In my column, "U.S. should 'remember 1975'; we don't know how Iraq will evolve" (March 28 Pacific Daily News), I wrote of British writer William Shawcross, a Vietnam war critic and author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated-book, "Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia," who was critical of how Washington expanded the war into Cambodia to "extricate" itself from Vietnam.
Extrication became a goal in and of itself, replacing the original rationale for the war to fight communist expansion.
Shawcross quoted President Nixon's national security advisor Henry Kissinger in "Sideshow": "Look, we're not interested in Cambodia ... only ... in it not being used as a base (by the Vietnamese Communists)."
Kissinger later confirmed in his own book, "White House Years" that "Cambodia was not a moral issue" for the United States in obtaining "our exit from Vietnam."
Extrication became a goal in and of itself, replacing the original rationale for the war to fight communist expansion.
Shawcross quoted President Nixon's national security advisor Henry Kissinger in "Sideshow": "Look, we're not interested in Cambodia ... only ... in it not being used as a base (by the Vietnamese Communists)."
Kissinger later confirmed in his own book, "White House Years" that "Cambodia was not a moral issue" for the United States in obtaining "our exit from Vietnam."
While the extent of the devastation Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would spread across Cambodia could not have been predicted, the ruthlessness of the Khmer Rouge was not unknown prior to the Americans' exit. They left anyway. In Shawcross's words, "two million of the seven million (Cambodian) people died, either murdered by the Khmer Rouge or from starvation and disease."
Plenty has been written on Cambodia's killing fields: Not a family has been spared injury or loss.
Shawcross pleaded that America should not abandon Iraq the way she did Cambodia in 1975.
Of e-mails I received after the Shawcross article, a reader commented, "History is not a favorite subject of Americans -- unfortunately."
If history is not a guide and its lessons are discarded for the present, on what basis do we move toward the future?
Reasonable arguments abound, from reasonable people, for and against America's involvement in the Iraq war. In my March 21 column, "When it comes to Iraq war, both supporters and critics show bias," I referenced a social psychologist who said, we "are really bad about putting ourselves in other people's shoes," and are so unaccepting of others who act "in good faith" but see things differently from us.
I studied arguments from both sides of the political spectrum. The March 16 Los Angeles Times editorial, "From the terrorist's mouth," reminds us however we disagree, "there is a movement that has declared war on the U.S. and the West . . . its existence is undeniable."
The March 18 Washington Post editorial, "Lessons of War," argues, "What matters most is finding the best policy now -- doing whatever can be done to help Iraq and safeguard U.S. interests in a vital region."
The Post posits we don't know how events in Iraq will evolve, and "We will never know what might have happened had Saddam Hussein and his sons been left in power." It notes the "easy way out" by blaming Bush, Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, but argues, "Wars unleash unpredictable and ugly forces" and "the (Iraq) war might have spun out of control even under wiser leadership."
"It would almost be comfortable if Mr. Bush had 'lied the nation into war,' as is frequently charged," says the Post. But, "The best postwar journalism instead suggests" that Bush, his team, and the Central Intelligence Agency, "exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed ... the catastrophically wrong case" the U.S. presented to the United Nations.
The March 31-April 6 London Economist's front page, titled cover, "Besieged," shows an armed President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, and Vice President Cheney in camouflaged uniforms behind sandbags on White House lawn. The accompanying article, editorializes, "Many people" may rejoice seeing Bush and Cheney "ducking for cover."
"But regardless of what you think about this most inept of presidencies," the editorial continues, "the current civil war in Washington has the marking of a tragedy -- both for America and for millions of people around the globe."
The Economist encourages Congress to "Carry on overseeing" and advises, "But hands off Iraq."
"Sooner or later, America will leave Iraq," says the Economist, "But it is essential that it leaves in the right way."
Last September, America's 16 spy agencies presented in a National Intelligence Estimate two bad choices for America: "perceived jihadist success (in Iraq) would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere"; and "should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, (America's spy agencies) judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
Perhaps it should be recalled that when Americans left former French Indochina in 1975, the North Vietnamese victors were happy to see Americans scramble to take off in helicopters from Saigon's building rooftops. The war was "over" for them.
Will the movement -- "Whatever you call it," says the Times, "militant Islam, Islamic fascism or a clash of civilizations" -- "that has declared war on the U.S. and the West" cease its warring activities as American and "coalition" troops withdraw from Iraq?
The soul of Islam is being wrested from the majority of traditional Muslims by a small but growing influential minority of radical Muslims who quoted the Koran to justify about "slaying the infidels" -- another topic that Americans must be concerned about while Bush and the Democratic Congress are entrenched in Washington's own "civil war."
How will the war in Iraq "end?"
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.
Plenty has been written on Cambodia's killing fields: Not a family has been spared injury or loss.
Shawcross pleaded that America should not abandon Iraq the way she did Cambodia in 1975.
Of e-mails I received after the Shawcross article, a reader commented, "History is not a favorite subject of Americans -- unfortunately."
If history is not a guide and its lessons are discarded for the present, on what basis do we move toward the future?
Reasonable arguments abound, from reasonable people, for and against America's involvement in the Iraq war. In my March 21 column, "When it comes to Iraq war, both supporters and critics show bias," I referenced a social psychologist who said, we "are really bad about putting ourselves in other people's shoes," and are so unaccepting of others who act "in good faith" but see things differently from us.
I studied arguments from both sides of the political spectrum. The March 16 Los Angeles Times editorial, "From the terrorist's mouth," reminds us however we disagree, "there is a movement that has declared war on the U.S. and the West . . . its existence is undeniable."
The March 18 Washington Post editorial, "Lessons of War," argues, "What matters most is finding the best policy now -- doing whatever can be done to help Iraq and safeguard U.S. interests in a vital region."
The Post posits we don't know how events in Iraq will evolve, and "We will never know what might have happened had Saddam Hussein and his sons been left in power." It notes the "easy way out" by blaming Bush, Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, but argues, "Wars unleash unpredictable and ugly forces" and "the (Iraq) war might have spun out of control even under wiser leadership."
"It would almost be comfortable if Mr. Bush had 'lied the nation into war,' as is frequently charged," says the Post. But, "The best postwar journalism instead suggests" that Bush, his team, and the Central Intelligence Agency, "exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed ... the catastrophically wrong case" the U.S. presented to the United Nations.
The March 31-April 6 London Economist's front page, titled cover, "Besieged," shows an armed President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, and Vice President Cheney in camouflaged uniforms behind sandbags on White House lawn. The accompanying article, editorializes, "Many people" may rejoice seeing Bush and Cheney "ducking for cover."
"But regardless of what you think about this most inept of presidencies," the editorial continues, "the current civil war in Washington has the marking of a tragedy -- both for America and for millions of people around the globe."
The Economist encourages Congress to "Carry on overseeing" and advises, "But hands off Iraq."
"Sooner or later, America will leave Iraq," says the Economist, "But it is essential that it leaves in the right way."
Last September, America's 16 spy agencies presented in a National Intelligence Estimate two bad choices for America: "perceived jihadist success (in Iraq) would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere"; and "should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, (America's spy agencies) judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
Perhaps it should be recalled that when Americans left former French Indochina in 1975, the North Vietnamese victors were happy to see Americans scramble to take off in helicopters from Saigon's building rooftops. The war was "over" for them.
Will the movement -- "Whatever you call it," says the Times, "militant Islam, Islamic fascism or a clash of civilizations" -- "that has declared war on the U.S. and the West" cease its warring activities as American and "coalition" troops withdraw from Iraq?
The soul of Islam is being wrested from the majority of traditional Muslims by a small but growing influential minority of radical Muslims who quoted the Koran to justify about "slaying the infidels" -- another topic that Americans must be concerned about while Bush and the Democratic Congress are entrenched in Washington's own "civil war."
How will the war in Iraq "end?"
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment