08 February 2008
Is That Why We Were in Vietnam?
The OpEd by Arthur Herman in the February 6, 2008 Wall Street Journal, “The Lies of Tet,” leads one to the conclusion that if the American military had been allowed to stay in Vietnam indefinitely, the world would have avoided tragedies like the killing fields of Cambodia (and probably the genocide in Rwanda, not to mention others). His analysis reflects the confusion that conflates successful military campaigns with enlightened public policy. For example, Nadia Schadlow (in her OpEd in the February 7, 2008 Wall Street Journal, “From the Jaws of Victory”) misses the wrongheadedness of the Iraq Invasion when criticizing the possible transfer of General Petraeus to NATO headquarters on the basis that it could only be justified in “peacetime.” After all, were the U.S. not to find itself suppressing resistance by a fratricidal population to occupation by our military, Iraqis would still be experiencing peace, if not liberty, in their land.
We have often scapegoated our military leaders for failing to win victories in impossible circumstances. When they are able, like General Petraeus, to isolate the range of their responsibilities from horrendous failures of judgment by our political leaders, their military successes should not be allowed retroactively to rationalize a military adventure that only brings shame on a peace-loving superpower.
The OpEd by Arthur Herman in the February 6, 2008 Wall Street Journal, “The Lies of Tet,” leads one to the conclusion that if the American military had been allowed to stay in Vietnam indefinitely, the world would have avoided tragedies like the killing fields of Cambodia (and probably the genocide in Rwanda, not to mention others). His analysis reflects the confusion that conflates successful military campaigns with enlightened public policy. For example, Nadia Schadlow (in her OpEd in the February 7, 2008 Wall Street Journal, “From the Jaws of Victory”) misses the wrongheadedness of the Iraq Invasion when criticizing the possible transfer of General Petraeus to NATO headquarters on the basis that it could only be justified in “peacetime.” After all, were the U.S. not to find itself suppressing resistance by a fratricidal population to occupation by our military, Iraqis would still be experiencing peace, if not liberty, in their land.
We have often scapegoated our military leaders for failing to win victories in impossible circumstances. When they are able, like General Petraeus, to isolate the range of their responsibilities from horrendous failures of judgment by our political leaders, their military successes should not be allowed retroactively to rationalize a military adventure that only brings shame on a peace-loving superpower.
Comments:
Post a Comment
