Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
The only sad thing is that we are hamstrung by domestic political constraints -- China and Russia do not have that problem. I wouldn't trade...
Yes, I agree that the price of living in either China or Russia would be a terrible price to pay. Nor do I think what these "2nd world" countries are particularly humane or ethical in it's treatment of other nations. And there is always an interest there that only benefits China and Russia.

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
Not to mention they are not doing as well as you seem to imply.
Well, there is some truth in this. Russia has two problems. Lack of money because of the fall in the price of the barrel of oil. They made some choices that were ill advised last year and they're coming to roost now. Putin finds himself in a serious political problem and will have to do some quick and decisive damage control to survive.

The second problem is that it seems that since Putin can't save the economy, he is rebuilding the military to project Russia's power just as countless leaders of Russia have done in the past. These two problem will cause problems with all the countries that look to Russia as the counter to the West.

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
You and I obviously went to different wars there...
Actually it could be myopia on my part. After the first two tours in which I learned that I loved command of fighting units, I found myself picked for other duty. I wasn't stuck in the rear but I wasn't in command, at least not of a line fighting unit. I became very involved with the rural Vietnamise. There I saw a lot of the calousness perpetuated by the the South Vietnamise goverment with our our blessing. This didn't make the NVA saints, in many ways they were far crueler that we could think of to the indigionous people, expecially to those villages that showed approval or depended on our goverment for protection.

As for today, I hear reports that the present Vietnamise goverment is no better and continues the persecution of the rural peoples.

However, we were supposed to be more noble than that. We were a nation that gloried in the beneifits of freedom. Well, in 'Nam, we were no better than the French. And I think it in the end, it cost the US a part of its soul. At least for a long time.


Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
We weren't great and we -- the Army -- made many mistakes but we were the good guys. we were dumb -- Clyde was mean. There's a difference.I've been wandering here and there in the world since 1947 and we were distrusted then and have been ever since. Nobody trusts the big guy -- until they need him -- they'll take all he'll give and then go back to rampant distrust. Way of the world. We are distrusted because we do what all Nations do, look out for our own interests. We are fortunate now to be big enough to do that better than most; that breeds resentment. That's okay. We are no more disliked now than we were in 1955 or 1975 -- probably more liked now than iin '75.Not at all.
I will agree with this, at least in part. However, even if the enemy was lying, it gave a great quanity of the people hope. We had the power to make those dreams come true for the people. We just chose not to do it. So we were supposed to win the hearts and mnds of the people without doing anything that would put any conditions on the US Government. I realise that Johnston was also fighting the war on poverty which was taking large sums of money back here in the States. But we should never have become involved if we weren't serious in improving the life of all the people of Vietnam.

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
You cannot compare Malaya to any of our little forays -- The British WERE the Government there; we're always the uninvited guest. Totally different deal. Nor did the SAS accomplish all that much in Malaya. They did great in the later Confrontation but that wasn't the Malayan Emergency.
Yes, they were the goverment but they did many things that we could learn from them (The British then) that we could apply to Iraq or Afganistan today as we try and win the hearts and minds of those countries now.

We need a comprehensive plan. No one in the last administration had a serious clue and it showed. At least there is a good sign. The President seems to not be willing to tie our troops to a politically induced artificial timeline to please the liberals. But it isn't about the soldiers left in the wars, we should of never gotten in the first place. We need to think through why we got in these wars in the first place and own up to the fact we were the ones that toppled their goverments. If it was for Iraqui Oil then accept that fact and go on. However, we should also realize that we have a moral and ethical duty to repair what we did to these countries in a fit of agression.

For if we don't, we will end up with the same Civilian/Military disconect that we had after Vietnam. And we will once again prove that we are not to be trusted. (we supported Saddam until it became inexpediant to do so, then we toppled his goverment.) Being the Big Boy of the block comes certiain responcibilities too.