But Boot is too young to have any experience of Vietnam. It was a word in the history books for him, though not for the paymasters he learned to please.

When I was in grad school at UC Berkeley in the early 90s, Boot was an undergraduate with a whacked-out column in the campus newspaper. He was a Reagan Youth, picked up for his talents by the right wing welfare machine.

maybe all they the need is a good healthy dose of the "romantic" and "fantastic" experience that is ...

war..

boot could also volunteer for iraq or afghanistan..

doesn't he like "romantic" and "fantastic" experiences?

Oh, and by the way: when I first saw that the leftist Daily Californian was running a poorly written conservative column by someone calling himself Max Boot, I thought that it was satirical.

And I seem to remember that the Vietnamese regime that had "defeated" us were the ones who tried to halt the Khmer Rouge horror in Cambodia...in fact it was the US incursion into Cambodia that destroyed the Sihanouk government and opened the way for the KR crazies. And wasn't it some 15 years after the fall of Saigon that the USSR folded its tent and quietly repaired to the "dustbin of history" , in Trotsky's immortal phrase, with scarcely a shot being fired?

Why do these conservatives seem to feel defeat more poignantly then what in any sane accounting would seem a victory?

In 2004, the Red Sox won a World Series after almost a century of frustration. It took some getting used to the idea that we (I lived there for a long time) were actually winners, so comfortable was the position of victim.

Boot and Co. haven't made that transition after twenty years...and alas I agree that most of them never will. Meanwhile they are implementing policies that actually create the things they profess to fear the most. And are destroying our world in the process.

I thought Bush's daddy proclaimed that the Vietnam Syndrome was over? Right after Gulf War I, right?

Part of the Vietnam Syndrome that doesn't get talked about is the continuation of the Culture Wars from the 1970s. Neocons don't want to admit they lost that one, too.

There is something to that belief.

Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about it.

We've lost and everyone knows it.

Which is the same as Vietnam, except in the fantasies of a few wingnuts.

You can't create a political base with military power.

I hope Vietnam syndrome takes hold for good this time.

There's probably no hope until an entire generation dies off and gets replaced by conservatives for whom Iraq replaces Vietnam as the liberal-stab-in-the-back myth of a generation. It never ends.

Max Boot is a classic Reaganite: Every problem overseas has a military solution. (Funny how American government is the problem at home, but the answer overseas.) How someone so simplistic can be taken so seriously baffles me.

But I think it's important for Democrats and leftists to face reality. American was defeated n the war in Vietnam -- routed, in the end. Nor did we cover ourselves with glory regarding our treatment of our allies in South Vietnam. The Vietnam Syndrome is as much about humiliation as it is about geopolitics.

"Iraq replaces Vietnam as the liberal-stab-in-the-back myth of a generation."

Not if we stay... FORRRREEEEEVVVVVEEERRRRR....

... virtually every Vietnam-related problem we had was caused by the fact that we stayed there too long...

No. Every Vietnam-related problem we had was caused by the fact that ever went there in the first place.

They are obsessed by the idea that we could have won in Vietnam after all if only we'd had the willpower,

Boot apparently doesn't know anything about Vietnam, or that period of our history.

When Saigon fell, Ho Chi Minh City arose.

All of the death and suffering the US caused in Vietnam could have been avoided if only the Americans leaders would have embraced the liberation politics of Ho. Instead the American leaders attempted to dominate a nation with their military power, killing millions.

The US could avoid much killing and suffering in Iraq if it would embrace the leadership of al Sadr. Instead American leaders would rather dominate an entire nation with its military power, killing tens of thousands and displacing millions.

Until Americans harbor contempt and hostility for those who use its military power so poorly and murderously, it will continue to be used repeatedly to dominate weaker nations.

Maximus Bootyus never saw a war he didn't like! Even losing ones. Especially losing ones! Peace is for pussies.

Boot apparently doesn't know anything about Vietnam, or that period of our history

He realizes his audience is so stupid that they don't care about facts, history, evidence of any sort. When Ann Coulter came to Toronto, she was laughed out of town after she insisted Canada supported the US in Vietnam. O'Reilly was similarly laughed at because he used a quote from the "Paris Business Review", which does not exist. Both are on tape, probably on youtube. Canadians laugh at these wingnuts, but their US base eats up their crap. Odd country, America.

Does it really make sense to think that the main thing we should worry about is that al-Qaeda operatives will get bolder?

If your dick is as small as Max Boot's?

Uh, yeah. It's all you got going for you: snuff porn in Iraq.
.

Jimmy Jazz already said it, but in other words Iraq will replace Vietnam as Vietnam replaced China. "Who lost China?" was the conservative refrain of the 50s.

You'd think that people who claim tradition and caution as an ideology would be better at taking a long view. Instead every generation of American conservative invents a new end-of-the-world setback to lament and drags us along in their panic.

Boot and his ilk aptly illustrate the characteristics of authoritarian personalities:

Intolerance of Ambiguity; Dichotomous Thinking; Rigidity of Thought; Anti-Intellectualism; Anti-Introspection; Conformity and Submissiveness; Ethocentrism; Paranoia; Anti-Weakness; Power Worship; Superpatriotic emotions.

Sexual Repression is also included but seems less appropriate to this topic.

The problem with Boot and other conservatives like him, is they have no understanding of history. The British were driven out of Iraq after years of occupation following WWI. The French were driven out of Algeria, the Soviets out of Afghanistan and the Israelis out of Lebanon. Western powers occupying Muslim countries always ends in the occupier leaving unceremoniously. Always.

This fatuous notion that al-Qaeda is going to suddently take over Iraq if the U.S. pulls out needs to be nipped in the bud right now by the Democratic presidential nominee. That person needs to go on prime time TV and ask one of these reptiles to explain to the American people how and in what manner this takeover is going to occur. Ask them to be specific. Then, the Democrats need to remind Americans that a few hundred people taking over a country of 25 million+ people has never happened in human history and is not likely to happen now.

The other thing Boot and his fear-mongering ilk don't understand is that our presence in Iraq has created enemies where none existed before.

It's been over 100 years since the South lost the Civil War -- have they gotten over it? And doesn't this whole Shiite/Sunni thing date back about 1,400 years?

I don't think that time will heal this for right-wing hawks (I refuse to call them conservative, they are nothing of the sort), but will only make the myth grow larger.

Brojo: The US could avoid much killing and suffering in Iraq if it would embrace the leadership of al Sadr.

First of all, the US embraced democracy in Iraq. It was the Iraqi voters who chose not to elect al Sadr as their leader.

Second, I believe that al Sadr's brigades committed much of the mass murder of Sunnis. So, embracing the leadership of al Sadr sounds a lot like embracing ethnic cleansing.

Boot shares one important thing with virtually all other neocons: he did not serve in the military. This creates an internal condition of deeply buried but nonetheless humiliating guilt that can only be soothed by a constant identification with the military. It's only natural that he's obsessed with the loss in Vietnam, as it's a metaphor for what he would view as his own cowardly failure to serve when he had the opportunity. When he plays the what-if game with Vietnam, he gets to fantasize about what HE would have done had he been in charge. This is a powerful narcotic for the individual who actually feels very vulnerable in his manhood. Take a look at his photo on Wikipedia; he's the antithesis of the rock-hard, brutally-tough combat hero. He appears as soft and cosseted as any academic.

I have never gotten over the fact that Britain was cowed into defeat in the Revolutionary War. Surrender monkeys! Every problem they've ever had can be traced to this: the fall of India, the failure of the East India Trading Co, bad teeth, national health insurance, and the Inspiral Carpets.

While an American withdrawal from Iraq probably would indeed embolden Al-Qaeda; the recent episode in Basra certainly has.

Such is the calculus of defeat.

The commenters who have brought up the "Culture Wars" and "stab-in-the-back" points are right on, IMHO, when it comes to assessing the American Right's pathetic obsession with re-fighting Vietnam over and over again. It isn't so much the military, or even the geopolitical "defeat" that bothers them so much as the fact that the Dirty Fucking Hippies (i.e., anyone who opposed the war then; the stereotype automatically being applied to anyone who opposes the war now) were, in the end, right about VIetnam. And no winger worth his AEI sinecure would ever, even after twenty years at a CIA "black site", ever admit that any DFH was ever right about anything. And bashing the DFHs is really, what the American Right is all about.

It has seemed to me, for some time, that conservatives care more about intentions than about outcomes. Better that I should kill you accidentally, than break your arm intentionally, so to speak.

Thus, even though the death rate in Iraq has gone up under our occupation, it's still a net win over Saddam, because he meant for bad things to happen, whereas we're the victims of our own incompetence and "evildoers". We're clumsy, not cruel.

The other possibility is that conservatives DO care about outcomes, they're just not honest about what they really are, and make all this noise about intent as a distraction for the rubes.

I think this is actually a natural human tendency that is a little more active in some people than others. You can see it in everything from car-bike interactions (a cyclist must work very very hard to be anything more than annoying, yet their often flaky behavior attracts much more attention than that of car drivers, even though the cars are much more dangerous) and health care (our failure to provide proper pre- and post-natal care appears to kill thousands of infants every year -- but since we didn't mean for this to happen, not many people are outraged).

First of all, the US embraced democracy in Iraq. It was the Iraqi voters who chose not to elect al Sadr as their leader.

You ignorant ass--Sadr's bloc is aligned with the bloc that made al-Maliki Prime Minister.

How could you be that stu---oh, sorry. It's ex-lib talking out of his chickenhawk ass again. My bad...

Second, I believe that al Sadr's brigades committed much of the mass murder of Sunnis. So, embracing the leadership of al Sadr sounds a lot like embracing ethnic cleansing.

The "ethnic cleansing" was done by both sides, and you continue to show that you are so far gone and so ignorant of what's going on in Iraq that it isn't funny.

Really--born stupid or did you work hard at it?

Oh, good God...

Just when you thought it couldn't get any fucking stupider around here...

Is this a joke? He's got a fucking blog now?

Normie, you fucking idiot. Leave the blogging to people who know what they're doing.

Hamlet-like in Iraq! Should we stay, should we leave??? Oh ghost help me!

Fellow imperialists, Max Boot, assorted neo-cons and oil users--look at it this way:

We're getting sucked dry by the fight in Iraq--3 trillion down the tubes! Our military uses more oil there then Iraq is sending back. We're just like the old USSR who went broke fighting in Afghanistan. And who is benefiting from our empire's decline? Why Russia, China, India.

Wise up saps! It's time to end the Hamlet stay/go paralysis and leave the joint.

The question isn't "Who lost Iraq?"

It's "Who never won Iraq?"

(Hint: Who landed on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner on display?)

Take a look at his photo on Wikipedia; he's the antithesis of the rock-hard, brutally-tough combat hero. He appears as soft and cosseted as any academic.

Looks like the type that considers themselves to be war experts because they spent a lot of time at school playing Risk during lunch breaks. A prime example of his "insight" is Neocons May Get the Last Laugh from March 2005, where he crows about how our invasion of Iraq is spreading democracy in the Middle East. "Well, who's the simpleton now? Those who dreamed of spreading democracy to the Arabs or those who denied that it could ever happen?"

They are crazy, of course:

Fixed it for you.

"Well, yes. I have always loved war. And when you love war, you must recognize that the battlespace is the key to everything. Mastery of the battlespace means that you control all that is around you. Once you've established that control, you can begin to move the pieces around the chess board. I've never played chess, actually."

There is art to his madness.

Hey, what's wrong with the Inspiral Carpets?

Whahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Norman the flaming gaper ha shis very own blog.wahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Only a complete idiot loves war.Perhaps a subspecies of hamanity.

I thought this was an interesting interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, that I heard on DC's WTOP this morning. Brzezinski says we have to get out of Iraq, but we need to do it the right way.

http://wtop.com/podcast/611199.rss

jprfrog,

In 2004, the Red Sox won a World Series after almost a century of frustration. It took some getting used to the idea that we (I lived there for a long time) were actually winners, so comfortable was the position of victim.

If you still crave victimhood you can join the rest of us martyred Viking fans. I don't think there is any hope for us.

Pale Rider,

You do know Norman is a, well, starts with a P and rhymes with scarody right?

Normie's new blog is spectacular! And he even has this blog linked ... under Kevin Dumbo

Ahhhh, turning out to be a better Tuesday than I thought. Thanks Pale Rider!

"our withdrawal from Vietnam was responsible for virtually every geopolitical problem we've faced since ...."

This is casting the net far too narrowly. Our withdrawal also caused the decline of marriage, the overthrow of the grand old cavalier society of the American South, the rise of porn and rap music, and, not least, "That 70s Show."

Kit Stolz: But I think it's important for Democrats and leftists to face reality. American was defeated n the war in Vietnam -- routed, in the end.

I didn't know anyone was denying that. The argument is with those that think we could have avoided defeat by dropping 3x instead of 2x the number of bombs dropped in WWII. (Numbers approximate)

And please, folks. Note the date on Norman's blog. Happy daze are here again.

I have been kicking wingnut ass all week--I'm a little burned out. If you read blue girl's site, you'll know that I've been in the frickin' weeds with these scumbags.

So I'm clicking links, clicking links and BANG! There it is.

No fuckin' way--Normie has a blog?

JUST started it, apparently. Likes "mink" too. Has he ever mentioned that???

Yes, thanks Pale Rider. I am honored (and humbled. Well not humbled. I'm not really ever humble.) to say I have made the first comment ever to Norman's awesome blog. I even used my full name. Yes, in the spirit of 4/1/2008 I will reveal that Tripp is simply my nickname and my real full name is Griffith Lyle Davenport III. I am an investment banker and Norman has given me the courage to finally embrace my inner Republican. If ex-liberal didn't already have the handle I'd call myself ex-liberal. Now watch while I go cheat on my wife.

Pale Rider, as you say, Sadr's bloc is aligned with the bloc that made al-Maliki Prime Minister. If al Sadr and his people had done better in the elections, then this large bloc would have made al Sadr PM, rather than al Maliki. That's why I said it was the Iraqi voters who made the decision.

You claim that ethnic cleansing was done by both sides. In fact there are many sides. Different Shia leaders had varying goals and approaches. Some of the Shia groups did not participate in ethnic cleansing. Groups loyal to al Sader did a lot of it.

Tripp, you can't have "Ex-America-Hater" either. I'm reserving it now.

I would add something to this--if you speak with conservatives, or listen to them, the reference point in terms of withdrawal is NOT Vietnam, but the whole "Black Hawk Down" syndrome. We were attacked on 9/11, according to this narrative, because we left Somalia when the going got tough. (Of course, Reagan had us leave Beirut under similar circumstances, but that never seems to come into this). This supposedly emboldened terrorists to think we're wusses, somehow the dots are all thought to connect.

…if we leave Iraq it will embolden al-Qaeda

If we don’t flush our toilet, we will embolden al-Qaeda. If we do flush our toilet, we will embolden al-Qaeda. If we mention the word embolden, we will embolden al-Qaeda.

Then, the Democrats need to remind Americans that a few hundred people taking over a country of 25 million+ people has never happened in human history and is not likely to happen now.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on April 1, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Odd country, America.
Posted by: Bob M on April 1, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

These two statements are painfully intertwined. I agree that the Dems need to “remind” Americans of this, and much more. But the public is generally unreceptive to deep or icky thoughts when they might me missing American Idol. Sorry to be so cynical, but with each passing year our collective attention span seems to wane as does our interest in finding out what is really going on. We are not entirely sheeple, but far too many, for certain. Pinpointing the cause is difficult, but I think the MSM and television (as an escape from things icky) are culpable.

As for Max Boot, well..

Boot. What is he good for. Absolutely nothin’.

Normie has a blog?

Moderator, please delete the link to the site that "pale rider" has posted above.

"That's why I said it was the Iraqi voters who made the decision."

Repeating it doesn't make it any more true than when you first stated it. It was a really stupid comment, even for you, since Maliki was emphatically not the choice of the voters.

"In fact there are many sides."

No shit, Sherlock, which pretty much destroys the point you thought you were making.

"Groups loyal to al Sader did a lot of it."

And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?

I have no particular sympathy for Sadr and no reason to believe that his leadership would be anything but disastrous, but you continue to display a truly astonishing level of ignorance regarding matters in Iraq.

"If we mention the word embolden, we will embolden al-Qaeda."

Yup. I love the argument that if we leave, al Qaeda will "declare victory." Well, hell, that's what they're doing now!

Max Boot (middle name: Jack?) would have been a domino theory nut in the 60's. They were all wrong,of course. Saigon fell and the dominos didn't. The myth of international communism. Does anyone remember Vietnam's shootout with China, or the invasion of Cambodia? Or Russia and China's bloody face-off? Ah, the neocons must miss the Red Octopus.

I thought I heard Buddy M. Bolden say
Yonder come al-Qaeda, they're on the way
Once trapped out in Waziristan, they're now here to stay
I thought I heard him say

thersites,
Tripp, you can't have "Ex-America-Hater" either. I'm reserving it now.

Sonofa! I managed to get ex-PinkoCommieFag but I think that is too long and too 60's. What do you think? Be honest.

Pyschoanalyzing "the terrorists" does no one any benefit. Instead of trying to guess what "the terrorists" think, we should just assume we will be attacked at home again and take steps to prevent another attack. Practical steps, like improving port security, not wild ass steps, like invading and occupying Middle Eastern nations. Really, who gives a shit what some al Qaeda suicide bomber thinks anyways? I certainly don't. Why the fuck is Max Boot so preoccupied with "what the terrorists will think" if we leave Iraq?

Judging by the amount of English I overheard last time I visited the Alhambra, I'd say our intervention in Granada continues to enjoy broad public support.

Tipp, ex-PinkoCommieFag

It is a bit long. But it makes its point, and I wouldn't worry about being too 60's. I'd say go for it.

I meant "Tripp," of course. Talk about a handle being too 60's! Sheesh.

ex-liberal:Some of the Shia groups did not participate in ethnic cleansing. Groups loyal to al Sader did a lot of it.

Wrong. It is the Badr Corps, the armed wing of SCIRI (now SIIC), that Iraqi victims have reported being responsible for the majority of the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis over the years.

In fact, the Defense Ministry has run death squads out of its organization that roamed the streets at night, using BADR Corps members to pull Sunnis out of their home, beating and killing them. As Prime Minister, it's Maliki's responsibility to handle crimes committed by government agencies - unless perhaps he's in on them - not Al-Sadr's, whose Mahdi Army is a rival, with whom they frequently engage in armed clashes.

In fact, Sadr has actually reached out to the Sunnis and cooperated with them, being that they have a common goal of driving out their occupier.

BADR are also the religious zealots responsible for attacking people on grounds of breaching public morality - beating and raping women who dress "immodestly", attacking people for use of alcohol or appearing to be homosexual, et al.

Does your propaganda/idiocy never stop?!? I have cardboard boxes better informed on current events than you!

You're an idiot. Don't post here anymore.

"Does your propaganda/idiocy never stop?!?"

Nope. He's an all-purpose idiot, too, since he's just as ignorant on economics, politics, and all other domestic and foreign policy issues. I still love his frequent assertions that Bush didn't get enough credit for the wonderful economy. This one, from October, 2007, was priceless:

Today's economic growth looks mysterios to those who have been getting their news from our biased media. For years, the maistream media (and the lefty press) have downplayed Bush's economic success. People like Paul Krugman, who ought to know better, consistently focused on economic weak points (or potential weaknesses), but preferred not to tell his readers how strong the overall economy actually was.

Those who follow actual results know that the economy has been quite strong for years. Of course, the righty press has been happy to tell its readers how effective Bush's tax cuts were. For these people, continued economic strength is no surprise at all. It's just what the past figures would have indicated.

Pretty amazing, even for faux-lib, how many ways these assertions were flatly and stupidly wrong.

Perhaps Max Boot can tell us just what we would have "won" in vietnam? The idea was that if vietnam went communist it would start a dominoe effect. Well, Vietnam fell and there was no dominoe effect. The people who started the war were wrong. Vietnam turned communist and it was absolutely no threat to the United States. So what would we have won? You can't win a war where the premises for going to war are wrong. Same thing goes for Iraq.

Recently I bought a backpack from a world-renowned maker of outdoor equipment. when I received it, I happened to notice a label on the back.
"Made in Vietnam."
Tell me again, please, who lost and who won? And what the f@ck we were fighting for?

thersites, the U.S. was fighting a war against Communism while the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were fighting a war of independence.

That's why the war in Viet Nam was a tragedy. And why the war in Iraq is such a farce.

the U.S. was fighting a war against Communism while the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were fighting a war of independence

So, both sides lost. It just took them a little longer.

But snarking aside, David W's characterization of the Vietnam war is pretty damn good. He captures the essence of the tragedy in one sentence.

"Made in Vietnam."

The working class in Vietnam were going to serve Capital regardless of the US intervention. What a waste these occupations are.

Back in the 60's I was in a HS speech club. It got me reading history and kept me up on current events. The one thing I could never understand about the Vietnam war was, since we were there to defend Democracy against the Communist hordes, why was the government of South Vietnam the most corrupt, brutal and unrepresentative one we had ever been allied to? How can you "save" a country that doesn't want to be saved (referring to the general population, not the inhabitants of the government offices)?
The only possible way to have "won" that war (I'm not saying it would have worked, but it was the only possible chance of "winning" in the sense that "winning" is used by the neocons) would have been to outbid Ho Chi Minh, economically and politically, in trying to gain the support of the South Vietnamese; to, in other words, tell the South Vietnamese government that either "you clean up your act (honest government, land reform) or we leave." Apparently that option was "off the table". I guess there's something sacrosanct to the right wingers about corrupt, authoritarian governments.
We have a chance to do the correct thing in Iraq - get out. Our staying only inflames both anti-US and anti-government forces. Any good we might be able to accomplish by staying will be outweighed many times over by the death and destruction we will inflict while we remain. All we have left is: "We're leaving. Unless some country actually invades, we're out in 6/12/18 months".
I hope we get it right this time.

Commenter Dr Wu got it almost right. This never was about al Qaeda. This was about oil and settling old scores with Saddam. Iraqi oil to be extracted, processed, and sold by Anglo-American (& Aussie) corporations; just like in the old times before those ingrateful rude mideasterners showed them the door. Yes, they would give 25% of the oil proceeds to the Iraqis, which is twice what the junta in Equatorial Guinea gets for its oil.

But with the incredible incompetence of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-et al, the oil quest is almost gone. The most the oil-seekers can now hope to get is Kurdistan's oil. For that, they would have to admit defeat and help split Iraq up; and accept that the lion's share of Iraq's oil will go to Chinese, Indian, and maybe Russian corporations.

Ronald Reagan went to Grenada.

Alan Sherman went to Granada.

Oh, and by the way: when I first saw that the leftist Daily Californian was running a poorly written conservative column by someone calling himself Max Boot, I thought that it was satirical.

Me too.

Then again, I thought "Wolf Blitzer" and "Custer Battles" were also satirical joke names when I first heard them.

Is Thomas Pynchon scripting our reality now?

You are right; when people say this kind of thing, what they really mean is, "we would lose face."

Or more particularly, "*I* would lose face; and rather than suffer that humiliation I am ready to sacrifice the last drop of other people's blood."