Remember: for Cambodia, read Iraq

[HOZ]

Columnist William Shawcrosson on Iraq

Be careful for what you wish for.

But horror had engulfed all of Indo-China as a result of the US defeat in 1975. In Vietnam and Laos there was no vast mass murder but the communists created cruel gulags and, from Vietnam in particular, millions of people fled, mostly by boat and mostly to the US. Given the catastrophe of the communist victories, I have always thought that those like myself who were opposed to the American efforts in Indochina should be very humble.

*****

That long view seems to me to be the one that has to be applied to Iraq.

[Claeren]

Wow... maybe those areas were engulfed in violence because of the Vietnam war happening in the first place (rather than the subsequent defeat/withdrawl).

I know from first hand experience that there are STILL to this day remenant factions of CIA trained militia forces fighting in Laos. I had to have an AK-47 equiped guide (or two) with me at all times when i ventured into the hilltribe areas of central Laos last year. And they were all equiped, indoctrinated, and fighting because of the Vietnam war itself - not because the Americans left. And they would NOT have been equiped, trained, or indoctrinated (by either side) had the Vietnam War not happened (or played out in the way it did).



Before your quote come this quote, which i think is a more accurate view (and i am not sure why the author goes off in another direction after stating it):

I wrote a book called Sideshow, which was very critical of the way in which the United States had brought war to Cambodia while trying to extricate itself from Vietnam.

He later says:

I still believe the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was the correct thing to do — and it was something only the United States could have done. For all the horrors that extremist Sunnis and Shias are inflicting on each other today, the US rid the world of the Pol Pot of the Middle East. So long as the vile Saddam family regime remained in power there was no hope of progress in the region.

(1) Saddam was hardly Pol Pot. (2) Sanctions had left Saddam essentially powerless outside his country and would have even more so had the USA been more interested in using their considerable power to better enforce them and (3) Saddam was non-religious (near the very end of his rule he embraced a tentative Muslim stance, but it is widely believed he did so to maintain power in an ever poorer country and not of sincere devotion), non-extremist and (in comparative terms) was one of the most enlightened leaders in the Middle East prior to the Gulf War and had brought in the best educational reforms, business and trade reforms, etc. and (4) was a GOOD friend to the United States and the Republican party.

And concludes with:
(a)

The consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be even worse than in IndoChina.

Exactly - but it is not the defeat that is the problem, it was the thoughtless and hurried ENTRY to the theater of war that was the problem.

(b)

As the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Musab al-Zarqawi, said before he was killed by a US air strike: “The shedding of Muslim blood is allowed in order to disrupt the greater evil of disrupting jihad.”

He seems to forget, almost laughably, that Al Qaida was NEVER welcome in Iraq when Saddam was in power, extremist Muslim views were NEVER welcome under Saddam, and that the wider 'war on terror' came to Iraq only AFTER America invaded.




Pretty poor and inconsistant viewpoints on the authors part.

Claeren.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Claeren

I know from first hand experience that there are STILL to this day remenant factions of CIA trained militia forces fighting in Laos. I had to have an AK-47 equiped guide (or two) with me at all times when i ventured into the hilltribe areas of central Laos last year. And they were all equiped, indoctrinated, and fighting because of the Vietnam war itself - not because the Americans left. And they would NOT have been equiped, trained, or indoctrinated (by either side) had the Vietnam War not happened (or played out in the way it did).

Hmmmm....

All my friend and his wife needed was a camera the 4 times they went.

They certainly needed to be aware of unexploded ordanance left over from the Vietnam war.

[RougeUnderoos]

He may make a couple valid points, but the theme of "if the Americans leave it'll be a disaster" strikes me as a little odd, since it already is a disaster, cruel gulags and all.

And he trots out the old "they hate Bush and Blair" argument, as though people dislike those two based on some irrational emotion and not because of how poorly this whole thing has turned out.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Hmmmm....

All my friend and his wife needed was a camera the 4 times they went.

They certainly needed to be aware of unexploded ordanance left over from the Vietnam war.

I am quite certain they did not go where i have gone then. (Few tourists do as you have to be able and willing to cover rough terrain with large potential (mines) for disaster, although a suprising number do go... but regardless - as a total of the whole not that many. I have been 3 times, although only into the far backcountry once - but it is impressive that they have been 4 times as few have the opportunity to go more than once.)

There are plenty of places where you are 100% safe (the big cities, for tourists mostly Luang Prabang or the Capital Viang Chang), others where you are so-so like the highway from Luang Prabang via Vang Viang to Viang Chang and then places where there is ongoing potential for violence/danger which is constituted by large swaths of interior hill tribe regions. Of course like most places 99/100 it is just a bunch of old guys sitting on automatic weapons, but there have been flair-ups, kidnappings, and killings in the recent past.

Laos is one of my favorite places on earth though.... maybe THE favorite... not coincidently they also have the best beer i have ever tasted - BeerLao (Dark).








Claeren.