Thursday, July 19, 2007
Reinventing history
The Democrats, many of whom have labored mightily to compare Iraq to Vietnam in the hope of sustaining the "quagmire" narrative, find that the comparison is suddenly and maddeningly inconvenient. After all, Vietnamese and Cambodians suffered a great deal of violence and persecution in the years following the American withdrawal from Indochina and nobody -- other than Iranians, perhaps -- wants to see similar ugliness in Iraq. Fortunately, John Kerry, who knows all about the advantages and disadvantages of invoking Vietnam for political ends, has hit upon a solution. Rather than admitting that there is a huge risk that violence will escalate in Iraq as it did after the American withdrawal from Indochina, he is reinventing the history of the earlier war and claiming that no such bloodbath occurred.
It will be interesting to see whether other Democrats follow Kerry off that cliff.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
23 Comments:
By 
Unknown, at
Thu Jul 19, 08:41:00 PM:
As best as I can tell the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan was wrong: everybody can now have their own facts. I'm honestly beginning to wonder about my own sanity. History is changing so fast I can scarcely keep track.
By 
, at
Thu Jul 19, 10:12:00 PM:
He ain't the only one. Here's Zbigniew Brzezinski speaking at Duke University in March, 2007:
""We expected that the U.S. leaving Vietnam would result in massive killings and genocide and so forth, and collapse of the dominoes in Southeast Asia," he said. "It didn't happen. How certain are we of the horror scenarios that have been mentioned in what will take place in Iraq?"
http://www.network54.com/Forum/84302/thread/1175273281/last-1175280857/Brzezinski-+Avoid+disaster+with+Iran
By , at
Thu Jul 19, 11:20:00 PM:
I don't understand why this strengthens the case for remaining in Iraq at all, actually. Vietnam is currently a relatively prosperous nation; even if they suffered a large humanitarian crisis after our withdrawal, they now seem to be doing pretty well (fastest growing economy in SE asia, according to WP) now without our help.
For argument's sake, let's say you believe that the situations in Iraq and Vietnam are parallel (a large assumption, granted, but one you seem to be making for the purposes of this post). Then wouldn't the situation in Vietnam today tell you that the long-term interests of the Iraqi people might be best served if we leave sooner rather than later?
You might then say that it's immoral to leave, and abandon the Iraqi people to their fate as we did in Vietnam. That is a normative policy judgement weighing the lives of American soldiers against the possibility of saving lives of Iraqi civilians in the future. The point is though, if you believe that ultimately the Iraqis like the Vietnamese will be able to make it on their own, I'm pretty sure you can then make a good-faith argument against continuing the occupation, especially since no one knows whether the government of Iraq that we are installing will be able to survive in the long term.
What if we install a government in Iraq, it looks stable and functions, we leave, and then 5 or 10 or 20 years later the place explodes in another Islamic revolution? What if the suffering in Vietnam then was somehow essential to their success today, and the same thing has to happen in Iraq for there to be prosperity in the long term?
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Jul 20, 12:05:00 AM:
phrizz11~
Vietnam might be doing okay now, after the genocides and "re-education" that took place. But, one thing you, nor anyone else, can say is that they would now have been in a vastly better position if we hadn't pulled our troops, or the funding, as we did actually do, so that "they might be better off in the long run" line of thinking doesn't fly with me.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Jul 20, 12:06:00 AM:
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 12:58:00 AM:
Liberal demacrats are always distorting the truth to suit themselves
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jul 20, 02:00:00 AM:
"Vietnam is currently a relatively prosperous nation..."
Let's look at Vietnam and some of its Southeast Asian neighbors:
GDP - Per Capita
Singapore $31,400 (2006 est.)
Malaysia $12,900 (2006 est.)
Thailand $9,200 (2006 est.)
Vietnam: $3,100 (2006 est.)
(Source: CIA World Factbook)
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 03:01:00 AM:
"You might then say that it's immoral to leave, and abandon the Iraqi people to their fate as we did in Vietnam. That is a normative policy judgement weighing the lives of American soldiers against the possibility of saving lives of Iraqi civilians in the future. The point is though, if you believe that ultimately the Iraqis like the Vietnamese will be able to make it on their own, I'm pretty sure you can then make a good-faith argument against continuing the occupation, especially since no one knows whether the government of Iraq that we are installing will be able to survive in the long term."
Phrizz, if we're going to follow this--under what circumstances should we prevent this sort of thing from happening, though? In most cases of genocide during the past hundred years, I think you could count on the nation being at least as prosperous as (and often more than) Vietnam currently is a few decades after the fact.
To toss in a few more numbers for the prosperity comparison -
Vietnam's GDP per capita is only a couple hundred buck more what Iraq's GDP per capita is right now. ($3,100 vs. $2,900)
----
There's also the mother of all comparisons:
GDP Per Capita
South Korea $24,500
North Korea $1,800
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 03:04:00 AM:
Typo, that should be:
"couple hundred bucks more than"
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jul 20, 07:22:00 AM:
The victory of the Communists in Indochina condemned millions of people, over several generations, to misery and death. The impact of those years, measured against the economic, social and political progress of nearby similar societies that were not subject to Communist rule, will ultimately take the better part of a century to eradicate.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jul 20, 08:17:00 AM:
But that's nothing compared to the danger and inconvenience suffered by our poor, poor military...
right?
By buck smith, at
Fri Jul 20, 10:13:00 AM:
Phrizz, you are funny, seems like the Iraqis understand Vietnam better than you:
Now, "If you talk to these sheiks, they’ll tell you that they’re in no hurry to see the Americans leave al-Anbar," he said.
"One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping ... put them back together," MacFarland said. "The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they’re still living in poverty."
http://instapundit.com/archives2/002786.php
By Christopher Chambers, at
Fri Jul 20, 03:10:00 PM:
To quote your dead senile hero--there you m-fs go again. I recall the Communist North Vietnamese trying to take out Pol Pot in Cambodia--and succeeding in yes, liberating those people from horror. And a bloodbath after we left? Hmmm...with tourism booming, and I'm sure even Tigerhawk's company and a whole bunch of GOP and wingnut folk making cash money off the place, mustn't have been too bad, huh?
Maybe it's what's called "self-determination." Indeed how many tories were killed, displaced, banished or fled during and after our Revolution? I guess the British and French could have intervened in our "Bloodbath" of a civil war? Whole sale massacres, purges. Ah, no. The Vietnamese got what they wanted. One nation, no foreigners. Even kicked out the Russians after awhile. The North as saints, the Viet cong, too. Hell, freaking no. But nor were they Pol Pot and I'd say too many corrupt big shots from the Saigon govt who were more responsible for "loosing" that war got a free ticket out of there on a US chopper.
Stop baiting these rabid retards with this stuff, TH. You're better than that...
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 04:02:00 PM:
�I recall the Communist North Vietnamese trying to take out Pol Pot in Cambodia--and succeeding in yes, liberating those people from horror.�
And I recall Stalin fighting Hitler, so, ergo, Stalin was not that bad of a guy and efforts to prevent him were misguided.
�And a bloodbath after we left? Hmmm...with tourism booming, and I'm sure even Tigerhawk's company and a whole bunch of GOP and wingnut folk making cash money off the place, mustn't have been too bad, huh?�
Screw avg. income and GDP per capita -- I, also, have often found that the best indicator of how well the native population is doing is how useful their country is for me as a tourist stop. BTW, I felt the same way about 1950s Cuba . . .
"Maybe it's what's called "self-determination."
Yeah, because that�s what the Vietnamese have right now . . .
As long as they have a dictator of the same race as them, I suppose that�s your definition of self determination
�Indeed how many tories were killed, displaced, banished or fled during and after our Revolution?�
Outright killed? Compared to �Nam, not many.
�I guess the British and French could have intervened in our "Bloodbath" of a civil war?�
If we were in the habit of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in the North they would have been perfectly justified in doing so. But in your search for moral superiority, would you at least like to mention the whole �freeing the slaves� thing (come on, it's that's passing by anybody) before lecturing everybody about fighting it--or was that war mistaken?
�The North as saints, the Viet cong, too. Hell, freaking no. But nor were they Pol Pot . . . "
ah, okay, so as long as you�re not Pol Pot everything�s cool.
�The Vietnamese got what they wanted.�
And their people didn�t.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Jul 20, 06:03:00 PM:
"...a whole bunch of GOP and wingnut folk making cash money off the place..."
The potential profit in Vietnam is chump change.
By , at
Fri Jul 20, 09:54:00 PM:
Chambers, for a guy who supposedly went to Princeton, you sure write some asinine posts.
By pst314, at
Fri Jul 20, 10:30:00 PM:
Anonymous, please forgive Christopher Chambers. He's normally calm and rational. It's just that he gets uncontrollably angry when anybody criticizes commie thugs. Only America, the nation that allows him to enjoy freedom and prosperity hitherto unheard of, is deserving of hatred and demonization.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jul 21, 12:36:00 AM:
"He's normally calm and rational."
I'd like to contest that assertion.
"Chambers, for a guy who supposedly went to Princeton,"
On the Internet, you can be anything, hidden safely behind a screen of anonymity.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Jul 21, 11:15:00 AM:
"On the Internet, you can be anything, hidden safely behind a screen of anonymity."
Actually Mr. Chambers is not an anonymous commenter. His picture has appeared on this blog. His books are available at Amazon. He knows TH.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jul 21, 12:28:00 PM:
My opinion of Princeton just plummeted...
By , at
Sat Jul 21, 07:35:00 PM:
Someone on this site said that Vietnam is prosperous. Very well then. The GDP per capita in Vietnam is now $3100. I suppose all the leftists would now agree that this amount should be more than enough for any welfare recipient in the US. And this includes everything, medical care, schooling, food - everything. Any American who gets more than $258 a month is prosperous. Agreed?
By Cassandra, at
Sun Jul 22, 08:02:00 PM:
It's just that he gets uncontrollably angry when anybody criticizes commie thugs. Only America, the nation that allows him to enjoy freedom and prosperity hitherto unheard of, is deserving of hatred and demonization.
Christopher will rationalize anything: torture, beatings, rape, the murder of 2 MILLION people... the list goes on and on. Because now there is... ummm... less freedom than the US enjoys.
Yeah. I am waiting for Christopher to explain how the United States had an exodus from our shores to compare to what happened in Vietnam with the boat people: people literally fleeing with nothing more than the clothes on their backs.
People thrusting infants into the hands of total strangers with notes saying "take care of him".
This happened.
This was the valedictorian of my class in college.
This is the consequence of terror. These were educated people. This young man's parents disappeared when Saigon fell. THEY WERE NEVER HEARD FROM AGAIN.
But no doubt Christopher Chambers, with his fancy Princeton education, has an explanation for that, too.
I'd love to hear it.
By pst314, at
Sun Jul 22, 09:05:00 PM:
"I'd like to contest that assertion."
I won't disagree. I only said it for humorous effect.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's response to a leftist TV host applies to Chambers too: "You grew up in freedom so you can spit on freedom".
