----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 5:59 PM Subject: Re: "God Is With Us" L3
> Let's see. For starters, don't let old hawks like Rummy and Cheney grab > the reins. Um, don't assume that US forces will be welcomed by the > natives. Never assume you've got a situation in hand before you've > completely controlled a territory. Don't EVER assume the entire world > wants to be just like the US. Never try to mix conquest with parsimony. > That's a start, I think. I find it surprising you've overlooked the > above; to me it's glaringly obvious. But, the question is why it is glaringly obvious to you and not the professionals who are working in the fields of political science and history. Given Gautam's degree, I think we can assume that he is reasonably familiar with the literature. Even from what I've read, and from what I've seen, its much more complicated than you indicate.. And going through your points, I'm not sure how many of them could possibly be lessons from Viet Nam. For example, how could one call Robert McNamara an old war dog? He was 44 when he took the job of secretary of Defense, having spent his working life as a professional manager. The context of Viet Nam must be the proxy war with the Soviet Union, and the view that they were trying to win through the sponsorship of "wars of national liberation." So, I cannot see why you seem to assume that it was about conquest. I also don't see why you assume that the US thought everyone would love us automatically. The tendency to believe that one has found simple, easy solutions to problems that very intelligent people in the field all miss is one that I have difficulty with. It's not that I always believe the consensus is right. There are times when I've gone another way, and then had people following me a few years later. But, as a scientist about 30 years older than me told me "the people who came before you weren't stupid." If you solution assumes they are idiots, you, not they, are probably missing something. If, on the other hand, it's a genuine innovation, or is the result of the application of newly available technology, then you may be on to something. I've found that to be pretty valid over the years. Obviously, history and political science are not physics, but I think that real scholarship is possible. So, when Gautam indicates that there is a wide group of scholars who agree that the "lessons from Viet Nam" are not trivial to determine, then one should come up with strong arguments for why the generally agreed upon facts really aren't as they seem. For example, in what sense was Robert McNamara an "old war dog." Why can we ignore the Cold War framework for 'Nam, and why was it a war of conquest? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
