Jim Devine wrote, >Tom, I think this is much too simple. The US wanted to defend its empire >against any kind of nationalist revolt, especially those which were >left-leaning in any way. The invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 had >nothing to do with demographics. The US leaders thought that Vietnam would >be as easy as the DR (or Iran or Guatemala or ...) but it turned out after >the fact that it was much more difficult. I agree wholeheartedly that the *explanation* I gave for viet nam was much too simple. Actually, I confess to using hyperbole to make my point, which was to simply to draw attention to defense manpower channelling. Perhaps what I should have said is that if viet nam hadn't been there to make war on, the U.S. military-industrial complex would have had to invent it. The problem is also that ANY explanation for viet nam would also be much too simple. Ellsberg's explanation (with which I have a great deal of sympathy) is that officials felt compelled to keep making decisions they _knew_ were wrong in order to uphold previous decisions. Waist deep in the big muddy and the big fool said to move on. It's even messier than that. As *interpretation*, however, my version holds up about as well as defending empire or upholding the rectitude of past miscalculations. All of them help us understand some facet. None of them gives us the whole story. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
