----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 12:02 AM Subject: Re: "God Is With Us" L3
> On Dec 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Let's see. For starters, don't let old hawks like Rummy and Cheney > >> grab > >> the reins. Um, don't assume that US forces will be welcomed by the > >> natives. Never assume you've got a situation in hand before you've > >> completely controlled a territory. Don't EVER assume the entire world > >> wants to be just like the US. Never try to mix conquest with > >> parsimony. > >> That's a start, I think. I find it surprising you've overlooked the > >> above; to me it's glaringly obvious. > > > > But, the question is why it is glaringly obvious to you and not the > > professionals who are working in the fields of political science and > > history. > > Wow, when you remove the arrogance, belligerence, fatuousness and > pomposity, the question suddenly becomes reasonable. > > I honestly don't know why the lessons of history manage to go > unlearned, Dan. I only know that they do. That wasn't the question. When a foreign policy graduate student at MIT, who received a degree in government from Harvard states that your point differs from historians and political scientists who are studying the period, then it is highly likely that you hold such an opinion. I'd lay odds that he is reasonable familiar with the general scholarship in these fields. So, the question is how do you know that they are all wrong and you are right? What is arrogant and belligerant about this? Personally, a sweeping statement that those bright folks who work in the field have missed the obvious which you clearly know, sounds arrogant and pompous to me. But, YMMV. > Given that I don't know any of Gautam's academic background, I'm not > sure what degree he might hold nor what significance it carries in this > discussion. Well, if you read his posts, you would have some familiarity. Are you arguing that there is no such thing as scholarship in history, foreign affairs, and political science? I know, for example, that he had Stanley Hoffmann as his senior thesis advisor and has Dr. Hoffmann's professional respect. Given Dr. Hoffmann's and Gautam's political leanings, that should indicate something. (a quick google of Stanley Hoffmann should document this...e.g. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17470). At the very least, it should indicate that he has at least a passing acquaintance with the field. > > And going through your points, I'm not sure how many of them could > > possibly > > be lessons from Viet Nam. For example, how could one call Robert > > McNamara > > an old war dog? > > I didn't, and wasn't referring to him anyway. I referred specifically > to Rummy and Cheney. Then what in the world was the lesson that should have been learned from Viet Nam. We had a young member of "The Best and the Brightest" mismanage the Viet Nam war. How does that teach us that we shouldn't let old hawks run the war? > > He was 44 when he took the job of secretary of Defense, > > having spent his working life as a professional manager. The context > > of > > Viet Nam must be the proxy war with the Soviet Union, and the view that > > they were trying to win through the sponsorship of "wars of national > > liberation." So, I cannot see why you seem to assume that it was about > > conquest. > > Both Nam and Iraq are about nothing but conquest. 30 years ago it was > about overthrowing Communism; now it's about a "war on terror"; but the > subtests of BOTH conflicts were "liberating the people" of those > nations, whether they wanted to be liberated or not. What Communist government was overthrown in South Viet Nam? We were not fighting to overthrow Ho Chi Min in the North. With all due respect, your comment is just plain fase. > In both cases the US was the occupying force, in both cases the US met > much heavier resistance than anticipated, and in both cases the US was > caught off guard. I don't know why holders of advanced degrees can't > see the parallels. They seem pretty plain to me. Becaue they know that the Viet Nam war was not one of liberation? That they realized that we were there at the invitation of the South Vietnamese government, first as advisors and then as fighters? That the war was between the US and N. Vietnamese troops, not Viet Cong, after Tet? > But Dan, for every expert you can mention who was caught flatfooted by > Iraq, I'm pretty sure I can find another in the same field who was > predicting disaster from the beginning. For instance, we had US armed > forces commanders predicting *precisely* the series of events we're > seeing now, and these men were ostensibly students of military history > to a depth at least as great as anyone you can cite. Right, but they didn't say what you are saying. The one's I saw were quoting the Powell Doctrine, which I fully agree with. If you were to argue that the Powell Doctrine contained military lessons learned from the Viet Nam war and that Rumsfeld ignored it, then in that limited sense some lessons learned from Viet Nam were not accepted. I think everyone on this list agrees that Bush et. al. made some very serious mistakes. What's being argued here is whether the lessons from Viet Nam are obvious. > > It's not that I always believe the consensus is > > right. There are times when I've gone another way, and then had people > > following me a few years later. But, as a scientist about 30 years > > older > > than me told me "the people who came before you weren't stupid." If > > you > > solution assumes they are idiots, you, not they, are probably missing > > something. > > I don't assume anyone's an idiot without some evidence to support the > determination. I'm aware that others who came before me were not > stupid. That's why it's utterly baffling to me that we are getting some > serious national deja vu out of Iraq now. Because there is a general tendency to see any war in terms of the war of one's formative year and see parallels that do not bear up under scholarship. > I don't know why I have to perennially cite evidence for OPINION in the > Court of Gautam the Almighty. But if he's incapable of looking at > nightly news reports and drawing conclusions based on them, > particularly if he's got a background in history, it seems that his > view, not mine, is the indefensible one. No, that's not it. But, with all due respect, you tend to make strong statements without considering facts first. A couple examples of this was quoting a well know liberal ecconomist and member of this list, as well as former member of the Clinton administration, as a clear supporter of Bush. Or calling the Viet Nam war a war to overthrow a communist government. > Now if Gautam wishes to address this issue further he's welcome to do > so, but I won't carry on a discussion by proxy. OK, you won't answer my posts, that's your business. But, this mailing list has always tended to be a general discussion where everyone is welcome to jump in. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
