VietNam..April 30th....How It Ended.

[numan]

'

I will certainly trust 9/11 IJ over you, or your Marine captain, or anyone else who supports an out-of-control military murder-machine run by and for satanic war profiteers.

.

 

[Auteur]

Bullshit. The NVA had occupied large portions of Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand when I was there in '70. And when RSVN fell there was indeed the expected bloodbath both there and in Cambodia.

"died for a lie"? That is both wrong and sick. My bros. died accomplishing a mission given them by the American people via the government and military exactly the same as anyone else who has fought for this country.

dude your in denial.He is totally correct.

The american people did not want that war,many of them wisely defected to canada because they knew it was a fake and phony war.what you dont get is that wars mean big buiness for corporations which is why we have the wars going on in the middle east.He hit the nail right on the head.vietnam was an unnessary war and Johnson and Nixon were the ones thta murdered all those 58,000 bothers of yours,not the NVA or vietcong.They are tha mass murderers of them whether you want to face it or not.

Your claims are all over the map.
I work in a field with many Viet Nam vets and many stayed on in the military and their voices were heard as to the mistakes of that war. Many changes were made.
You are a complete fool to believe that the men that fought over there and saw their friends die DID NOT initiate total change in the military and the operations and strategy of war time. Of course there have been times when the President did not listen to boots on the ground such as Iraq II but it was not from some corporation making the decisions.
We know, we work in the field and many of my colleagues were there and other places and the boots on the ground NOW tell us what you claim is total bull shit.
So should I believe YOU or a 27 year old Marine Captain in the field in with THE FIFTH MARINE REGIMENT, 1ST MARINE DIVISION?

There's little doubt that the military analyzed its position after Vietnam, and reached some constructive conclusions. The broader question is, how much has the political leadership of the US, and the population at large learned from such events? History repeats itself- the often quoted cliche goes, but in the case of the last few conflicts, this certainly applies.

In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has basically been a rerun of past history. Geopolitical gain is imagined, imperial adventure is desired, and the wheels set in motion, with little regard of expert advice, or even a glance at a history text. What politicians seemed to have learned from the past is that marketing is much more important than previously thought. Drafting millions of kids into the army, and giving the public a shabby and transparent cover story for the reason they are coming home in plastic bags is not going to cut it in the future. And so in stead of changing the concept of war, they have changed to concept of marketing it.

High numbers of casualities are no longer acceptable, and so technology is recruited to do as much work as possible. The current Drone program is a good example. No matter the number of innocent deaths on the "other" side, they can be spun in the media much more effectively than the deaths of US servicemen.

And the draft of course, is out. Vietnam proved that a majority, or at least a very large plurality of the public has a limited amount of patience for war, and most certainly for foolish wars. Drafting their kids to do the dirty work could provoke rebellion. The work would have to be left to volunteers, who at least notionally have the idea of supporting such national policies. Or, better yet, privatize war, and leave it for "employees". This moves things further out of the national consciousness, further buries unpleasantness from the media, and leaves the currently favourable impression that the market is taking care of things. The risk of such things is great for these folks, but they are getting paid in compensation that matches the danger-so the story goes.

For a public that has already- in large measure- lost interest in following world affairs, and have allowed intellectual pursuits to sink to a low priority, the assignment of war to a small minority, who have "chosen" their occupation anyway, further lulls the senses, and precludes the sort of masses in the streets protests seen during the Vietnam era.

 

[Gadawg73]

'

I will certainly trust 9/11 IJ over you, or your Marine captain, or anyone else who supports an out-of-control military murder-machine run by and for satanic war profiteers.

.

I fully believe you would trust the judgment that believes 9/11 was caused by the American government by the many posts I have read from you in the past.
You are bat shit crazy.

 

[Gadawg73]

dude your in denial.He is totally correct.

The american people did not want that war,many of them wisely defected to canada because they knew it was a fake and phony war.what you dont get is that wars mean big buiness for corporations which is why we have the wars going on in the middle east.He hit the nail right on the head.vietnam was an unnessary war and Johnson and Nixon were the ones thta murdered all those 58,000 bothers of yours,not the NVA or vietcong.They are tha mass murderers of them whether you want to face it or not.

Your claims are all over the map.
I work in a field with many Viet Nam vets and many stayed on in the military and their voices were heard as to the mistakes of that war. Many changes were made.
You are a complete fool to believe that the men that fought over there and saw their friends die DID NOT initiate total change in the military and the operations and strategy of war time. Of course there have been times when the President did not listen to boots on the ground such as Iraq II but it was not from some corporation making the decisions.
We know, we work in the field and many of my colleagues were there and other places and the boots on the ground NOW tell us what you claim is total bull shit.
So should I believe YOU or a 27 year old Marine Captain in the field in with THE FIFTH MARINE REGIMENT, 1ST MARINE DIVISION?

There's little doubt that the military analyzed its position after Vietnam, and reached some constructive conclusions. The broader question is, how much has the political leadership of the US, and the population at large learned from such events? History repeats itself- the often quoted cliche goes, but in the case of the last few conflicts, this certainly applies.

In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has basically been a rerun of past history. Geopolitical gain is imagined, imperial adventure is desired, and the wheels set in motion, with little regard of expert advice, or even a glance at a history text. What politicians seemed to have learned from the past is that marketing is much more important than previously thought. Drafting millions of kids into the army, and giving the public a shabby and transparent cover story for the reason they are coming home in plastic bags is not going to cut it in the future. And so in stead of changing the concept of war, they have changed to concept of marketing it.

High numbers of casualities are no longer acceptable, and so technology is recruited to do as much work as possible. The current Drone program is a good example. No matter the number of innocent deaths on the "other" side, they can be spun in the media much more effectively than the deaths of US servicemen.

And the draft of course, is out. Vietnam proved that a majority, or at least a very large plurality of the public has a limited amount of patience for war, and most certainly for foolish wars. Drafting their kids to do the dirty work could provoke rebellion. The work would have to be left to volunteers, who at least notionally have the idea of supporting such national policies. Or, better yet, privatize war, and leave it for "employees". This moves things further out of the national consciousness, further buries unpleasantness from the media, and leaves the currently favourable impression that the market is taking care of things. The risk of such things is great for these folks, but they are getting paid in compensation that matches the danger-so the story goes.

For a public that has already- in large measure- lost interest in following world affairs, and have allowed intellectual pursuits to sink to a low priority, the assignment of war to a small minority, who have "chosen" their occupation anyway, further lulls the senses, and precludes the sort of masses in the streets protests seen during the Vietnam era.

"imperial adventure"
If you are a career officer on the ground would you rather have an army of volunteers that want to be there or draftees that don't?
No brainer there. Volunteer military is always better trained, educated, skilled and motivated than a draftee military.
Which also leads to MORE career officers and MORE up the chain ideas, complaints, FUBAR advice, SNAFU preparedness and LESS decision making by government, politicians, bureaucrats and everyone and anyone else that is not in line with military strategy, planning and control.
Of course there are exceptions to that as military strikes are not predictable nor are the reasons why.
I do agree that most Americans sit here on their ass and Monday morning QB every move the military and government makes and they do not understand the reasons, sacrifices, commitments and numerous alliances and treaties we have.

 

[numan]

I will certainly trust 9/11 IJ over you, or your Marine captain, or anyone else who supports an out-of-control military murder-machine run by and for satanic war profiteers.

I fully believe you would trust the judgment that believes 9/11 was caused by the American government by the many posts I have read from you in the past.
You are bat shit crazy.

In other words, you are not able to make a rational rebuttal of what I wrote.

Thank you for making that clear.

 

[Auteur]

Your claims are all over the map.
I work in a field with many Viet Nam vets and many stayed on in the military and their voices were heard as to the mistakes of that war. Many changes were made.
You are a complete fool to believe that the men that fought over there and saw their friends die DID NOT initiate total change in the military and the operations and strategy of war time. Of course there have been times when the President did not listen to boots on the ground such as Iraq II but it was not from some corporation making the decisions.
We know, we work in the field and many of my colleagues were there and other places and the boots on the ground NOW tell us what you claim is total bull shit.
So should I believe YOU or a 27 year old Marine Captain in the field in with THE FIFTH MARINE REGIMENT, 1ST MARINE DIVISION?

There's little doubt that the military analyzed its position after Vietnam, and reached some constructive conclusions. The broader question is, how much has the political leadership of the US, and the population at large learned from such events? History repeats itself- the often quoted cliche goes, but in the case of the last few conflicts, this certainly applies.

In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has basically been a rerun of past history. Geopolitical gain is imagined, imperial adventure is desired, and the wheels set in motion, with little regard of expert advice, or even a glance at a history text. What politicians seemed to have learned from the past is that marketing is much more important than previously thought. Drafting millions of kids into the army, and giving the public a shabby and transparent cover story for the reason they are coming home in plastic bags is not going to cut it in the future. And so in stead of changing the concept of war, they have changed to concept of marketing it.

High numbers of casualities are no longer acceptable, and so technology is recruited to do as much work as possible. The current Drone program is a good example. No matter the number of innocent deaths on the "other" side, they can be spun in the media much more effectively than the deaths of US servicemen.

And the draft of course, is out. Vietnam proved that a majority, or at least a very large plurality of the public has a limited amount of patience for war, and most certainly for foolish wars. Drafting their kids to do the dirty work could provoke rebellion. The work would have to be left to volunteers, who at least notionally have the idea of supporting such national policies. Or, better yet, privatize war, and leave it for "employees". This moves things further out of the national consciousness, further buries unpleasantness from the media, and leaves the currently favourable impression that the market is taking care of things. The risk of such things is great for these folks, but they are getting paid in compensation that matches the danger-so the story goes.

For a public that has already- in large measure- lost interest in following world affairs, and have allowed intellectual pursuits to sink to a low priority, the assignment of war to a small minority, who have "chosen" their occupation anyway, further lulls the senses, and precludes the sort of masses in the streets protests seen during the Vietnam era.

"imperial adventure"
If you are a career officer on the ground would you rather have an army of volunteers that want to be there or draftees that don't?
No brainer there. Volunteer military is always better trained, educated, skilled and motivated than a draftee military.
Which also leads to MORE career officers and MORE up the chain ideas, complaints, FUBAR advice, SNAFU preparedness and LESS decision making by government, politicians, bureaucrats and everyone and anyone else that is not in line with military strategy, planning and control.
Of course there are exceptions to that as military strikes are not predictable nor are the reasons why.
I do agree that most Americans sit here on their ass and Monday morning QB every move the military and government makes and they do not understand the reasons, sacrifices, commitments and numerous alliances and treaties we have.

I believe we are mis-communicating here. Of course, a volunteer force is more efficient than draftees. My point is that the more a military force is divorced from the mass of society, the easier it is for politicians to pursue whatever self-serving or divergent geopolitical escapades they want, for whatever short-term narrow interest they want. If Private Johnny doesn't come marchin' home, questions will be asked across the land. If Contractor Johnny doesn't come marchin' home, because he signed up with Blackwater, made a shit-load of money, and then his luck ran out, much, much fewer questions are going to be asked. And that suits the aims of numerous folks in the US today.

If Vietnam had been run by a mix of a 40% volunteer military force, and 60% contracted civilians (highly paid), how differently do you think things may have turned out? The answer to that question strongly informs the policies of today.

 

[Gadawg73]

There's little doubt that the military analyzed its position after Vietnam, and reached some constructive conclusions. The broader question is, how much has the political leadership of the US, and the population at large learned from such events? History repeats itself- the often quoted cliche goes, but in the case of the last few conflicts, this certainly applies.

In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it has basically been a rerun of past history. Geopolitical gain is imagined, imperial adventure is desired, and the wheels set in motion, with little regard of expert advice, or even a glance at a history text. What politicians seemed to have learned from the past is that marketing is much more important than previously thought. Drafting millions of kids into the army, and giving the public a shabby and transparent cover story for the reason they are coming home in plastic bags is not going to cut it in the future. And so in stead of changing the concept of war, they have changed to concept of marketing it.

High numbers of casualities are no longer acceptable, and so technology is recruited to do as much work as possible. The current Drone program is a good example. No matter the number of innocent deaths on the "other" side, they can be spun in the media much more effectively than the deaths of US servicemen.

And the draft of course, is out. Vietnam proved that a majority, or at least a very large plurality of the public has a limited amount of patience for war, and most certainly for foolish wars. Drafting their kids to do the dirty work could provoke rebellion. The work would have to be left to volunteers, who at least notionally have the idea of supporting such national policies. Or, better yet, privatize war, and leave it for "employees". This moves things further out of the national consciousness, further buries unpleasantness from the media, and leaves the currently favourable impression that the market is taking care of things. The risk of such things is great for these folks, but they are getting paid in compensation that matches the danger-so the story goes.

For a public that has already- in large measure- lost interest in following world affairs, and have allowed intellectual pursuits to sink to a low priority, the assignment of war to a small minority, who have "chosen" their occupation anyway, further lulls the senses, and precludes the sort of masses in the streets protests seen during the Vietnam era.

"imperial adventure"
If you are a career officer on the ground would you rather have an army of volunteers that want to be there or draftees that don't?
No brainer there. Volunteer military is always better trained, educated, skilled and motivated than a draftee military.
Which also leads to MORE career officers and MORE up the chain ideas, complaints, FUBAR advice, SNAFU preparedness and LESS decision making by government, politicians, bureaucrats and everyone and anyone else that is not in line with military strategy, planning and control.
Of course there are exceptions to that as military strikes are not predictable nor are the reasons why.
I do agree that most Americans sit here on their ass and Monday morning QB every move the military and government makes and they do not understand the reasons, sacrifices, commitments and numerous alliances and treaties we have.

I believe we are mis-communicating here. Of course, a volunteer force is more efficient than draftees. My point is that the more a military force is divorced from the mass of society, the easier it is for politicians to pursue whatever self-serving or divergent geopolitical escapades they want, for whatever short-term narrow interest they want. If Private Johnny doesn't come marchin' home, questions will be asked across the land. If Contractor Johnny doesn't come marchin' home, because he signed up with Blackwater, made a shit-load of money, and then his luck ran out, much, much fewer questions are going to be asked. And that suits the aims of numerous folks in the US today.

If Vietnam had been run by a mix of a 40% volunteer military force, and 60% contracted civilians (highly paid), how differently do you think things may have turned out? The answer to that question strongly informs the policies of today.

Someone correctly stated that no army wins a war of attrition in Asia. Viet Nam is the perfect example. I believe it was 15 year olds and 350,00 of them that were drafted each year in North Viet Nam from 1966 forward. An unending wave of fodder.
The military despises most of the contractors. Contractors in country do make a pant load and brag about their junkets to Dubai. The average MP and/or uniform security makes about $36,000 a year in country. Contractor doing about the same job makes 5 times that. In country uniform would not let contractors eat the pea nuts out of their shit. However, with 65%+ veterans now applying for and in most cases receiving long term "disability" payments upon discharge contractors pay ends up being less in the long run.
I agree with your thesis but the me first society we live in here today is the problem, not whether the military is drafted or not. People are ignorant.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

the north vietnamese used to say they always knew they were assured of victory. what we don't win on the battlefield we will win in your universities, like berkley and columbia. We will win in your cities and through your journalists. and were they ever right.

Meaning, they were counting on free speech?

but they aren't all that powerful. they use the tools they control. which is most of the universities and the media.


yea free speech. you know where journalists visited the POW's in Hanoi and reported how well the criminals were being treated but neglected to mention they were being tortured and killed.

No surprise there.got to remember,the CIA has agents that work in the mainstream news,hense why they never reported the autrocities being done to them.

but they aren't all that powerful. they use the tools they control. which is most of the universities and the media.

SPOONMAN here understands that the media is just a TOOL for the government.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

'

I will certainly trust 9/11 IJ over you, or your Marine captain, or anyone else who supports an out-of-control military murder-machine run by and for satanic war profiteers.

.

I fully believe you would trust the judgment that believes 9/11 was caused by the American government by the many posts I have read from you in the past.
You are bat shit crazy.

according to YOUR logic,all these high credible experts are bat shit crazy and you are not.

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

so according to your warped logic you have.all these high credible experts in their fields,architects and engineers who know about the collapses of high rise buildings due to fires,all these experts in the military,all these expert pilots in the world who have said they could not fly an airliner into a pentagon like the government says the highjackers allegedly did,all these firemen experienced in the sounds of explosives along with demolition experts,ALL of them are wrong and all our corrupt government institutions despite the fact they have a long hisotry of corruption going back decades of lying to the people,THEY are right and those experts are wrong? gotcha.

according to YOUR warped logic you have,nobody should listen to an expert mechanic who knows everything there is about a car and how it needs to be repaired,dont trust him,but trust your wife in what SHE says even though she has never looked under the hood of a car before.priceless,you should start a comedy club.

 

[usmcstinger]

March 28, 1973 all US troops were gone from Vietnam and the Vietnam Service Medal was no longer issued. This date was the real end of the Vietnam War.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

March 28, 1973 all US troops were gone from Vietnam and the Vietnam Service Medal was no longer issued. This date was the real end of the Vietnam War.

thanks to the american people who finally got fed up with that fake and phony war of course.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

but they aren't all that powerful. they use the tools they control. which is most of the universities and the media.

Where you need an education.

an education consists of presenting facts and only facts and letting you form your own opinion. What you support is refered to as an indoctrination

that is defenitely what is going on in our corrupt school systems and is currently going on now.the schools wont let you present the facts of what really happened in our american history classes.for instance this is a true story.

I woke up to how evil our government is after i saw the movie JFK. when i started reading other books afterwards and books that supported the magic bullet theory,i came to the conclusion stones movie was 100 times more accurate to the truth on what actually did happen that the warren commission.

a few years later after I saw JFK at the theaters and started doing research on it,I confronted one of my american history terachers and asked him point blank-Mr Evans,you always taught us in your classes that oswald killed JFK.that was a lie,the CIA did it.how come you never told us that? and he said-Oh I never did believe that.and i replied with-what that the CIA did it or that oswald did it? and he said-that oswald did it.

I then said to him-well then how come you never told us that and told the lie that oswald did it? and he came back with an answer that shocked me saying-well just between you and me,if i had told you what I REALLY believed back then,I wouldnt be here teaching now.I would have been fired back then.

and I have no ill grudge towards him on that for telling the lie that he was forced to tell because that was his livilood and that was all he knew how to make a living ,same with all thse other american history teachers.if they tell the truth,they lose their jobs.

Like he said,thats indoctrination.thats not america,where we are SUPPOSE to have free speech and be able to give our opinions.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I was there in 1970. Thought of going back to see the changes

That's when I got there too, and went straight to I Corps where I stayed.

I'd like to go back too. In the meantime, you oughta check out Google Earth. You can see the changes, which are many.

I have looked at the Google Earth and it is unbelievable.

Check out Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall - The Virtual Wall (TM) it is a site that not only list kia's but also has stories from family members on some. I found it interesting.

that again,is the list on the wall of all our brothers that LBJ and DICK Nixon murdered.

 

[numan]

I agree with your thesis but the me first society we live in here today is the problem, not whether the military is drafted or not. People are ignorant.

Perhaps it is ignorant to imagine that our society could be anything but a "me-first society" -- considering the very low culture, intelligence, and characters of the people who purportedly "lead" us -- people who would never dream of sacrificing their children to the military meat-grinder.

In any organization, if the people at the top are seen to be vicious, exploitative, criminal scoundrels, the people in positions below those "leaders" will very likely think that they would be fools to be better than those above them, and that they should "get theirs while the getting is good."

Eventually, this attitude works its way down the entire food chain, and at some point the organization, government or society collapses.

I think people like you are quite naive. When they hear J.F. Kennedy's :

"Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask rather what you can do for your country"

they hear a clarion call for noble action and patriotism and self-sacrifice.

When people like myself, who are very aware of the corruption of our society from top to bottom, hear such stuff, we know quite well that it is a cynical ploy by corrupt leaders, meaning :

"Ask not what I can do for you -- ask rather what you can do for me."
______________________________________

It is not reasonable that a wise man should hazard himself for his country, and endanger wisdom for a set of fools.
---Theodorus of Cyrene
.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Gunshots that eyewitnesses did not hear, including the National Guard. They never used this as an excuse for firing with live ammunition.

Untrue. In any case there has never been any dispute that the rioters were throwing rocks and bottles which can cause serious injury or death. Ever hear of "stoning"?

Ever hear of backing away? Ever hear of not firing into a general crowd because maybe a few were out of line? Ever heard that the US Army firing on US citizens is horrific? You guys who think the army wouldn't shoot resisters should remember this ghastly, tragic act.

And as for 'pistol shots', never had any info on that before, but if we admit they happened 70 seconds before....?!? Over a minute? Then nothing? Then we shoot young people expressing themselves as the Constitution provides? If the N. G. had not been there, who would have died?

The men who fired are criminal murderers and I hope they realize that fully everyday of their lives.

you have way too much logic,common sense,and rational thinking for this thread starter to comprehend.her head is about to explode the way you overloaded her with all that common sense.hee hee.

 

[9thIDdoc]

My brother and his buddies in country '66-'68 had a name for the death of their buddies over there:

WASTED.

And that is 100% correct. You can not fool the boots on the ground. They KNEW this was a political war ONLY.
Every soldier that gave his life in Nam had his life WASTED FOR NOTHING.

BULLSHIT. They died while serving their country carrying out the mission they were given exactly like our soldiers who died in any other conflict and they deserve exactly the same respect. It can be argued that the mission was not in fact worth the price but that is an entirely different argument.

All who are sent to fight in the military should know exactly what they are doing, and why. Otherwise, they simply become automatons, lethal weapons under the control and direction of others; "good Germans" who obey orders without question.

This was one of the bitter lessons of Vietnam. Sending draftees off to sacrifice themselves for political gamesmanship was no longer going to be a viable option. The population, or at least a significant portion of it, recognized the madness of sending kids to their deaths for a- completely wrong headed, as it turned out- global great game.

Military action should be an absolute last resort, after all else has failed. Unfortunately, this is a concept that has still not caught on, and the geopolitical games (and bitter defeats) continue, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places.

You obviously have no idea how a military is-or should be-run. Nor did Vietnam teach you a damn thing. You might also note that we won the "global great game" (the Cold War). We accomplished what we set out to do in Iraq and Afghanistan and they were obvious wins of battles in the War Against Terror. Your determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory does you no credit.

 

[9thIDdoc]

How Vietnam ended

With the deaths of 58,000 American soldiers and 1.1 million NVA soldiers and 1.2 million injured over absolutely nothing.

well for greedy evil people like the banksters and corporations it wasnt absolutely nothing sadly.

Nor was it "over absolutely nothing" for anyone with a brain and even a limited ability to use it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Its disgusting the american sheople never leanred anything from vietnam and they STILL ignorantly put on that uniform and line themselves up for slaughter all in the ignorance thinking they are dying for a great cause and sering their country when in reality,they are only serving the purposes of the bankers and the corporations with them laughing at their stupidity while they profit over it." __________________

You must be one of those ignorant american sheople to be ignorant of the fact our troops fight for, and at the command of, the American people.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

"Its disgusting the american sheople never leanred anything from vietnam and they STILL ignorantly put on that uniform and line themselves up for slaughter all in the ignorance thinking they are dying for a great cause and sering their country when in reality,they are only serving the purposes of the bankers and the corporations with them laughing at their stupidity while they profit over it." __________________

You must be one of those ignorant american sheople to be ignorant of the fact our troops fight for, and at the command of, the American people.

No your just too ignnorant to figure it out that war means big business for the corporations and bankers,which is why we have the wars going on in the middle east. if the american people had not protested the war like they did,it would not have ended like it did to say that the american people did not force them to end the war is being very ignorant.

 

[Auteur]

BULLSHIT. They died while serving their country carrying out the mission they were given exactly like our soldiers who died in any other conflict and they deserve exactly the same respect. It can be argued that the mission was not in fact worth the price but that is an entirely different argument.

All who are sent to fight in the military should know exactly what they are doing, and why. Otherwise, they simply become automatons, lethal weapons under the control and direction of others; "good Germans" who obey orders without question.

This was one of the bitter lessons of Vietnam. Sending draftees off to sacrifice themselves for political gamesmanship was no longer going to be a viable option. The population, or at least a significant portion of it, recognized the madness of sending kids to their deaths for a- completely wrong headed, as it turned out- global great game.

Military action should be an absolute last resort, after all else has failed. Unfortunately, this is a concept that has still not caught on, and the geopolitical games (and bitter defeats) continue, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places.

You obviously have no idea how a military is-or should be-run. Nor did Vietnam teach you a damn thing. You might also note that we won the "global great game" (the Cold War). We accomplished what we set out to do in Iraq and Afghanistan and they were obvious wins of battles in the War Against Terror. Your determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory does you no credit.

And your point is that the military should be run with compulsory service, with draftees who don't know why they are supposed to be killing people, or do know and adamantly disagree? That they should ask no questions if told to deport Jews, or shoot up a village of civilians? Nonsense. That is the lesson of Vietnam.

The cold war ended because the Soviet Union collapsed, because of internal corruption and ineffeciency. Otherwise, it would still be going on today, and indeed it still is to an extent, with a reduced Russia and a renewed China as possible arms race partners and advisaries. We have simply gone from two superpowers to a bi-polar world.

And so the US set out to kill 80k plus or minus Iraqis, plus many thousands of Americans, stir up sectarian violence, increase Iran's influence in the region, and then have to evacuate the country, leaving behind bases worth millions to construct, and ceed oil contracts to China, and other countries, alienate most allied countries, and destroy the moral credibility of the US? In that case it was a success.

The US succeeded in destroying "training bases", ie barracks, classrooms, and storage sheds probably already abandoned in Afghanistan. All smoke and mirrors of course, because terrorists train anywhere and everywhere. That't the whole point- hiding is what enables them to survive. Wouldn't be much point in picking a base out in the desert, in view of satellite and air surveillance, and painting a big x on it, now would there? In the case of 9/11, the essential training was done at flight schools in Florida, and planning done in Germany and Saudi Arabia.

The mission then changed to nation building, ie getting rid of tribalism. It was a complete failure. As we speak, negociations are underway with the Taliban to allow their return in some shape or form. As in Vietnam, an implicite side agreement will probably insist on a "decent interval" from the time of US withdrawal to the time of reversion to the past status quo, in order to not outrage the (short memoried) US public too much.