Our terrorists

[mburbank]

Pol Pot didn't happen because we pulled out of Vietnam. Pol Pot happened becuase we demanded the Prince of Cambodia keep the viet kong out of Cambodia, something we knew full well he was had nowhere near the resources to do. We publicly accused him of collaboration, bombed his country even though congress forbid it, damaging his already weak economy, alientaing his fragile base of support and frightening potential allies away. We then legitamized the Khmer Rouge, and brought no pressure to bear to stop them until it was years too late. We never even indictaed we'd be unhappy if they overthrew the existing government, because we were in favor of regime change without ever spending any time thinking about what it might change in to.

I think we 'lost' vietnam because you can't win someone elses civil war for them. You can only occupy and own their country, something we didn't have the stomach for then and don't now.

I don't think Iraq and Vietnam are comprable beyond the mind set of the people from the Nixon Administration who are unblievably still with us. I think Iraqs tumble into chaos will have way more repercussions. The so called 'Domino effect' didn't happen and as I said, I think what happened in Cambodia was because of what we did to it before we left vietnam, not the fact that we went. Today Vietnam is a trading partner. Would our relationship with them be much better had we 'won', had we spent a few thousand more American lives and god knows how many Vietnamese? I think we'd still be there, still fighting a war of attrition.

I think it isn't a tragedy to 'loose' a war we had no business getting in to. I don't think you can 'win' a war you had no business getting in to.

But I'm glad you acknowledge there are things about the Nixon years worth concidering in looking at todays mess. Hence, I respect your contribution to the conversation and feel no need to re 'explain' it to you. That's how magnanimous I am.