Jeffrey Sachs on what JFK tried to do that led to his assassination.

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I’ll go ahead and second this recommendation. The revisionist “movement”, which basically amounts to “Vietnam was a noble effort and totally winnable” is a minority viewpoint that is completely rejected by the vast majority of experts in the field. This is a fact.

However, you’ve been a crusade to sell this fringe revisionist view as if it is established history, while dismissing any ambiguity and contrary analysis as anything ranging from egregiously incorrect to some sort of liberal academic conspiracy. It’s absurd; it’s like you’re a missionary for the church of Moyar-Selverstonism and you’ve chosen this forum as your pulpit, for whatever reason. 

You don’t need to be a war historian to realize that Vietnam is a complex, ambiguous, topic, and that many of the core revisionists tenets are an agenda-driven amalgamation of cherry-picked evidence and conservative politics. I posted this probably three times in the books thread, but for anyone interested, this article provides some much-needed context for Mike’s position on Vietnam. The title kind of says it all: “Revisionism as a Substitute for Victory”. 

https://commonreader.wustl.edu/c/revisionism-as-a-substitute-for-victory/

 

As a general statement, let it be said wars are unpredictable. 

At the start of the Ukraine war,  Russia was supposed to prevail. 

Then, the war was supposed to be about air power, tanks and RPGs. Quick tactical maneuvers. 

Now, the (horrible) war has settled into a long front, and everyone talks about artillery and drones. 

But before the war, no one said there would be a long, mostly static front, and artillery and drones would of primary importance. 

JFK had served in war, on the winning side, but in a losing battle. He knew about predictions. Even the Bay of Pigs....

Predicting victory in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan....

[James DiEugenio]

What a good article, thanks Tom.  Here is a most important passage I think.

Revisionist authors Moyar and Boot, for example, are well-known hawks who believe that the United States can intervene successfully in distant, alien societies if only Washington uses its power deftly and puts the right people in charge.

 

To use an epic tragedy like Vietnam for political purposes, is I think, just shameful.

Edited October 19, 2023 by James DiEugenio