Just a Gwai Lo fun within prescribed limits [?]

Christopher Hitchens agrees with Niall Ferguson that comparisons of the current situation Iraq to that of Vietnam are flawed: “If the United States were the nation that its enemies think it is, it could quite well afford to Balkanize Iraq, let the various factions take a chunk each, and make a divide-and-rule bargain with the rump. The effort continues, though, to try and create something that is simultaneously federal and democratic. Short of that, if one absolutely has to fall short, the effort must continue to deny Iraq to demagogues and murderers and charlatans. I can't see how this compares to the attempt to partition and subjugate Vietnam, bomb its cities, drench its forests in Agent Orange, and hand over its southern region to a succession of brutal military proxies.”

Niall Ferguson: “What happened in Iraq last week so closely resembles the events of 1920 that only a historical ignoramus could be surprised. It began in May, just after the announcement that Iraq would henceforth be a League of Nations "mandate" under British trusteeship. (Nota bene, if you think a handover to the UN would solve everything.) Anti-British demonstrations began in Baghdad mosques, spread to the Shi'ite holy centre of Karbala, swept on through Rumaytha and Samawa - where British forces were besieged - and reached as far as Kirkuk.”

Ferguson is arguing that looking to Vietnam for a comparison to today is flawed, and that, as in the above quote, Iraq in the 1920s provides an instructive case for the Americans in Iraq now.

More minority opinion from Niall Ferguson: “fighting the war in Vietnam was not a mistake. Abandoning it was the mistake. I have just returned from a short tour of that country, which allowed me to see firsthand what three decades of Communist rule have achieved there. The very best that can be said is that they achieved nothing. The worst that can be said is that by throwing in the towel in 1973, the U.S. condemned South Vietnam to 30 years of repression, corruption and poverty. And the best proof that these were truly "lost years" for the people of Vietnam are the current frantic efforts of the country's leaders to bring back capitalism.”

The article, which appears in The Wall Street Journal (but behind a subscription wall), can be read in excerpted form at pro-war.com and Common Sense and Wonder.

Ann Coulter: “[Al] Gore advisers cooed that 'Gray [Davis] would certainly be one of those names that would have to be in the mix.' Both were said to be 'cautious, moderate 'New Democrats.'' Both were veterans, after a fashion, of Vietnam, which would make a Gore-Davis presidential ticket the only compelling argument yet in favor of friendly fire.”

That crosses the line. Even for Coulter.

Michael Kinsley: “Like generals, anti-war protesters are always fighting the last war. Or in this case, depending on how you count, the war-before-last. The methods, the style, the arguments, the very language of objecting to war are still stuck in Vietnam. That's why the protests of the past couple of weeks have seemed so lame and retro. The Vietnam debate was primarily a moral one. Although the cost of victory became an important factor as the years went on, it was not the main factor turning people against that war. Americans ultimately decided it was a victory we shouldn't even want. In the case of Iraq, by contrast, few people think the goal of overturning Saddam Hussein is immoral. If we knew for sure it would be as easy and cheap as the administration hopes, few folks would object.”

Finished reading A History of Vietnam: From Hong Bang to Tu Duc by Oscar Chapuis.

Finished reading The Last Emperors of Vietnam: From Tu Duc to Bao Dai by Oscar Chapuis.