Good points and

NCD — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 04:43:51 +0000

In reply to I read the Kagan article Iraq

Good points and agree.

Interestingly, the US armed and had a close relationship with Ho Chi Minh as early as September, 1945.

Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who spent a career associate with the OSS and CIA said "one-half of the military materiel once stockpiled on Okinawa for the planned invasion of Japan had been reloaded in September 1945 and transshipped to Haiphong" enough to arm and supply 145,000 combat troops of Ho Chi Minh, who was cleaning out remnants of Jap occupation. Prouty was there in Japan at the end of WW2. This is from his book, JFK, The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate JFK.

Wikipedia: (Ho Chi Minh) was "supported closely but clandestinely by the United States Office of Strategic Services"

After the Japanese were defeated in Vietnam, Ho fought the French, who in the 50's decided to leave, and the US military industrial complex decided to make a profit making stand in lieu of the French occupiers, against our former 'friend', independence minded Ho Chi Minh. The fact is there had never been an independent South Vietnam, it was a totally artificial creation.

Thanks to the CIA, we have often found ourselves fighting a nation or group the CIA had previously clandestinely supplied. The only 'sense' most of it makes is: US war profiteering makes a lot of people wealthy, whether in Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan.

I read the Kagan article Iraq

moat — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:55:47 +0000

In reply to AEI's Fred Kagan "We" are at War

I read the Kagan article Iraq is not Vietnam back when it came out. I remember thinking at the time that it was Kagan applying a false equivalence he complains about, not the strawmen he tilted against.

The war in Vietnam was not about Vietnam. It was a strategic opportunity to fight the Cold War. Kagan said our forces were defeated there. Our forces were not permitted to engage all the people fighting us. The exit strategy vs victory comparison is intellectually dishonest. The whole Powell doctrine thing wasn't about having a plan that made sure we could leave once it started as a goal in itself; it was about having operations make sense in regards to an overarching strategy. It militated against the idea that supporting this or that group in a local war could be equivalent to fighting for "national interests" on a global level.

At least Kissinger (with his many sins) was upfront about the spheres of influence thing. No wonder the Bushies buried him.

dagblog - Comments for "AEI's Fred Kagan "We" are at War"

Good points and

I read the Kagan article Iraq