But what was it all about? I'm sure there was some sort of "It seemed like a good idea at the time" rationale to Vietnam... but Iraq?
I dont think you understand vietnam at all. We got involved in vietnam
because the chinese were funding and arming an incredibly violent revolutionary force in vietnam. Thats a fact; look it up. (First the russians did, then the chinese did -- dont forget by then the russians and chinese wer locked in their own competition for domination of asia. Somehow that fact doesnt ever come into the euro-leftist imagination of the world). The qeustion for vietnam was not whether the world should respond to that; the question was
how should it respond to that. In korea, just a decade earlier, you'll remember the UN got invovled under very similar circumstances. In the case of vietnam, the UN dragged its feet and the US did not want its democratic ally in vietnam to be left to be slaughtered in the face of Maoist arms and funding.
The only question was how we were going to help, not whether. To have done nothing would have been even more foolish; as foolish as not getting involved in rwanda or bosnia.
The ongoing problem with our involvement in vietnam began and ended with the *wavering* of commitment on the part of the american govt. They should have defined their goals and committments clearly up front. All our problems came directly or indirectly from not having done that up front. There are complex reasons why that was not done, which are clearer in retrospect.
as far as iraq, i agree that iraq was a mistake because the real war was (and is) in afghanistan-pakistan on the one hand and in the continuing effort to modernize middle eastern countries like saudi arabia, iran, and yemen, and asian countries like pakistan, burma, and north korea. As far as the 9/11 attacks tho the focus should have been afghanistan from day one. Iraq distracted attention and resources from that, and that was a huge mistake. It also cost america a lot of world support which we had in the days following 9/11, and again that was bush's idiocy.
Afghanistan is the focus and should have been. Iraq was bush's idiocy. Americans rejected it when they elected Obama. So I'm not sure I follow your argument. What is it you'd like to "conclude about america" based on bush and iraq then? Now that we're in iraq, however, I support the conversion of that former dictatorship into a democracy, a process that will be as painfully slow as it will be in any other of the dictatorships around the world, all of which will either eventually convert to democracy or remain incredibly volatile loose canons that will try to obtain nukes and try to hold the whole world hostage. Iraq is already on an alternate history path because of that (mistaken) invasion. The outcome remains uncertain, but there are as many signs of hope (including islamic sects who couldnt stand each other, today being officialy part of the same government; including the start of an electoral process for the country) as there are signs of hopelessness (continuing animosity between the islamist and warlord-style factions, continued infiltration by iranian and alqueda terrorists, continued tensions with turkey, etc). But yes, I was against iraq and still am.
But my point is: what is it you're concluding by pointing to iraq? You think its emblematic? and of what?! Thats where you go off the rails, forget your history, and become an absurd relativist.
