This could probably go into Politics ...

[TomJoe]

... but I'm going to post it here instead. I think it's relevant in either place.

I've begun reading We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young, written by Harold G. Moore. While it basically chronicles the efforts of he and his troops in the opening sequences of the full-scale invasion by American troops into Vietnam, it has been painting a very gloomy picture of the politics of the whole "police action" as well. It's to be expected I imagine, given that Harold Moore saw many of his charges die (in the Ia Drang, he lost some 230+ troops over the span of three to four days), so he can't quite be considered unbiased.

The following quote I found to be quite telling: We were the children of the 1950's and John F. Kennedy's young stalwarts of the early 1960's. He told the world that Americans would go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden in the defense of freedom. We were the down payment on that costly contract, but the man who signed it was not there when we fulfilled his promise. John F. Kennedy waited for us on a hill in Arlington National Cemetery, and in time, by the thousands, we came to fill those slopes with our white marble markers and to ask on the murmur of the wind if that was truly the future he had envisioned for us.

I could imagine someone writing something similar about the Gulf War(s) and George Bush (both of them).

Difference is: Kennedy was a Democrat. Johnson was a Demorat. Both of them are responsible for the clusterfuck that was Vietnam. So, does history teach us that it's not just Republicans who can make bad war-time judgements? Does history teach us that there can be plenty of "war hawks" in the Democratic party as the Republican party? Will anyone claim that the Democrats of the 60's are not to be associated with the Democrats of the new millenium?

Is the only lesson that can be learned from Vietnam and the Gulf War that we should remain mostly isolationist, especially when it comes to military might?

[seebs]

I am not sure. Contrasting the (initial) handling of the war in Afghanistan with GW2, it's really hard to imagine they were handled by the same country. It's not until you notice the total incompetence in dealing with the aftermath of a war that they start looking similar.

I don't know. WWII makes the case for pacifism and isolationism hard...

[TomJoe]

I am not sure. Contrasting the (initial) handling of the war in Afghanistan with GW2, it's really hard to imagine they were handled by the same country. It's not until you notice the total incompetence in dealing with the aftermath of a war that they start looking similar.

Well, I don't know. It appears that Afghanistan is making much better progress than Iraq is, but it doesn't make the headlines any longer. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not.

I don't know. WWII makes the case for pacifism and isolationism hard...

Of course, but could we not argue that WWII was a much different can 'o worms than say Vietnam and Iraq?

Then we have the situation of Korea (Truman was a Democrat) and Kuwait/Gulf War I (Bush was a Republican), which I think we more justified in their goals than Vietnam/Iraq were/are.

What irks me is that some people see Iraq and say "Typical Republican bullshit." and I'm amazed that they're so short-sighted. It may very well be typical politician bullshit, but it's definitely not solely in the realm of the Republican party.

[seebs]

Oh, hell no.

I consider it "Bush bullshit." The multiple countries we bombed under Clinton were "Clinton bullshit".

[godfry n. glad]

Of course, but could we not argue that WWII was a much different can 'o worms than say Vietnam and Iraq?

Then we have the situation of Korea (Truman was a Democrat) and Kuwait/Gulf War I (Bush was a Republican), which I think we more justified in their goals than Vietnam/Iraq were/are.

What irks me is that some people see Iraq and say "Typical Republican bullshit." and I'm amazed that they're so short-sighted. It may very well be typical politician bullshit, but it's definitely not solely in the realm of the Republican party.

It's not a Republican thing, or a Democratic thing, but a manifestation of the military-industrial complex which, leading up to and through WWII, found that manufacturing and selling death was a profitable trade. Successive administrations, both Republican and Democrat, were beholden to the interests of the major economic players in American (and, to a certain extent, European) society.

It's interesting to note that two senators, one from Oregon and one from Alaska, opposed the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the Johnson administration virtual carte blanche to prosecute the war in Vietnam. Both senators were members of the president's party, Democrats.

Likewise, during the discussions over GWI, I know at least one Oregon Senator opposed it, and again, it was a member of the then sitting president's political party, Republicans.

The tendency of the American government to embroil itself in overseas military adventures has little to do, over the long run, with political party identification and much to do with how American interests will be protected and advanced. For "American interests" read "corporate investments."

I would never, never, never paint idiotic involvement in misbegotten overseas military adventures to be a Republican trait. I personally remember both LBJ and Nixon. Both parties have their peacemakers and their hawks. Elected officials from both parties are bought and sold by the economic powers of the nation. It's just that the American electorate has a very, very short collective memory.

[Shake]

I could imagine someone writing something similar about the Gulf War(s) and George Bush (both of them).
This is sort of the sentiment I feel when I listen to The Noose by A Perfect Circle. Lyrics here (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/The-Noose-lyrics-A-Perfect-Circle/682F36473C6D44EB48256D8200095A69).

[Godless Dave]

So, does history teach us that it's not just Republicans who can make bad war-time judgements? Does history teach us that there can be plenty of "war hawks" in the Democratic party as the Republican party?

Of course.

Will anyone claim that the Democrats of the 60's are not to be associated with the Democrats of the new millenium?

Of course not. The Democratic party is still having the same internal conflict it was having in 1968. Oppose the war and be right but seem wimpy, or support the war and be wrong but seem tough. They chose the latter strategy in 1968 and it failed. Naturally they chose it again in 2004 and it failed again.

Is the only lesson that can be learned from Vietnam and the Gulf War that we should remain mostly isolationist, especially when it comes to military might?

No, but it means we should be much more judicious about when we use military force, and when we use it we should have a good plan and be willing to commit whatever it takes to follow through.

Diplomacy and economic sanctions (backed by the threat of force as all good diplomacy should be) work much of the time. It got Iraq to abandon its WMD programs and in 2002 it got UN inspectors back into Iraq. Diplomacy does not consist of asking your enemies nicely to do what you want, it consists of getting allies and neutral nations to work together to put pressure on your enemies.

War should be a last resort, not because you can move your enemies by throwing flowers at them, but because modern war is a deadly, destructive affair and because American citizens should not be ordered to kill and die for spurious reasons. Gone are the good old days when rifles only fired five bullets per minute, the fastest vehicle was a horse, and the poorer classes were sufficiently disenfranchised that were no political repercussions to sending men to their deaths.

In my mind, the prime purpose of using military force is against an enemy that has the capability and intent of attacking the United States, and the goal should be to remove its capability of doing so. I thought sending forces into Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda bases and personnel was a good use of military force. Overthrowing the Taliban was probably necessary in order to do that, but that took us into the tricky task of nation building in a nation with no history of democracy or civil rights. I think that's something we shouldn't try to do very often but we do need to learn how to do it.

Then there's defending an ally against an agressor. I don't have a problem with the US being a member of military alliances, as long as our allies don't use force to expand their territory, steal natural resources, or suppress human rights.

Then there's defending the inhabitants of another country against their own government or other inhabitants of the same country, like Kosovo or Somalia. That's tricky. I guess there are probably times when that's appropriate, but not many. And, depending on the history of the country in question, that might lead to more nation building, which quite frankly in some parts of the world is beyond our abilities. Just as you can't help a drug addict who doesn't want to quit, you can't give people a democracy if they don't want it.

And if we do decide to get involved in something like that, we can't do it half-assed.

But I don't think we should be in the habit of getting involved in other countries' civil wars, or propping up one dictator against another, or overthrowing a government to replace it with the dictator of our choice. Nor should we use military force to make another nation sell us their natural resources at the price we want. "Friendly" dictators almost always turn out to be a liability in the long run.

The lesson to be learned from Vietnam is, don't support one dictator against another, especially when there is very little at stake with regard to US national security. The other lesson to be learned is, don't hire yes-men to run the military. And the final lesson, you can't win a guerilla war with conventional forces.

To sum up, I think we should be engaged in the world, but should only use military force when we have a damn good reason and a damn good plan for how to use it.