It's Jack Kerouac's birthday, which I've posted on before (see specifically, March 12, 2006 post).
Today this country as a whole is on the road in Iraq, just as forty odd years ago we were on the road in Vietnam. Only then, because of the Draft, more people protested more vocally. Today we seem to say, shucks, then shrug our shoulders and hustle up some money to pay for gas as we drive away from the problem.
To some extent at least, Gore Vidal was right when he called the USA "The United States of Amnesia."
Take the Bush-Cheney mantra since mid-2006: "If we don't fight them there [Iraq], we'll have to fight them here ['The Homeland"].
Hardly original. This "logic" goes back at least as far as the Great War / First World War. And more recently, to Vietnam. Consider U.S. Vietnam veteran Donald Duncan, writing in 1966:
[W]henever anybody questioned our being in Vietnam -- in light of the facts -- the old rationale was always presented: "We have to stop the spread of communism somewhere . . . if we don't fight the commies here, we'll have to fight them at home . . . if we pull out, the rest of Asia will go Red . . . these are uneducated people who have been duped [i.e. the Vietnamese, not the occupying Americans]; they don't understand the difference between democracy and communism . . ."
(Source: Donald Duncan, "The Whole Thing Was a Lie!" February 1966, in Peter B. Levy, ed., America in the Sixties -- Left, Right and Center: A Documentary History (Praeger, 1998), p. 146).
Today's Rune: Harvest.
As we sow, so shall we reap.
12 comments:
In theory, both communism and radical Islam(the jihadist variety) are totalitarian movements bent on world hegemony. John McCain fought communism in Vietnam and he will and is fighting radical Islam now.--The Explicator
Well, if McCain blunders into the presidency and has the same luck he did in Vietnam, don't be surprised if he isn't captured again while gamboling overseas.
Vietnam did fall. The sky did not fall in. Communism was never monolithic.
Radical Islam is a many-headed hydra. There is no logic in "fighting them there so they won't fight us here." Being in Iraq CANNOT PREVENT random attacks in the USA -- as anyone paying attention to random wacko Americans can see (colleges, Wendy's, malls, etc.).
And besides, no way radical Islam will ever take hold in the USA.
There have been no successful jihadist attacks in the USA since 9-11. The seemingly illogical strategy you quote has worked.--The Explicator
Rosecolored glasses -- thanks for the detailed comment, which makes perfect sense. Time to check out your blog. . .
Explicator -- there have been successful attacks against once or present "Coalition of the Willing" in Madrid, London, etc. The fact that a loony suicide squad hasn't struck in the US since 9/11 is probably (we can't definitively *prove* why or why not, neither you nor I, as we are not omniscient) a combo of luck and intel. A ground kamikaze is a lot easier to pull of than another hijacking of 9/11 scale. If Israel is any example, kamikaze type actions CANNOT BE STOPPED, certainly not universally or for all time.
Geez, it actually sounds like you want them to hit us.--The Explicator
Not at all. I do want a more rationale and creative approach to foreign policy that includes intelligent diplomacy as well as brute force.
A certain amount of risk in life is unavoidable.
Between China, Russia, and the USA, do you really think radical Islam can take over any of those countries?
I also think Iraq costs too much for what little we get out of it in terms of security.
In any event, a US ground presence will be maintained in the Middle East, just scaled back -- regardless of president.
Yes, I think there is a real possiblity of that eventually happening. Radical Islam is only the spearhead for Islam. Russia and the USA have essentially been taken over by Christianity. So I think there is a good chance that Islam may one day be a world hegemon.--The Explicator
United States of Amnesia is right. This week's news items will be forgotten by next week. Even "egg beaters" which used to sell eggs w/o yolks are into a new generation, where they can tout (basically,) "now with yolk!" Don't get me started...gads...
Very interesting discussion going on here ...
Post a Comment