Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The excellent Vietnam documentary series is a reminder that we
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The excellent Vietnam documentary series is a reminder that we need to learn from history
Picture credit: The CIA
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Maybe If we considered Spain more like Yugoslavia.....and Catalonia like Slovenia...then the solution is clear.
Recognise the will of the people not the inertia of the establishment, and recognise the precedence of the U.N. declaration of self determination over the Spanish Constitution.
More relevant to our failed escapades in the Middle East, and to dealing with Islamism, than to Brexit or Catalonia, I would have thought.
Quite a surreal experience watching people defending Jared O’Mara on the thread last night because "it was 15 years ago", remembering that we have had more than a decade of people attacking Mr Osborne for things he was alleged to have done as a student 15-20 years ago that are not even holding particular opinions.
If I have my numbers right Jared was 24 - several years beyond University graduation age, so I would expect him to have well-formed attitudes if not precise opinions.
Which is more likely - that Jared O’Mara has changed his basic attitude or that his apology is a collection of weasel words?
https://twitter.com/SolHughesWriter/status/921406067019481088
https://twitter.com/hopisen/status/921414169974501376
https://storify.com/hopisen/defending-good-unions-doesn-t-mean-protecting-bad-
And I agree that LBJ has been harshly judged by recent history. I suspect that historians in the 22nd century will have a much higher opinion of him .It’s perhaps ironic that JFK apparent said that if he hadn’t wanted this thing (the Presidency) for himself he’d have got behind the ablest man in America, LBJ.
if he had, the world might well have been a better place today!
There is also this famous image of the North Vietnamese tank breaking through the gates of the Presidential Palace.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/fall-of-saigon-vietnam-anniversary/20/
After I had negotiated contracts for months with a chain-smoking, whip-smart lawyer for Petrovietnam, I discovered that he was ex-VC Special Forces. He had camped out - undetected - for six months in the grounds of a US airbase, on a suicide mission if the Americans had brought the B52 bombers back.
He is also the guy sat on the front of that tank.
As an aside, I think that as first-hand memories of Vietnam fade and as the US changes demographically, Johnson's reputation, based on his domestic reforms (and the political skill and courage necessary to deliver them), will rise well before the 22nd century.
Who could forget the time he replied to an aide who wished him 'Good Morning Mr President' with 'Thank you?'
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/westminster-s-hall-of-mirrors-is-about-to-shatter-gxp2qcdt5
An excellent thoughtful article.
You stated that "Is it really wise to take away Catalan self-government and impose direct rule? Is this tenable long-term and, if not, might it not be better to get to the solution sooner rather than later? It was Seamus Mallon who described the Good Friday Agreement as 'Sunningdale for slow learners'."
Unfortunately, it seems that the Westminster, in hock to the DUP, is about to take a step back and re-impose direct rule over the 6 counties. The UK government, which is still manifesting imperialist and nationalist hubris, will thus be unable to criticise the Madrid government for any actions that it takes, however drastic. It is pity that Corbyn is not PM now, if only for his far more sensible and appropriate international perspective.
LBJ was always going to bring in the Great Society and risk the South.
https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/this-house-on-tour
Her lack of self-awareness is something to behold. Which, of course, explains in large part why she was defeated.
I heard Boris yesterday give an awfully stilted speech. Future leader, I think not
The only on the thing of note on BBC4 was a programme about the life of an oak tree which was truly fascinating.. BBC 4 is THE best channel by far.
I suppose that kind of sincere intimacy doesn't work on the stump. Plus we know what they said about sincerity.
My favourite F1 book is still Life at the Limit, by Prof Sid Watkins, about how F1 got fed up of going to drivers’ funerals and decided to do something about it.
If the Orkneys and Shetlands wanted their independence, or wanted to rejoin the UK, or Norway or North Korea, then in principle, that should be their right. In practice, it's a bit more difficult than that because the world is not a nice place governed solely by international law (which is essentially only whatever is acceptable to the big powers at the time, as there's no overriding power to enforce an alternative). Small states, being in no position to defend themselves, need either protectors or good luck. O&S, being in such a strategically important position and holding the resources they do, could not rely on the good luck of being out of the way. They would therefore have to therefore find a power sufficiently strong to safeguard their interests - which would presumably require something in return, even if only an expectation that they wouldn't act against the important interests of that power. In reality, the only meaningful options would be Scotland - though that might not be big enough for the job in hand - or the UK. Which may be one reason why the islands haven't been overly keen on devolution, never mind Scottish independence.
(and it's brilliant!)
Trump has been every bit as vain, impetuous and incoherent as she said he would be. The only good thing about his presidency is that he hasn't started a war -yet!
Ken Burns Vietnam was excellent and I highly recommend it. My only criticism is that it is rather US centric, and didn't look at the impact on the wider world. The war was a classic case of politicians continuing with a mistake because of sunk costs, rather than stepping back and cutting losses.
Oh, and I've a signed copy of that book.
Funnily enough, when reading the early part of the Civil War in Caesar's biography by Dodge, Pompey's position of seeming unsurpassed strength melting away due to procrastination and wrong decisions reminded me of May's election campaign. Having caused the war to start and having all the resources necessary to crush Caesar by weight of numbers, Pompey allowed himself by malaise to lose the critical momentum and then be chased out of Italy.
Yet no mention of calling voters deplorable, identity politics, being completely aloof and beyond campaigning, emails, shadiness about health, not even visiting swing states...
It gives every impression of having learned precisely nothing from the campaign, and if the Democrats aren’t careful they’ll make exactly the same mistakes again in 2020 and wonder how the hell a man as evil as Trump got elected twice.
Self awareness and politics make for uneasy bedfellows.
Of course, all else was not equal and the Clinton's ability to hold on to that vote, which Bill gained long ago, was a measure of the unearned loyalty Hillary cashed in. Maybe I'm being unfair. It might be that many black voters thought Sanders unelectable and that only Hillary could and would deliver for them. On balance though, I'd stick with my initial instinct.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41728788
Oddly high number of extra drivers this year. Giovinazzi, Button, Di Resta, Gasly and Hartley.
Given all Americans had ample proof going back a decade that Hilary was not an election winner, I think your instinct that it was unearned, even undeserved loyalty to her husband is sound.
Now which side was against that?
As an example, history shows us cases where intervention didn't work and made matters worse, yet there are also cases where people say we should have intervened, or intervened much earlier.
It also ignores the counterfactuals of history: what would have happened if LBJ had pulled out of Vietnam, or GWB not gone into Afghanistan or Iraq?
There are also many situations where, because there are two sides, the lessons of history become irrelevant. In the Catalan situation, Spain are screwed. It doesn't matter what lessons from history they try to learn, the Catalans can very effectively counter their actions. As an example, the illegal referendum was a win-win for them; the Spanish government's actions just gave them a bigger 'win'.
Sometimes there are no good answers, history or not.
Mr. Herdson, sadly, I agree.
Of course the UK kept out of the Vietnam War as did Canada with only Australia and New Zealand of America's western allies outside South East Asia providing troops. In the second Iraq War of course (the first had a UN mandate) the UK was involved as again was Australia (this time New Zealand stayed out as once again did Canada) confirming that Australia is really the USA's most reliable ally and not the UK despite the supposed 'special relationship.'
As for Iraq War 2 while no triumph Iraq has at least now replaced a dictator with a democracy and is now largely ISIS free.
As a Communist at the time, I simply supported the NLF (money, supportive meetings), and a few years ago visited Vietnam with some nervousness to see whether my past self had contributed to some sort of monstrous North Korea-style hellhole. I was relieved to find I liked it - HCMC/Saigon especially is one of the most vibrant cities I've ever been in, and overall people seemed reasonably satsfied, though young people were generally bored by talk about the war.
But that's not Cyclefree's point, to learn from history and avoid blindly applying global sympathies to particular cases, which is right but difficult. It's really not easy to see in any situation in a distant country whether one should be supporting one side - I certainly got it wrong over Iraq, but have still felt that crushing the ISIS caliphate was right.
With that exception, on the whole I've ended up close to pacifism in these things: there's usually quite a lot of doubt when you look closely, and if there's doubt that you've no business intervening to kill people on one side or the other (Libya is a good example). Another salutary example was Mozambique - it seemed obvious that the government should be helped to fend off the barbaric apartheid-backed Renamo rebels, until hey presto, there was a peace deal and a coalition government, putting into questiuon the assumption that Renamo was quite as barbaric and unrepresentative as many of us thought.
The Republicans suffered from too many candidates allowing Trump to come through the middle, whereas the Democrats had not enough candidates and ran a stitch-up for Hillary.
Both parties need to do a lot of reflection, and as you suggest that’s possibly easier for the Dems as they lost.
He has predictably been a disaster as President but his campaign for the nomination was brilliant showing how social media and mainstream media could overcome money, establishment and track records. He probably ran the cheapest campaign in modern times. The result in the Presidential election showed the same focus on how to win despite losing the popular vote. There is a huge amount for aspiring politicians from both parties to learn.
If having separated the main unit there are some problems around the fringes then these can be managed - not all borders are perfect and in the right place - but continual fragmentation and furrther division is not a solution. An indepemdent Orkney is not justified or viable but special status arrangements may be beneficial or required.
Incidentally the Welsh Border is not neccesarily in the right place - and I dont mean Gwent/ Monmouthshire which is clearly and indisputably in Wales (despite the EDP claims) - Flintshire has more of a histroric claim to be in England!!. But there are areas on both side of the border in/next to Powys which have claims to move across - not least Oswestry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzb8U0Bje5A
Morons who think magic filters (probably the same buffoons who think the polygraph is a lie detector) can actually work are just going to bugger things up for ordinary people whilst criminals will find work-arounds. It's bloody stupid.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/24/universities-mccarthyism-mp-demands-list-brexit-chris-heaton-harris
That's not to say that Hillary *was* the answer; just that populism is a poor substitute for connectedness and no guarantee of effectiveness in office; often, quite the opposite. How the Democrats ended up with no decent candidates entering the race is not exactly an enduring mystery but still a sad state of affairs. Biden wouldn't have been a populist but he would have shown more passion and less entitlement than Hillary, with just as much capability to run the thing afterwards. Sadly, he missed his chance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#History
Nowadays, the planet is facing a problem with multinational companies running rings round national governments, bribing and blackmailing them with offers of jobs and then not paying taxes for the infrastructures. Unless there is some sort of system planetwide to make them behave, then it will continue and expand. It doesn't take much thought to think that it may not be a future worth living in.
Yet another fascinating piece to start the day for which, as always, many thanks Cyclefree.
I do like the quote:
"to remind us never to forget that these were men who in the full hubristic glow of their power would not listen to logical warning or ethical appeal.”
Yet I draw a slightly different lesson. It was Nixon, as ferocious an anti-Communist as you could ever wish for, who recognised the futility of continuing American involvement. I suspect he and Kissinger knew full well they were signing Saigon's death warrant in Paris.
Nixon could sell that to his own base without being undermined by it and others who had not supported him liked it because it stopped the body bags coming home.
It's the mark of leadership to do something your supporters ought to inherently oppose but trust you enough to back you. I have said here that one day a Conservative Prime Minister will take us back into the EU and into the Euro. They won't do it because of ideological Europhilia but because at that point in time it will be in the nation's best interests irrespective of their own view.
Nixon knew America had to come out of Vietnam - a better leader than Rajoy might be prepared to negotiate even greater autonomy for Catalonia (on the Basque model) or even negotiate separation. Nixon also went to China - Carter aimed for Middle East peace and got Sadat and Begin together. Neither might be called "great" Presidents for various reasons but they were willing to try unlike, I'm afraid, the likes of Trump.
Sometimes, political leaders have to gamble, do the unexpected, do the last thing their supporters want because it's the right thing to do in terms of the bigger picture. That is the mark of great leadership and of courage - I'm not convinced many of today's leaders who live and die by the tweet of the focus group, would appreciate that.
Should it have been held? Well-behaved women seldom make history.
It was the Democratic congress which ultimately led to Saigon's fall by cutting off funding to South Vietnam.
Simply saying something won't happen because YOU can't conceive of it doesn't mean it won't happen.
On Vietnam, we'll agree to disagree. I think Nixon wanted to get the American military presence out as well because of the debilitating effect of the body bags on American morale. He won plaudits for Paris but he and Kissinger must have known that without American help, Saigon (and indeed Phnom Penh) wouldn't long survive.
I'm sure at least 2% of the population voted in the Referendum to leave only because of the super-state intentions that we never voted for in 1976.
N-n-n-n ninety.
Nixon after bombing Vietnam into the ground agreed a peace settlement and withdrawal of US forces but he and Ford both intended to continue to support South Vietnam financially and with supplies unlike the Democrats. Nixon going to China was more significant.