Hillary Pulls it Out.

[DesertPirate]

pirate: Nixon got an agreement (bad as it was) in two weeks of hitting all the targets Johnson wouldn't

this nixon kissinger strategy was arguably a war crime, and likely useless. an agreement was at hand, the US was 'losing'. the fluryy of last minute bombing just provided 'cover. a bit like GWB's surge.

Roosevelt-won, Truman- stalemate, Johnson- incompetant, Kennedy- based on Cuba- incompetant, otherwise- unknown.

i don't accept this. the outcome has to judged against what's possible.
the division of korea was probably the best available. the alternative rightwing approach of macarthur, land war with China, and an attempt to control the whole peninsula was mad. likewise Vietnam ended with the best available.

the gist seems to be that Repugs with 'balls' could've fixed all these things much more to the US advantage. not so. GWB with his fake 'balls' and Petraus with his real ones are not going to get a very favorable outcome in Iraq.

the world changes. asymmetric wars have different rules. and as has been said, if the stronger does not win--e.g. the US in vietnam-- then the weaker has.

Actually I was wrong, Eisenhower got the stalemate in Korea, by threatening to go nuclear and bomb China back to the stone age!

The Nixon -Kissinger strategy was as much of a war crime as the Roosevelt -Churchil one.

 

[Boxlicker101]

OK, I'll play, and this relates to the other posts in this "game" too.

Roosevelt won. Too much an oversimplification. How about a three-way victory: Churchill held the line until June 1941, Russians did most of the bleeding, and from late 1942 on the yanks provided the materiel (and the wealth) to carry the "team" over the goal line. Plus plenty of blood, of course, and technology. Special nod to George Marshall for strategizing and managing the US contribution. And to the US aviation industry (Imagine how that B-29 must have appeared in 1944 - like sci-fi.)

Truman stalemate. I share Pure's analysis - only realistic outcome.

Kennedy incompetent. True. Plus lost his nerve. BTW, why were they all asleep on PT 109? He should have been court martialed, cashiered and imprisoned.

Johnson incompetent. Yep. In spades.

BTW, Pure's comment on Nixon's bombing is mostly on target, but there's one important detail in that: Nixon mined Haiphong harbor, through which the Russkies kept North Viet Nam supplied. Johnson was a spineless puke for not doing that seven years sooner.

Bush I - won. He did. I remember thinking that August day when the Iraqi tanks rolled into "Province 19," "There's one fewer UN member." I was surprised as heck when it became clear that Bush I was serious about taking it back. I thought at the time, here is the last US prez who had first-hand experience of WWII, and he has truly internalized a great lesson from that war, which is to nip aggressors in the bud. WWII really began when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1935, and pansie-Britain and France did nothing. "WWII" might have ended that same day and without a single casualty if the pansies had had balls.

Clinton - he played political games with the military. Cruise missiles on aspirin factories and "terrorist training camps," indeed! I'll give him (and Blair et al) Kosovo, though. That was a good one.

Bush II. ??? 50 years on history may confirm the current view - incompetent cowboy - or perhaps the invasion will end up having unpredictably positive effects, perhaps indirect, in ways that will be completely surprising. No one in the heat and press of the moment can know, and those who speak with certainty in either direction might be less certain if they knew more history, given all its imponderable and unpredictable twists and turns.


One final point, on "bombing." Target selection is everything. Add to my Haiphong example, Marshall (or whoever) focusing on Axis petroleum production in WWII. That, and perhaps the trashing of Germany's rail and transportation network, were probably the only really worthwhile use of strategic airpower in WWII. And for all the "glamour" and horror of B-29 firebombing, arguably their mine-laying (added onto to the submarine campaign) were more critical to defeating Japan. One fallacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The US did not need to invade Japan with "a million casualties." They just had to continue to "besiege" it for a while - the population was starving, industry had collapsed, and the Japanese islands were sealed in tight as a drum.

I can agree with most of what you say, Rox, excep the Korean War ended during Ike's administration. Truce talks began during Trumin's admin, but they ended later.

I would put the beginning of WW2 in 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria. aybe even in 1910 when they took over Korea, although that was before the beginning of WW1.

The Russians did a lot of the bleeding, but I wouldn't say "most" because the Chinese probably did more. ETA: And the Chinese weren't even aggressors the way the Soviets were.

 

[Handprints]

The Russians did a lot of the bleeding, but I wouldn't say "most" because the Chinese probably did more. ETA: And the Chinese weren't even aggressors the way the Soviets were.

Chinese WW2 deaths are estimated between 15-20m, although only about 15% were military - the rest were at the hands of the Japanese or caused less directly by famine et al. Soldier for soldier, the Russians lost almost three times as many as the Chinese in that war (twice as many just at Stalingrad).

Whether you can consider China, post-'49, to be an aggressor or not depends, in my view at least, on whether you think they're entitled to an equivalent of a Monroe doctrine and whether or not enforcing that doctrine counts as aggression.

Out of personal interest, does opinion of the outcome or political utility of post-WW2 US military action in El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Panama also split on party lines?

Hope that's of use,
H

 

[Boxlicker101]

Chinese WW2 deaths are estimated between 15-20m, although only about 15% were military - the rest were at the hands of the Japanese or caused less directly by famine et al. Soldier for soldier, the Russians lost almost three times as many as the Chinese in that war (twice as many just at Stalingrad).

Whether you can consider China, post-'49, to be an aggressor or not depends, in my view at least, on whether you think they're entitled to an equivalent of a Monroe doctrine and whether or not enforcing that doctrine counts as aggression.

Out of personal interest, does opinion of the outcome or political utility of post-WW2 US military action in El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Panama also split on party lines?

Hope that's of use,
H

Bleeding is bleeding, whether its a soldier killed in battle or a civilian murdered by an invader.

China, post 1949 has nothing to do with the posts about WW2. I'm unsure what you mean by a Chinese equivalent to the Monroe Doctrine. Do you mean that China should have a free hand in East Asia? I would say "Absolutely not!".

ETA: I just did a quick calculation. do you mean to say the Soviet Army lost between four and five MILLION at the Battle of Stalingrad?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Chinese WW2 deaths are estimated between 15-20m, although only about 15% were military - the rest were at the hands of the Japanese or caused less directly by famine et al. Soldier for soldier, the Russians lost almost three times as many as the Chinese in that war (twice as many just at Stalingrad).

Whether you can consider China, post-'49, to be an aggressor or not depends, in my view at least, on whether you think they're entitled to an equivalent of a Monroe doctrine and whether or not enforcing that doctrine counts as aggression.

Out of personal interest, does opinion of the outcome or political utility of post-WW2 US military action in El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Panama also split on party lines?

Hope that's of use,
H

To answer your question, those "banana republic" interventions didn't used to split on party lines, but they certainly would now. There used to be a convention, "politics ends at the waters edge," that prevailed I think in the postwar period until Viet Nam.

I might be willing to accord China a "Monroe doctrine" - should they become a (more or less) liberal democracy. For all the fulminations against the "imperialist" USA's actions in Latin America, it is not the case that we have ever had territorial ambitions, in the sense of occupying and annexing other countries (Panama was kind of a special case). I'm not sure how much that can be said for China, although it may apply to them somewhat (or they could easily "grow" into it).

 

[Boxlicker101]

To answer your question, those "banana republic" interventions didn't used to split on party lines, but they certainly would now. There used to be a convention, "politics ends at the waters edge," that prevailed I think in the postwar period until Viet Nam.

I might be willing to accord China a "Monroe doctrine" - should they become a (more or less) liberal democracy. For all the fulminations against the "imperialist" USA's actions in Latin America, it is not the case that we have ever had territorial ambitions, in the sense of occupying and annexing other countries (Panama was kind of a special case). I'm not sure how much that can be said for China, although it may apply to them somewhat (or they could easily "grow" into it).

Just to put things in perspective, the US had a great many territorial ambitions against Mexico in the first half of the 19th century.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Just to put things in perspective, the US had a great many territorial ambitions against Mexico in the first half of the 19th century. *

Correct. I was referring to very late 19th C and 20th C. Basically, the time in which the US has been a first-order world power.



*The US was pretty successful in realizing those ambitions, too - Texas, AZ, NM, CA. I've always been amazed at the prescience of Jamie Polk going to war just over a year before gold was discovered in California. Manifest destiny?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Correct. I was referring to very late 19th C and 20th C. Basically, the time in which the US has been a first-order world power.



*The US was pretty successful in realizing those ambitions, too - Texas, AZ, NM, CA. I've always been amazed at the prescience of Jamie Polk going to war just over a year before gold was discovered in California. Manifest destiny?

I regard Jimmy Polk as one of the most underrated presidents. Not only did he expand the US at the expense of Mexico, he negotiated the Oregon settlement with England.

 

[Pure]

note to rox,

rox For all the fulminations against the "imperialist" USA's actions in Latin America, it is not the case that we have ever had territorial ambitions, in the sense of occupying and annexing other countries (Panama was kind of a special case).

rox ignores the basic point that hegemony and economic exploitation, the US aims, do not generally require 'occupying and annexing', and involve limiting such physical, military interventions (though there are a lot of US soldiers in S. Korea, still; lots of US soldiers remained in the Philippines after that war, also).

the neo con agenda is a brass knuckles variant of age-old US policy furthering the goals mentioned. ensure 'order' in the country, through rulers friendly to the US. have them keep the peasants down [using homegrown 'security forces', trained in or by the US], let the companies--e.g. the fruit and mininy companies in Latin America--make their profits and bring in the goods, be they cheap foods or vital metals minerals.

the current oil bill before the iraqi parliament, allowing US companies free rei(g)n and iirc massive ownership of iraqi oil, demonstrates the objective clearly. [to be clear, i'm saying, once the dust settles, the basic goal will be re affirmed, one requiring minimal or minor US presence]

i'm not sure how this relates to the thread topic. Bill and Hillary fit the mold described above. Johnson and GWB represent departures, and efforts that arguably accomplished little, except, according to the right, demonstrate that the US is tough (and to the rest of the world, not too bright).

one has no idea about Barack's foreign policy. IF he fancies himself another Kennedy, he might, like Kennedy, envision lots of small scale interventions (the vaunted special forces) in the name of democracy.

IF the Repugs settle on Mc Cain, or Romney, a macho talker, i'd rather have Hillary than Barack opposing them in campaign.

 

[Pure]

Question: who is to blame for the dustup on race: Hillary, Barack, neither, both?

or maybe just the press?


http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/is-the-press-out-to-destroy-the-democrats/

Is The Press Out to Destroy the Democrats?

By: Jane Hamsher
Monday January 14, 2008 4:30 pm

Jane Hamsher: We're at the mercy of a narcissistic and irresponsible press. Matt Bai's blog post in the New York Times being "Exhibit A":

MB: No one expects Mrs. Clinton to stand down and let Mr. Obama make his case unchallenged. She could, however, send a clear message to the cogs in the machinery she's built that there is a line she will not cross. She could tell her Nevada allies that the job of the Democratic Party she grew up in is to make it easier for people to caucus, not harder. She could tell Robert Johnson that he needs to apologize, the same way she forced Bill Shaheen, her New Hampshire co-chairman, to resign last month. She can make it plain to all those people trying to get jobs in the next Clinton Administration that there is way to win—a rough and combative way, even—that nonetheless won't destroy all the good that the Clintons, at least for a lot of Democrats, have come to represent.


Jane Hansher: By loading all the responsibility onto one candidate, as if the other had no place in it, it just heightens the antagonistic environment and makes the problem worse. Does Bai call for Jesse Jackson Jr. to step down, or even mention that this isn't a one-way battle? No. He's smugly content to pour gasoline over an already volatile situation then stand back and watch it burn.

Journalists like Bai inflame these things to the detriment of the political environment and the Democratic party without any consideration of the cost involved. I realize destroying any kind of coalition that could win against the Republicans next November is an acceptable price for some people, but some of us actually do care what happens to the country going forward.

Both Clinton and Obama have issued statements calling for an end to the pie fight, which is a good thing. The responsible thing to do is to refuse to let people like Bai egg them on. We'll see if it's all rhetoric or if their actions back it up. But barring an Edwards resurgence, I frankly don't see how we win the next election without both Clinton and Obama on the ticket in some order. If the antagonism we see online is any evidence, coming together again as a party without it is going to be awfully difficult.

If no decisive victor emerges before the convention, the superdelegates could force both Clinton and Obama onto a ticket.

While I'm sure neither would be happy with that situation, it may be the best thing for the party as a whole. It certainly would be an unbeatable and historic combination, ushering in an era where we can hopefully begin to talk about these things. And after the damage that their mutual mud slinging contest has done to any kind of future coalition, the onus may be on them to suck it up for the good of the country.

Because it doesn't look like our high-minded press will content itself with anything less than scorched earth.

Update: Pam Spaulding, who has been writing about this situation better than almost anyone, nails it (via email):

PamS: //I am sorry to say that I've seen this coming for months now, and none of it is surprising, other than it completely follows the race-baiting playbook I imagined of lobbing the bomb out there, running for cover, and coming up with painfully bad denials,

being "misunderstood", poor choice of phrases, etc. It's the by-product of not speaking frankly about race and some deluding themselves that if they say that this is the "post-racial" era often enough, the problems beneath the surface go away and it renders any deeper discussion of it untouchable or viewed as stoking the fire. The consultant class in both parties are so hooked on these base tactics that they simply can't give them up.//

 

[Boxlicker101]

I've read and heard a few things about this flap, and I think it is much ado about very little. I also think it is a matter of the news media, as is their habit, making a lot of noise about very little.

As I understand, Bill Clinton said something extolling LBJ for his part in the Civil Rights Movement of the Sixties. I have to say, he was right. All the marches and demonstrations and rhetoric would have amounted to naught if it hadn't been for LBJ and the (mostly white) Congress pushing through the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. That was such a landmark piece of legislation that, even now, it is usually just referred to as "The Civil Rights Act" and most people know which one, and (approximately) when it was passed.

At the same time, it was the actions of MLK and many others who brought the inequties of Jim Crow to public attention. If it had't been for them, Congress almost cirtainly would have ignored the whole situation. Since no campaign contributions and few votes were involved, it would not have caught their attention, except for those from the South, who would have resisted the change.

What I am saying is, the credit can be shared.

 

[Handprints]

ETA: I just did a quick calculation. do you mean to say the Soviet Army lost between four and five MILLION at the Battle of Stalingrad?

Sorry! Typing on here while doing something else: that post should have read "half."

That'll teach me...

H

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Even Hillary doesnt have it right. Liberal Republicans were the force behind the Civil Rights bills.

Note that Hillary worked for Barry Goldwater in 1964.

 

[cantdog]

I would put the beginning of WW2 in 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria. aybe even in 1910 when they took over Korea, although that was before the beginning of WW1.

The Russians did a lot of the bleeding, but I wouldn't say "most" because the Chinese probably did more. ETA: And the Chinese weren't even aggressors the way the Soviets were.

One can see the two world wars as one conflict in two phases, even though it makes Italy seem to waffle even more than they did.

Foch, when he read the Versailles treaties, said (Churchill's translation: ) "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." Pretty good estimate.

 

[cantdog]

party lines

Out of personal interest, does opinion of the outcome or political utility of post-WW2 US military action in El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Panama also split on party lines?

H

Party lines? No. Both (if we may still distinguish) parties were all for El Salvador, all for the invasion of Santo Domingo, and so on. In the twentieth century, at least, that sort of thing is not a partisan concern in any way. The Congress has always been united on issues of Empire, by whatever name they're called. Opposition to those things were from splinter groups, on the margins, and occasional individuals in the Congress or the Cabinet.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

rox For all the fulminations against the "imperialist" USA's actions in Latin America, it is not the case that we have ever had territorial ambitions, in the sense of occupying and annexing other countries (Panama was kind of a special case).

rox ignores the basic point that hegemony and economic exploitation, the US aims, do not generally require 'occupying and annexing', and involve limiting such physical, military interventions (though there are a lot of US soldiers in S. Korea, still; lots of US soldiers remained in the Philippines after that war, also).

No, I didn't ignore it. I worded my statement carefully. I didn't describe what you have done because I suspected that you would be along to do so. I even accept (with reservations) that there's a large degree of truth in what you say. Actually, it occurred to me that it's likely that Chinese "imperialism" in their sphere in the coming century will assume the same character.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Question: who is to blame for the dustup on race: Hillary, Barack, neither, both?

Those who live by worshipping at the altar of race/class/gender, can die by it, too.

WSJ on the dustup and "the left's color-by-numbers approach to attracting votes": "But there's also a cautionary tale here in how identity politics can come back to bite. Let's leave aside how this exchange undermines each candidates' claims that he or she would unite the country rather than divide it . . ."

Oh, let's not! Let's talk about it often and everywhere!

 

[cantdog]

Where do you get these offensive things to say, Rox?

 

[Handprints]

Party lines? No. Both (if we may still distinguish) parties were all for El Salvador, all for the invasion of Santo Domingo, and so on. In the twentieth century, at least, that sort of thing is not a partisan concern in any way. The Congress has always been united on issues of Empire, by whatever name they're called. Opposition to those things were from splinter groups, on the margins, and occasional individuals in the Congress or the Cabinet.

Is that still true? When I was a student in the US, it appeared to me that attitudes towards Nicaragua were beginning to split more along party lines, although I'm happy to accept that New England student Democrats were (at least in the late 80s) probably pretty squarely on that party's marginal left.

H

 

[cantdog]

Is that still true? When I was a student in the US, it appeared to me that attitudes towards Nicaragua were beginning to split more along party lines, although I'm happy to accept that New England student Democrats were (at least in the late 80s) probably pretty squarely on that party's marginal left.

H

Still true? Have the Democrats acted decisively to curb Bush? Kerry ran on the platform that the Iraq war was a dandy idea, that had merely been bungled. His contention was he could have run it better, and would do so if elected. Since it became some kind of religious tenet not to vote for Nader, and since the two major parties split better than 98% of the vote, one could conclude that 98% of the country supported the Iraq war, but in fact, it was only that both parties did, and still do, largely.


I was watching and reading the news when the marines landed in the Dominican Republic, and when the American coups ousted Aristide, and only the Black Caucus opposed the latter, while only a few lone voices were raised to oppose the former.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Where do you get these offensive things to say, Rox?

What's offensive? The assertion that many on the US left are obsessed with race, class and gender is hardly an extreme opinion, and I'm sorry if you don't like my way of expressing it. As for the truth of it, my goodness - look at these candidates! Each is either basing his or her candidate on one of these, or at the very least isn't afraid to fall back on it when under stress. (Obama is more the latter - to his credit, and the country's, he has not based his candidacy on race, but is willing to use it when needed.)

I just spent five years taking post-grad classes at a typical American university, and have a bachelor's from one of the top tier schools, and I can testify from first hand experience that academia is the "cathedral" of this worship, and its denizens its high priests and priestesses. My goodness, Cant - that kangaroo court proceeding in Alberta is another of the excresences of this placement of "diversity" ahead of the true principles of liberalism.

~~~~~

Adding: Surely the one place where Americans can let their most colorful vituperations loose is in the realm of presidential politicking? We should be gentle with each other, but surely we can unload both barrels at politicians? I sure don't see much hanging back from the left in this regard . . .

 

[cloudy]

Rox, when race is no longer an issue then it won't have to be discussed as such.

As of right now, and for the foreseeable future, discrimination is still something that happens with frightening regularity.

 

[Handprints]

Still true?...

Fair enough. Certainly there appear to be far fewer voices being heard from America questioning the decision to use American military power, rather than how it should be used.

Thanks,
H

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Still true? Have the Democrats acted decisively to curb Bush? Kerry ran on the platform that the Iraq war was a dandy idea, that had merely been bungled. His contention was he could have run it better, and would do so if elected. Since it became some kind of religious tenet not to vote for Nader, and since the two major parties split better than 98% of the vote, one could conclude that 98% of the country supported the Iraq war, but in fact, it was only that both parties did, and still do, largely.


I was watching and reading the news when the marines landed in the Dominican Republic, and when the American coups ousted Aristide, and only the Black Caucus opposed the latter, while only a few lone voices were raised to oppose the former.

To my knowledge only prez candidtate who has ever issued a wholly unqualified repudiation of the whole enterprise - Iraq in particular and "muscular" internationism in general - is Ron Paul.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What's offensive? The assertion that the US left is obsessed with race, class and gender is hardly an extreme opinion, and I'm sorry if you don't like my way of expressing it. As for the truth of it, my goodness - look at these candidates! Each is either basing his or her candidate on one of these, or at the very least isn't afraid to fall back on it when under stress. (Obama is more the latter - to his credit, and the country's, he has not based his candidacy on race, but is willing to use it when needed.)

I just spent five years taking post-grad classes at a typical American university, and have a bachelor's from one of the top tier schools, and I can testify from first hand experience that academia is "cathedral" of this worship, and its denizens its high priests and priestesses. My goodness, Cant - that kangaroo court proceeding in Alberta is another of the excresences of this placement of "diversity" ahead of the true principles of liberalism.

~~~~~

Adding: Surely the one place where Americans can let their most colorful vituperations loose is in the realm of presidential politicking? We should be gentle with each other, but surely we can unload both barrels at politicians? I sure don't see much hanging back from the left in this regard . . .

The left is obsessed with race and gender. What else would you call their strident advocacy of school busing and quota-style affirmative action.