Posted on 09/23/2001 6:57:38 PM PDT by annalex
His second lesson is the classic American mistake of believing the nationalists lost in South Vietnam just because "the US military's hands were tied". For goodness' sake, every other government in the world was telling your government in 1963/4 that you could not possibly win in Vietnam. What, were they just a bunch of halfwits who didn't know what they were talking about, compared to the genius-level intellects of LBJ's State Dept? But they proved to be right, didn't they? And they included the British, who had fought and won our own war against Communist insurgents in Malaya, and the French, who had experienced conditions on the ground in Vietnam first-hand.
Had the US military been given a free hand, even had they been allowed to reoccupy Hanoi and the whole of North Vietnam (can you imagine the number of troops it would have taken to do that?) you would simply have ended up doing the same thing on a hugely larger scale with support for the rebels coming over the border from China. Let's face it, that wasn't exactly a recipe for western success in the Korean War, was it?
Military people almost always recommend escalation as the solution to conflict situations (one of the reasons Powell is unusually good in that role, because he doesn't seem to be quite so wedded to it). While that's fine if you're fighting a "real" war, when you use all available force in open combat against another country, it's not only usually unsuccessful when fighting to suppress dissent within a country, it is also usually deeply morally wrong in such circumstances.
So Tracinski's understanding of history is completely upside down, and then he seeks to base a policy for today's problems upon it.
Ironically, his final "lesson of history" is spot on. Bush senior's decision to halt the attack on Iraq, for fear of the consequences of break-up, was foolish with hindsight (and many, including myself, said so at the time). That said, nobody really expected Saddam to survive the consequences of losing the Gulf War anyway.
And I actually believe Tracinski's proposal - active destruction of the governments of countries which harbour terrorists - is viable, but only if there is no exaggerated attempt to maintain favourable alternative regimes thereafter or to "change" the people of the country for the better. The way to deal with regimes in primitive countries which cause trouble without openly declaring war is the "punitive raid" - go in, temporarily occupy the appropriate bits militarily and snatch or kill the guys you believe are causing the trouble and then get out again as quickly as possible, leaving the country to sort itself out again on its own. Such action would be a lot easier in the age of airborne warfare than in previous eras. Once you get bogged down into supporting favourable regimes which cannot maintain themselves in power without direct assistance you end up making your puppet regime and your own soldiers sitting targets, and creating a threatening military presence to worry other countries in the area.
And of course, all of this is a waste of time if you're going to let your government go back to its former ways of poking its nose into everybody else's quarrels at the behest of whichever interest or lobby group has the "ear" of the Administration at the time.
Alliance with the USSR in the early stages of their war with Hitler made sense; however, the continuation of the alliance past 1945 didn't. Time to prevent the partitioning of Central Europe was in 1945-49, and that time was lost by the sheer inertia of the pact with Stalin.
But be it as it may, the interesting point here is that in Tracinski we have a libertarian who is very unwilling to give peace a chance, or to treat this war as a matter of individual justice.
I agree with your last two paragraphs to the extent that unless a lot of effort is devoted to nation-building after the war, -- comparable to the US occupation of Japan or Britain's management of the colonies prior to WWII, -- then it is better to let the new regime there grow organically on its own. There is no question that we should redefine American imperialism when this is over.
Then go and ask a North Korean. At least Vietnam has been able to move on. Hopefully the Vietnamese people will eventually find their way to freedom if they can avoid being "helped" by any more competing superpowers.
"Didn't China actually have a small border war with Vietnam in the late 60's or early 70's?"
Yes, in 1979 after China and the Soviets had split and Vietnam went with the Soviets. And a Vietnamese "humanitarian intervention" against Pol Pot.
"Alliance with the USSR in the early stages of their war with Hitler made sense; however, the continuation of the alliance past 1945 didn't. Time to prevent the partitioning of Central Europe was in 1945-49, and that time was lost by the sheer inertia of the pact with Stalin."
Agreed, although there wasn't any real prospect of stopping much of eastern europe falling into Soviet hands by 1945. However, at least some more serious attempts could have been made. But you can understand if the stomach wasn't there for a confrontation right after 6 years of war had just ended.
"But be it as it may, the interesting point here is that in Tracinski we have a libertarian who is very unwilling to give peace a chance, or to treat this war as a matter of individual justice."
Back to my point about hysteria in reaction to the WTC atrocity. It's understandable, but still not a good foundation for a rational assessment of the lessons to be drawn and the correct course for the future.
"I agree with your last two paragraphs to the extent that unless a lot of effort is devoted to nation-building after the war, -- comparable to the US occupation of Japan or Britain's management of the colonies prior to WWII, -- then it is better to let the new regime there grow organically on its own. There is no question that we should redefine American imperialism when this is over. "
I don't think the German and Japanese cases can be applied. In each case you had there a nation which had surrendered unconditionally, isolated from any neighbours either by sea or by hostility, with no "common cause" to draw other nations, or groups within other nations, to support any opposition to reeducation of the populace and restructuring of the nation.
The same could not be said of any muslim country occupied by the west with the intention of "converting" it to a westernised secular nation, unless the entire muslim world were to be occupied simultaneously. If you want to imagine the outrage the idea would generate, imagine if France were occupied by a coalition of muslim countries and forced to repudiate Christianity, both as a state and as people.
Western countries have still far from recovered from the poisonous effects of WW1 and WW2, as far as enlargement of government and infringement of our liberties is concerned. Can you imagine how much more damage our governments will inflict upon our nations during the course of an open-ended war on terrorism involving bitter repression of dissent in occupied country after occupied country?
"converting" it to a westernised secular nation
I don't suggest that. To be precise, I don't suggest any religious or even cultural conversions. An occupation force, providing law enforcement that punishes abuses of life and property, that would leave cultural teaching to the imams, would do for 5-10 years, after which there is a good chance of a homegrown civil society to emerge.
I am sure you agree that France would greatly benefit from an occupational force that eradicates 30 hour work week and the language police as abuses of property and, by all means, leaves the cuisine intact.
Do you really believe that real life works that way?
"I am sure you agree that France would greatly benefit from an occupational force that eradicates 30 hour work week and the language police as abuses of property and, by all means, leaves the cuisine intact."
Absolutely. The occupational force could usefully hunt down and reeducate their philosophers, as well.
In the same vein, I think that the best thing for the Palestinians is to be annexed by Israel, when the mad bombers will become a matter of law enforcement and everyone who wants to work for a living could get a job in Israel proper. The major foundation of stability for a while there was the open border with Lebanon, through which daily laborers commuted. When Israel was forced to seal that border -- thanks to Hezbolla, which hated that very stability, all kinds of trouble started.
There you go again, confusing regimes and people. The Pakistani regime might be "in our corner", and even some of the people. But most aren't and a very significant fraction are emphatically in the other corner. The latter can only grow, both in numbers and in hatred, with the inevitable messiness of any occupation of Afghanistan.
No, it could not work for Afghanistan, or probably for any middle eastern country, and any attempt to do it can only end in utter catastrophe, first for the targeted country, then for surrounding countries and other muslim countries worldwide, and ultimately for the west.
"In the same vein, I think that the best thing for the Palestinians is to be annexed by Israel, when the mad bombers will become a matter of law enforcement and everyone who wants to work for a living could get a job in Israel proper. The major foundation of stability for a while there was the open border with Lebanon, through which daily laborers commuted. When Israel was forced to seal that border -- thanks to Hezbolla, which hated that very stability, all kinds of trouble started. "
I prefer not to comment on the Arab/Israeli situation. My feelings are accurately summed up by the expression "a plague on both your houses".
Nice one, Justin.
In my article I did not go into the How of this war, but Randalcousins sort of dragged me into it in the course of the thread. The position I hold is first, that since the threat is extranational, it is impossible to single out any particular nation as the enemy, and Bush's formula of "any country that harbors (i.e. abets) terrorism" is the only logical one. It is true that this war has a potential to expand as the terrorist base moves and scatters. That is an unfortunate fact; it's still a fact.
Second, I believe that the threat originates from the death spasms of the receding militant Arab civilization. Hence a proportional punishment, applicable to a civilizational peer, will not prevent future attacks. Therefore a need for an occupational force or a puppet govenrnment virtually everywhere in ayatollastan.
If anyone wishes to dispute the above theses seriously, let's start a new thread.
Heads, I'd be happy to add you to the bump list, -- let me know.
I can tell you now that they will be, if you rather not wait all that time.
Please do. I'd at least like to compare your list with my own.
Going forward, perhaps. If I don't spit on their DNA-test slide, can they then take away my citizenship?
Say rather, condition of naturalized citizenship
Don't go off ex-post-facto on us.
How can Preemptive aggression against a rogue NOT be itself rogue behavior?
That path is too fraught with perils. Many people come to this country expecting freedom. Then they find they will be second class citizens and the resentment starts to build. I see danger in even that course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.