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.