Comments

1. John in Cincinnati

   Sunday 26 August 2007 at 14:49

   Seemed weak to me.  He’s done it better for Slate.

2. unaha-closp

   Sunday 26 August 2007 at 22:07

   He argues that Vietnam War was an historical mistake to enter into and therefore the slaughter that followed was an acceptable consequence. He counters this by saying that the Iraq War was historically justified and therefore the slaughter that will follow is not acceptable. It is arguing therefores on the basis of original sin of the wars - he can get all facts correct, but the concept is a dispute of mere dogma and irrelevent. He is perhaps suffering from Stockholm Syndrome locked into arguing within confines of religious criticism.
   Surely the question that should have been asked in Vietnam and should be asked now is what will the next action achieve. The thing is to prevent the deaths of several thousands, not to stay or leave on the basis of whether a war were justified in the first place.