Syndromes
Roommate and TNR superstar Spencer Ackerman describes the Other Vietnam Syndrome:
It's true enough that, for more than 30 years, the left has not infrequently suffered from "Vietnam syndrome"--the assumption that any military engagement will be a moral disaster and a potential quagmire. But, though it has been less examined, the lesson the right took from Vietnam--that the true danger to national security is not misguided wars, but overzealous opposition to misguided wars--is, if anything, more dangerous. Call it the Other Vietnam Syndrome.
Read the whole thing, as the kids say. I actually think there's also a third Vietnam Syndrome, but that's a story for another day.
Comments
not sure what your candidate for the third VS would be, but here's mine:
The paralyzing fear among Democrats and the press that any criticism of military action will be turned against them as a charge of disloyalty, cowardice, anti-patriotism, etc.
The years of getting blamed by the Right Wing have a lot to do with it. (So VS 2 causes VS 3).
The result is that not only do they avoid opposing popular wars, they even avoid opposing deeply unpopular wars, e.g. the current one.
It's a sick, sick, kind of moral paralysis.
"Read the whole thing, as the kids say."
Yup. Should be required reading.
And a bit of knowledge of the original Dolchstosslegende is a helpful thing as well.
The Republican party has been politically feeding at the trough of the Dolchstosslegende since 1949.
I think he overstates the case on the left a bit. The fact is that military force isn't a very effective tool in modern times. When's the last unambiguous victory we had, despite having the most powerful military in history?
I know many people who are little too quick to bring up Vietnam, but the truth is that every war carries a significant risk of turning into a "moral disaster and potential quagmire." (Just look at Afghanistan, where we thought we'd overcome the Vietnam problem 2 years ago.)
A war that has a 50% chance of success will make the naysayers look like a foof half the time. But IMO, it's best to make war the last option. It's too unpredictable to use it as an ordinary tool of policy.
"The fact is that military force isn't a very effective tool in modern times. When's the last unambiguous victory we had, despite having the most powerful military in history?"
Not sure what you mean by "unambiguous", but my win/loss count says that since 1980, we've won 4 and lost 3, with Afghanistan still undetermined.
It's not a stellar record, but it's probably good enough to make the playoffs.
When's the last unambiguous victory we had, despite having the most powerful military in history?
Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Kuwait?
In any case, it seems to me that Ackerman is somewhat off the mark. Yes, a lot of us think that the opposition to the war is preventing us from winning. But a lot of the right also think that the lack of a "will to win" exists in the White House too, since the WH has declined to use enough troops. So I think that many right-wingers wouldn't solely blame the anti-war fanatics for a loss; some blame would go to the White House too.
Of course, all of this is academic. The war isn't going to be won or lost now anyway, since we're not withdrawig our troops any time soon.
Roommate and TNR superstar...
Wow, talk about ways to undermine a good writer's reputation.
Yes, a lot of us think that the opposition to the war is preventing us from winning.
Can you explain the mechanism you guys see at work here, Al? (That's a serious question. This gets said all of the time, but I usually assume it's said in bad faith. For whatever reason, I'm inclined to believe that you really believe the above quoted sentence.)
Where do you get these guys? The 'Vietnam Syndrome' described might be a pretty good statement about how the great American center feels- a vague feeling of dislike for an experience that was horrible.
The Left, at the time, and since, criticized the war as not only a moral disaster and military quagmire, but in particular one pursued deviously and undemocratically to further objectives that were nonsensical. Pretending that this is stuff that might have happened is just silly- this is stuff that did happen, and when the American public became aware of what was happening, they turned thumbs down.
Nor, in the present case, is the damage, or the cause of the damage, any more hypothetical. In real world terms, we've hardly advanced any desirable policy objective in the three years we've been at war, our out-of-pocket spending on the war now stands at roughly $500 billion, and there is, of course, the 'opportunity cost' to consider at a time when we might particularly like to transition to renewable energy or provide our citizens with healthcare and education.
In the past I have seen the term 'Vietnam Syndrome' to express a feeling of caution among our elites, a suspicion the elite harbors that the American people might remember what a disaster Vietnam was for us, and punish 'leaders' who again tricked us into a morally corrosive and degenerate attack on people who posed no threat to our security. I imagine we'll see soon enough whether this caution was in fact justified.
"The war isn't going to be won or lost now anyway, since we're not withdrawig our troops any time soon."
The fact that the WH is going to attempt to defer defeat past 1/09 doesn't mean we haven't already lost the Iraq war. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that we lost it quite a while ago.
I count Iraq as a loss in my standings.
"Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Kuwait?"
Afghanistan is still too close to call, although I think our odds are better than 50/50. A successful use of military force needs a successful endgame, not just initial military victories. See Iraq for a vivid illustration of this.
But good catch on Bosnia. I'd left that off my previous standings.
Including Bosnia improves our win/loss count since 1980 to 5 wins against 3 losses, with Afghanistan still TBD. It's definitely looking like we can make the playoffs.
Before the current Iraq debacle, there was a consensus on the major lesson from Vietnam -- You set clear objectives before a military engagement; when you accomplish those objectives, you go home. It's that simple really. And that's exactly why Bush's father pulled the troops out after the first Gulf War. The troops accomplished the objective (take Kuwait back from Saddam). And that decision was based on what we learned from Vietnam (and then forgot). Go read about it.
Bush rejected any post war planning in Iraq since he really doesn't want the fun to ever end. The assumption has always been that Bush has bungled the war, but it's still going, isn't it? he's still a "war president", isn't he? he's still waving the equivalent of the bloody flag of rebellion, isn't he? This war business is all he's got going for him so he's going to drag this one out for as long as possible.
"Now the bricks lay on Grand Street
Where the neon madmen climb.
They all fall there so perfectly,
It all seems so well timed.
An' here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice..."
-- Bob Dylan, from "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again"
VS3 might be the 'wars are lost through a loss of nerve, not...' Al is currently being treated, but a side-effect is comment diarrhea.
But I'm sure he'll be back proclaiming Grenada and Panama as triumphant demonstrations of American military might.
I had thought the Vietnam syndrome was to be skeptical, very skeptical, of the government's justifications for getting us into open-ended wars
Maybe it's:
We funded the Viet Minh during WWII...then ended up fighting (and losing to) them.
A lesson about the army we're training for Sadr in Iraq today?
When's the last unambiguous victory we had, despite having the most powerful military in history?
Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Kuwait?
I was counting major wars -- e.g. Korea, Vietnam, the current war in Iraq. (We don't have to spend nearly half a trillion dollars a year to beat Haiti or Serbia).
The 1st Gulf War didn't rid us of Saddam. As Petey mentioned above, Afghanistan's victory is looking a lot more uncertain. It should also be pointed out that even in the small wars we've had some embarrassing defeats: Lebanon, Somalia.
But this isn't just true of us (Israel's military has also had a tough time of it lately). The natives are starting to adapt.
It's a little ridiculous to count Haiti or Panama as U.S. military victories, those countries are smaller than many U.S. cities. I'd also point out that those wars did effectively zero to advance U.S. interests in any concrete way (which IMO is the best measure of "victory"). They were weird little PR campaigns. If you count Haiti as a victory, you have to count other police actions such as Lebanon as a loss. I'd count Kosovo the same way; it did zero to advance any measurable U.S. interest and was picking on a tiny country.
Also, Bosnia and Kosovo are not two separate wars, they are one.
Since WWII, I'd say Korea ended up being a victory -- it was actually a stalemate at the time, but the existence of a free South Korea has been a benefit to us and the world. Vietnam was a loss. Haiti, Panama, and Kosovo don't count. Iraq 1 might be a close victory, since it prevented Saddam from getting more powerful, although it left him in power as a thorn in our side and led more or less directly to 9/11. Iraq 2 was a loss. Afghanistan was a victory (punished the Taliban for harboring our enemy), followed by what looks to be a loss during the occupation. So we are either 3 and 2 or 3 and 3 depending on how you measure.
What is more important, it's hard to see that the U.S. would be that much worse off if we hadn't fought a single war -- Vietnam and Iraq 2 did a lot of damage to us, arguably more than the other wars benefited us. I don't think the country would be seriously harmed by just adopting the ground rule of "never fight a war unless absolutely forced to". I think our committment to war comes more from the fact that various foreign policy elites and people like Al need entertainment value and a reason to feel all weighty and world-historical than from any pragmatic need to defend the country in a concrete way. The attack on "Vietnam syndrome" presumes that war is really beneficial to our country, which I think is pretty clearly falsified by the facts.
"One month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In this the victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them, they would beat him up. This for the Piranha brothers was the
turning point."
The 1st Gulf War didn't rid us of Saddam.
Er, so? That wasn't the goal of the war. The Austro-Prussian War didn't get rid of Franz Joseph, but remained a complete Prussian victory. Since when do wars have to remove a foreign head of state to be successful?
"Also, Bosnia and Kosovo are not two separate wars, they are one."
While obviously connected in important ways, they are fundamentally separate U.S. military interventions. Different times, different places, different objectives.
"It's a little ridiculous to count Haiti or Panama as U.S. military victories, those countries are smaller than many U.S. cities."
Well, does that mean because Iraq is only slightly larger than some U.S. cities, that it doesn't count as a loss?
Panama was quite clearly a military victory. We went in with the objective of regime change, and we successfully deposed a hostile government, and replaced it with a friendly government.
You can certainly argue the wisdom or importance of the Panama operation. If I had been President at the time, I likely would not have ordered the invasion. But if it doesn't count as military victory, words don't mean what they actually mean.
-----
The Post-Vietnam Military Intervention Scorecard:
Wins:
Grenada
Panama
First Gulf War
Bosnia
Kosovo
Losses:
Lebanon
Somalia
Second Gulf War
Pending:
Afghanistan
-----
I left Haiti off the list, since it was not actually a hostile military intervention. Our war goals were achieved peacefully under impending threat of intervention. A fair-minded observer could certainly count it as a win with very defensible logic.
"What is more important, it's hard to see that the U.S. would be that much worse off if we hadn't fought a single war (since WW II)"
Well, the Soviet Union would likely still be in place, with the accompanying nuclear annihilation showdown.
Eastern Europe would be different in obvious ways.
South Korea, likely Taiwan, and possibly Japan, would not be close allies.
The globe would almost definitely be less friendly to democracy and market economy.
"I think our committment to war comes more from the fact that various foreign policy elites and people like Al need entertainment value and a reason to feel all weighty and world-historical than from any pragmatic need to defend the country in a concrete way."
Well, that depends what you mean by "defend the country". If you're referring to specifically defending the territory of the 50 U.S. states, than the Soviet nuclear threat ignored, you may well be correct.
But the foreign policy consensus in this country since WW II has been far less isolationist for utterly pragmatic reasons. The notion that the U.S. benefits militarily and economically by having close alliances in Europe and Asia is founded on a basis quite separate from entertainment value.
Between 1945 and 1989, the U.S. was a military superpower. Since 1989, we've been a military hyperpower. In both cases, we've seen clear military responsibilities beyond our borders. If you want to make the argument against those roles, you need to grapple with the relatively obvious downsides to a U.S. retreat from having a global military posture.
Well, the Soviet Union would likely still be in place, with the accompanying nuclear annihilation showdown.
This is based on what, the twitching of your nipples?
"This is based on what, the twitching of your nipples?"
No. It's based on an unprovable counterfactual, since I was responding to an unprovable counterfactual.
But I think it should be a relatively uncontroversial assertion for good-faith readers to understand that if the U.S had withdrawn from taking a global military posture in 1945, that the Soviet Union would likely still be in place, and that the boundaries of the Soviet empire would have been significantly broader that it actually reached.
Likewise, it should also be relatively uncontroversial that the situation in both East Asia and Western Europe would be far less friendly to U.S. interests, both militarily and economically.
But I think it should be a relatively uncontroversial assertion for good-faith readers to understand that if the U.S had withdrawn from taking a global military posture in 1945, that the Soviet Union would likely still be in place, and that the boundaries of the Soviet empire would have been significantly broader that it actually reached.
I think that is a different issue than the one brought up: should we have fought the wars we fought. I think it's also more controversial than you think, as many people believe that the USSR collapsed economically, and, as we're finding out, empires cost money. And it's going to be harder to treat any description you claim is "relatively uncontroversial" as such if you persist in making claims like, "Well, does that mean because Iraq is only slightly larger than some U.S. cities, that it doesn't count as a loss?" Based on these numbers, Iraq's population is 64% larger than that of the NYC metro area, 104% larger than that of the LA metro area, and 285% larger than that of the Chicago metro area. Obviously, that doesn't mean you were being disingenous to make a point; you might just have a different understanding of either "some" or "slightly larger" than many of us. But even that makes it hard to take "relatively uncontroversial" as true for the rest of us.
Interesting...Petey seems to think the Stalinist version of Communism was a viable economic model that would have survived in the absence our strong containment policies.
Well, at least that might explain the number of Russians who still think Stalin 'got it right'.
"Petey seems to think the Stalinist version of Communism was a viable economic model that would have survived in the absence our strong containment policies."
I think bad economic models can sometimes survive a very long time in the absence of external forces.
"Based on these numbers, Iraq's population is 64% larger than that of the NYC metro area, 104% larger than that of the LA metro area, and 285% larger than that of the Chicago metro area."
Based on these numbers, Iraq's population is 27% larger than NYC metro and 61% larger than LA metro.
pay no attention to petey he sups on the government teat as a lobbyist for a major defense contractor
WTF - 'Iraq 1 might be a close victory, since it prevented Saddam from getting more powerful, although it left him in power as a thorn in our side and led more or less directly to 9/11.'
Saddam Hussein's only connection to 9/11 was in the fervid imaginations of PNAC and the talking points of the current administration.
I hope that was just sloppy writing MQ otherwise you need to seek help.
wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması
thanx
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
turkiyemirc
mircturkiye
mirch
mırch
mirc indir
mirc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc indir
mırc yukle
mirc turkiye
turkiye mirc
turk mirc
mirc turk
türkçe mirc
türkce mirc
türkçe mırc
turkce mirc
turkçe mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mirc
mirc chat
mirc sohbet
mirc ara
muhabbet
chat
blog
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkiyeforum
türk forum
mirc
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
sohbet
chat
bedava sohbet
turksohbet
turkiye sohbet
sohbet odaları
bedava chat
chat odaları
türk chat
türkiye chat
turkada
turkmirc
mirc inndir
karar
thankss
slm
Plaket
Seks Shop - Seks Shop - Penis Büyütücü
Plaket
Kostüm
Fotokopi
Matbaa
Fuar
Reklam Ajansı
Evden Eve Nakliyat
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet
penis büyütücü hap
harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com
sex shop
Post A Comment