Tim Re.. don't think I agree with that. Look at the suffering that communists have created in South East Asia.
The problem for me was that Ho Chi Minh , while he was trained in Russia, for guerella tactics, wasn't a true blue communist, in the usual sense, like a Stalin, or Pol Pot. While Ho was ruthless in his tactics in war, he didn't seem ruthless, in the way he presided over his people. Diem was as ruthless, and far more corrupt, so in a popularity contest, Ho would have won hands down. Vietnam was a follow on to the rest of our interventions, Sk, Iran, etc. If the same conditions existed in Vietnam, that existed in SK, we probably would have won. They didn't, and that was our mistake to assume they were.
However Vietnam was probably no the right thing to do for practical reasons. If we didn't care enough to do what it really takes to win, and to bear the cost to win, then it doesn't make sense to bleed ourselves for a decade with half measures that won't result in victory
Absolutely. And that applies to our war on terrorism. We either do what is necessary to win, or we will lose eventually. To me, Iraq is the second major step, Afghanistan, being the first. We must have the will, and patience to follow through in Iraq though, or intervention could easily be worse than doing nothing. |
