressure rarely act "rationally", b) the goal of that action would probably be as much related to gaining domestic political support as economics, c) the economic goal would presumably be to export more and get more cash (their economy and defense expenditures are linked very closely to the amount of oil money that comes in).
re: Vietnam - the US Army never successfully completed its COIN mission. It never really started. If it had successfully completed it, the ARVN wouldn't have been dependent on American fire support and would have been able to function independently. The comparison with Germany was regarding the "blame", not the actual reasons behind each country's military defeat.
Diplomacy is about building relationships and trust, not about "presenting U.S. policy to the world."
Why do you view these missions as dichotomous?
re: a hypothetical Iranian land grab;
I'm not sure what the purpose of this section of your comment is.
re: Vietnam - the US Army never successfully completed its COIN mission.
Of course it did.
It never really started. If it had successfully completed it, the ARVN wouldn't have been dependent on American fire support and would have been able to function independently.
???
So I imagine you believe there is an unfinished US COIN going on in Australia right now, because the Australian military relies on US logistical support for large-scale missions???
Obviously presenting US policy to the world and doing actual diplomacy are not mutually exclusive, however Giuliani said that the diplomat's mission should be stripped down to ONLY presenting US policy to the world.
The Iran hypothetical was to flesh out a possible future scenario and thereby demonstrate the value of diplomacy and of talking with your enemies.
Obviously presenting US policy to the world and doing actual diplomacy are not mutually exclusive, however Giuliani said that the diplomat's mission should be stripped down to ONLY presenting US policy to the world.
Where?
The Iran hypothetical was to flesh out a possible future scenario and thereby demonstrate the value of diplomacy and of talking with your enemies.
Was the value of diplomacy ever claimed to be zero?
The value of diplomacy is zero if there is zero diplomacy - if you refuse to engage in diplomacy to "punish" the other party.
Giuliani wrote:
"The time has come to refine the diplomats' mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the rest of the world."
I interpreted that to mean diplomats should focus on that to the exclusion of their other tasks (limited time).
The value of diplomacy is zero if there is zero diplomacy - if you refuse to engage in diplomacy to "punish" the other party.
The mediumc an be the message too.
Not every diplomatic communique is on paper, or presented in Geneva.
Giuliani wrote:
"The time has come to refine the diplomats' mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the rest of the world."
I interpreted that to mean diplomats should focus on that to the exclusion of their other tasks (limited time).
Ah yes, more VOA-style public-diplomacy nonsense.
It's a radical enough change that it cannot possibly be meant as presented. I interpreted it to mean a higher focus on US interests on a continued decline in the influence of liberal internationalism.
"It's a radical enough change that it cannot possibly be meant as presented."
I hope you're right... but I have to think that this essay was gone over with a fine tooth comb before publication - I see no choice but to accept it at face value.
If it had successfully completed it, the ARVN wouldn't have been dependent on American fire support and would have been able to function independently.
They were not fighting the North Vietnamese. They were fighting Soviet proxies.
What would be good enough to protect Iraq from local criminals is wholly inadequate against foreign jihadists, suicide bombers, and Iranian cadres.
Air support was necessary against Soviet provided tanks, because the best way to destroy tanks is from the air. Also air support provides for a force multiplier against enemy infantry. Further delaying enemy mobility so that the defenders can prepare defensive positions. The difference between a successful defense and a complete rout of the defenders, may be as little as a day.
The value of diplomacy is zero if there is zero diplomacy - if you refuse to engage in diplomacy to "punish" the other party.
This how diplomacy was always done. You wait until the other party becomes more desperate than you are, and therefore makes the mistake of saying something or giving something more than they had planned to because of their desperation.
If you could get things another way than through diplomacy you would. The sign that you have to come crawling to the table to "talk", is a sign of weakness on your behalf.
The sign doesn't even have to mean that you are incapable of grabbing what you want another way. But just coming to the table and begging for Iranian assistance or what not means that you do not have the will to achieve your objectives any other way.
The Iranian military is no match for a US first strike and land raid. But just as with Saddam, the more time given to the defender, the more things they come up with to kill Americans with.
diplomat's mission should be stripped down to ONLY presenting US policy to the world.
The US military has shown that they can be depended upon to negotiate and conduct policy reviews as well as getting locals to sign treaties of alliance with the US, without needing the State Department to ride shotgun on the process.
The US diplomat's mission is limited by the US diplomat's trusthworthiness, loyalty, and competency. Currently, all of those are lacking not just for the State Department but also its employees. They cannot even stop internal leaks. How can they take on foreign operations and turn it to our advantage?
Is there some kind of quotta that says we must have X number of diplomats doing jobs they are not qualified for when we have others that can take on the job and succede?
America lost Vietnam because its Army felt a possible conflict in Europe against the Soviet Army was a higher priority than the ongoing conflict against Vietnamese Communists
The Army does not make policy in the US. They are not the German Junkers. Nor did the US have the political instability born of a Kaiser-Aristocracy-Political mix that was present in Germany. The US's problems were Leftist based, since the Left were the useful idiot tools of the Soviet propaganda machine. [Do you deny this or say that they were ineffectual?] The Soviets had a far harder time infiltrating the American military compared to American universities and media organizations.
Adrian, you forget that Germany was fighting against one open enemy. America was fighting against many enemies, the Soviets being an enemy that was in the shadows. The situation is not in parallel, even if you were right to state that Vietnam was lost because of military priority re-direction, which you are not.
I could argue that we are right in our analysis of the Democrats and the Left, by arguing that Germany still had fight in them when they surrendered, but that would be making the same mistake as have done. Which is to take a historical example and say that we did the same things. We did not, we could not have. Some parallels could be drawn, but not complete transferals.
The notion that many on the Right have that Democrats are "aiding the enemy" is scarily similar in my opinion to the "stabbed in the back" view in 1919 Germany and 1975 America.
This has already been analyzed before. Do you believe you can defeat such analysis by making a claim that Americans are like 1919 Germans? Because certainly Americans are more like 1975 Americans than 1919 Germans, yet you say all three are the same arguments. The idea that history has to march in step for every generation, every decade, and every century requires stronger arguments than you have provided here.
It is much easier to argue that each situation is different and that people make decisions based upon their local factors, than to say that all three are the same and therefore prove each other the same.
Both arguments are false
They are not "both" arguments to you. They are one and the same. Yet it becomes a logical fallacy when you treat one argument as if it was another. It isn't. It is precisely because they are two different arguments that you are wrong to state that they are the same and produce the same results.
The Democrats have a proud, if not honorable, tradition from the Copperheads.
Link
Comparisons should not be made on fear. You got to have something else. Like facts, at least. Or maybe interpretations, alternative interpretations, of facts. Is there nothing you can provide, other than that 1919 is scarily similar to now?
Ymarsakar:
If the entire State Department's loyalty is in question, perhaps there is more drastic reform needed than just defining down their mission. I would disagree with your questioning of the State Department's loyalty though.
"The Army does not make policy in the US."
Like it or not, they do (not alone of course). In Nagl's book he shows how Army Chiefs of Staff and the JCS successfully blocked efforts to reform the Army to better fight insurgencies due to a focus on the larger mission of defeating the Soviet Union in direct combat.
"The US's problems were Leftist based, since the Left were the useful idiot tools of the Soviet propaganda machine. [Do you deny this or say that they were ineffectual?]"
The Left's biggest accomplishment of the Vietnam era was creating a reaction amongst non-Leftist voters that got Nixon elected. I drew most of the comparison between 1919 and 1975 from the Harpers article I linked to in the post. I am saying it is the same dynamic, not the same exact casual logic.
The idea that any significant portion of Americans is motivated by "national self-hate" (taken from the link you gave) is laughable.
Ymarsakar,
Agreed.
Like it or not, they do (not alone of course). In Nagl's book he shows how Army Chiefs of Staff and the JCS successfully blocked efforts to reform the Army to better fight insurgencies due to a focus on the larger mission of defeating the Soviet Union in direct combat.
So your argument is that they cut off South Vietnam's funding and air support, thereby losing the Vietnam war de facto if not de jure for the US?
The Fall of Saigon came after the US had already pulled out most of its troops, not during the retreat. It took that long to regenerate VietCong cadres destroyed in Tet and to acquire stronger Soviet backing to regenerate depleted NVN regulars. Although the cadres were never repaired, due to Phoenix.
The idea that any significant portion of Americans is motivated by "national self-hate" (taken from the link you gave) is laughable.
The Congress, heavily Democrat if only because they could sustain a veto overide vote, voted to cut Vietnamese funding and air support regardless of Nixon's promise to the South Vietnamese and regardless of the fact that Nixon did as the Democrats wanted, which was to take the blame for the war and to take the political repercusions of taking US forces out of a quagmire started and continued by Democrats.
You think they cut South Vietnam's throat, because they liked to see America win at little to no cost to ourselves? No. There was no reason to cut funding, other than to make sure that America would carry the image of Saigon through to even this century. Vietnam was for nothing, because it was purposefully ensured to be this way by those that were in power. Those such as Senator Kennedy.
link
Kennedy noted that in 1965, America had a roughly similar number of troops in Vietnam -- about 130,000 -- as the nation has in Iraq and had suffered slightly fewer deaths as a result of combat actions than the 1,400 US troops who have died in the current conflict. Vietnam should have taught Washington that military might alone cannot win wars, he said.
"We thought that victory on the battlefield would lead to victory in the war, and peace and democracy for the people of Vietnam," Kennedy said. "We did not understand that our very presence was creating new enemies and defeating the very goals we set out to achieve. We cannot allow that history to repeat itself."
The prophecy shall be self-fullfilled. There is no belief nor cause Kennedy will kill and die for, except that which benefits himself for his self, since it is the only thing that matters to him. [that pretty much precludes dying for himself, though he will kill as many Vietnamese or Iraqis as he sees fit to maintain power and wealth]
Wind farms are no go if it causes problem for his self, for example.
The idea that any significant portion of Americans is motivated by "national self-hate" (taken from the link you gave) is laughable.
You must be talking about how the Democrat and their Leftist allies, once finished talking about how Bush should listen to his generals about more troops, are now saying Petraeus is going to lie and sex up reports and that "more troops" is not enough.
If you can't win the game, change the rules, right.
Things involving military history are harsh, but this incident with the Lone SEAL saved by Afghanistan tribesmen is a true indication of domestic insurgency inside the United States.
link
None of these incidents nor pains derived through psychological torture, is something to be laughed at. Much of the current education system has stripped itself of any mention of the Roman or Greek classics;those classics could have shed light on complex people and situations so that diplomats could weave a path to true civilization and progress. Without such education, it doesn't matter what the State Department or political leaders do with their "best of intentions"; they will fail and bring us all to red ruin..
This thread was supposed to be about Rudy's foreign policy. Not the fabricated and deconstructed history from the Harpers article. Obviously if the author makes a case about something, you have to repeat it because it just sounds true, eh? That may be as it is, but it is not an argument.
It would do no good to point out that there is no objective evidence that veterans were ever spat upon by demonstrators or that POWs were ever left behind or that Jane Fonda's addle-headed mission to Hanoi did anything to undermine American forces.
of course there is. Many testimonies have been given, but always from people that never believed as Scott Thomas Beau did. That making yourself out to be a celebrity was the way to ascend the ladder of life, that is.
The Harpers article creates myths and half-truths even as it self-righteously seeks to dispel them. The classic case of mirror projection.
Stabbed in the back! The past and future of a right-wing myth
The article assumes what you already knew to be true, Adrian. Which is that Vietnam was a myth by non-Leftists constructed to... whatever, I suppose.
It was not designed to see whether this "myth" was true or not, because it already knew that Leftist indoctrination and propaganda operations would re-write the history of Vietnam according to the victors. The victorious North Vietnamese and domestic Democrat version, of course.
Of course, those who were able to return at all were the lucky ones. Soon after we had bugged out of Saigon, millions of Americans became convinced that American prisoners of war had been left behind in Vietnamese work camps, by a government that was too cowed or callous to insist upon their return. Numerous groups sprang up to demand their release, disseminating flags with a stark, black-and-white tableau of a prisoner's bowed head against the backdrop of a guard tower, a barbed-wire fence, and the legend: YOU ARE NOT FORGOTTEN POW*MIA.
These folks that agitated the most for the withdrawal of US soldiers, now seemingly want American POWs. Well... why would they treat American POWs well when they know that there will be no American vengeance, shock troops assaulting North Vietnam's capital, and so forth? Once again, the Democrats and the Left calls for the US to do something such as raise troop levels and to craft a new strategy, and when the US does it, the Left tars and feathers the attempt in order to create division and hatred.
It doesn't matter if it is to send more troops or to have troops leave, since the Left is concerned only about you doing what they tell you to do. It doesn't have to have any consistency or even any rationale behind it.
The answer, I think, lies in Richard Nixon's ability to expand the Siegfried myth from the halls of power out into the streets. Government conspiracies are still culpable, of course; ironically, it was Nixon's own administration that first “left behind” American POWs in North Vietnam.
You see, it is not their fault that what they recommended created horror and suffering untold. It is your fault for listening to them.
I said before about other analysis over the subject. This is to what I was refering to.
Neo-Neocon has provided the psychological perspective behind the military and political decisions made during and after Vietnam
Ymarsakar:
Frankly I don't see much honesty in your characterization of my comments or in your description of anything you see as "Left", and therefore feel no compunction to take your word on anything that I'm less informed on. This post was not originally about Vietnamese history, and I see no positive direction this discussion could go by rehashing old debates and talking past each other. I don't want to waste my time debating with someone who won't change their mind (or mine) and I don't see much common ground between us.
You are of course welcome to comment on my blog - I will try in the future to keep the discussion more on topic. This series of posts was atypical, most of my posts are on single topics so it should be easier to stay on topic.
therefore feel no compunction to take your word on anything that I'm less informed on.
If you would prefer to take the word of such folks as Harpers, that have already played with the lives of millions of real individual human beings, then by all means, that is your choice to make for yourself.
The subject, or point, is not whether you are informed or not, it is that you cannot be informed due to certain prior programs conducted on American students both in the past and the present. Neo-Neocon already covered this point.
I addressed your arguments and the arguments of others that you said you based your arguments upon. If you wish your discourse to be artificially and arbitrarily limited to only my positions, then that is your choice. I, however, will not ignore people, whether it is you or anyone else you might link or mention, covering up the continual historical lies spoken solely to marginalize the suffering of inconvenient groups, such as either Vietnamese folks, Iraqi children and women, or military men and women serving in the US military, past or present.
Your refusal to address the arguments, because it comes from me, should be compared to my willingness, or eagerness, to address you as well as your sources, limited only by time or capacity.
I see no positive direction this discussion could go by rehashing old debates and talking past each other
The victors write the history books. You will have often heard this from instructors and compatriots. Thus, there is no point rehashing the Vietnam war, because the victors of that war wrote the history books for that war.
However, this is not about Vietnam, this is about people. People who will not accept the actions that were done to others, because they only believe in the histories written by the victors.
Rudy gives clear warning, in some ways concerning Vietnam and Iraq, or rather not making Iraq into Vietnam so that those who wrote the histories for Vietnam to be allowed also to write the histories for Iraq.
And even if he doesn't, or you say it doesn't matter, it does matter, to me at least. It matters in this manner. Your belief that it is laughable to figure out what really happened, past the historical creations written by the victors of the Vietnam War, must be resolved one way or another if you are to speak concerning Rudy's foreign policy.
If "ugliness" can be covered up as they covered it up for Vietnam, then what is the point of listening to you speak on the "ugly". Who will know of it in the future should history be created as a lie to cover up the crime.
You dismiss the idea that millions were sacrificed to create the myth that there were no traitors or saboteurs in the US concerning Vietnam. You describe it as laughable and leave it there.
Yet the souls of many, indeed many men, women living today that came from Vietnam as children, cannot be brushed aside with the cynical phrase born of State Department fictions.
The State Department could have saved many in Vietnam given the fact taht Saigon would fall and all the US allies inside South Vietnam would fall with her. Yet they did nothing, they barely evacuated the US Embassy, with US Marine support, before the Fall of Saigon. The famous, or infamous, helicopter scene. It does not matter, however. Because the history says it was not their fault. The history covered up untold suffering for the convenience of many, not including the victors.
I am hostile to such a view. After all, it must be torn down, for it as with any other symbol of oppression must be torn down. Knocked down with hammers, pieces carved away for reminders of a broken iron curtain.
The reasoning goes that since America never lost a major tactical battle yet lost the war, it must have been betrayed by un-American elements at home. This is similar to the reasoning of Paul von Hindenburg, Erich Ludendorff, and other Germans about Germany's loss of World War One. Both arguments are false. America lost Vietnam because its Army felt a possible conflict in Europe against the Soviet Army was a higher priority than the ongoing conflict against Vietnamese Communists (similar to John Nagl's argument), because of the irrationality, fear and overreaction of the policymakers who conceived and executed the policy (Barbara Tuchman's argument), and a variety of other reasons. The notion that many on the Right have that Democrats are "aiding the enemy" is scarily similar in my opinion to the "stabbed in the back" view in 1919 Germany and 1975 America.
This is the topic. Do not mistake me. This is the topic. It is of prime importance because if this is how you see things Adrian, then it will inform your views on every foreign policy, including Iraq. Or rather, especially Iraq.
Many lives are at stake in Iraq, just as they were in Vietnam. Helpless to Washington DC and State Department politics, internal power struggles, and ideological wars over righteousness. Local politics as well played a part, but local politics never did decide which way the hammer would fall.
I cannot agree with your policy of repeating the past because you believe in the myths of the victors. You well know what myths are, for you have seen many create them. The creators are those that won the Vietnam conflict, in my view. Whereas in your view, the myth makers are those that lost the war. So which is more likely, that history is made by the victors or by the losers?
Post a Comment