> Nice history...thanks.
>
You're welcome, just a quick summary long forgotten. as bloody usual :-)
anyway, the below is quite on the money, which I'll add, that the US chose
freely to do what it did in Vietnam, for whatever reason it did it. The US
was not forced into Vietnam, it was not decieved into any war, but freely
chose it, as it also chose to up the ante year after year.
Just because each adminsitration chose to blame America's involvement there
onto the so-called Communist world domination demons of the USSR and China,
is irrelevant.
The French wanted to re-colonise it after WW2, tried with US support but
failed. The vietnamese won that war hands down.
The writing was clearly on the wall in the early 50's yet despite this
America power brokers obviously loved what they were doing there. The South
was clearly corrupt, this was well known in the early 60's and as a 10 year
old it was repeatedly on the TV in Australia about the shonky stuff going on
in South Vietnam. I could work it out, why couldn't an entire White House
staff of adults?? Doh! LOL
The bottom line was it was America's own percieved self-interest that led
each President to get more and more bogged down into a region where it had
no reason or cause to be, and only ever made it worse than would otherwise
be the case.
McNamara spells out very clearly why it all went to shit in the Fog of War
doco and his books.
Under Bush II the exact same mistakes have occurred and are still occuring
in Iraq. A place the US soldier should never have been sent in the first
place but sent on total delusions by the Bush White House and is neocon
buddies who refused to see anything but their own twisted beliefs about how
the world should be run.
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized
the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also
resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But
conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's
role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American
foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure
potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a
defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American
interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for
American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the
world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War,
America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have
the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United
States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American
principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge.
We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the
foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in
foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of
statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult
to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of
short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic
considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability
to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that
lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan
Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both
present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully
promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts
the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.
But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the
costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in
maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we
shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental
interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is
important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats
before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us
to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their
consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
. we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry
out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
. we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge
regimes hostile to our interests and values;
. we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
. we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving
and extending an international order friendly to our security, our
prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be
fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on
the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our
greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve
Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
***** That's where everything got way out of hand, as if it was a reborn
Nixon administration of raving nutters and fools.
Versus McNamara's Wisdom of Hindsight
11 Lessons from Vietnam
[ that completely apply to IRAQ 2003- 2008 and still counting the body
bags!!! ]
The origin of the film's lesson concept is the eleven lessons in McNamara's
1996 book In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam:
1.. We misjudged then - and we have since - the geopolitical intentions of
our adversaries . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of
their actions.
2.. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own
experience . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3.. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to
fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4.. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance
of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the
personalities and habits of their leaders.
5.. We failed then - and have since - to recognize the limitations of
modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine.
6.. We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning
the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
7.. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and
frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military
involvement . before we initiated the action.
8.. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off
our planned course . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we
were doing what we did.
9.. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are
omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best
interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international
forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our
image or as we choose.
10.. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . should
be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully
(and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
11.. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other
aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate
solutions . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons
of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex
range of political and military issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incompetance, ignorance, foolish pride, lousy management skills, false
beliefs, and a White House full to the brim with BIG EGO's, and little
common sense!
That's the Bush II White House - 2001 - 2009.
Thank goodness, it's almost over. ;-)
