Trump Did A Stupid Thing Because He Refused To Learn From History

Donald Trump started a war without clear goals and without an exit strategy. It was stupid, because the history of such U.S. actions was clear that it was a losing effort - one that could not be won.

The lesson should have been learned from Vietnam. That was also a war in which the United States was clearly the superior military force. The U.S. had the military advantage in training troop levels, and the machines of war. And that was clear in their winning nearly every battle of the war. But winning battles doesn't necessarily translate into winning a war - and the United States lost that war.

They lost because their military superiority did not actually give them the advantage. Vietnam actually had the long-term advantage. That was because for the U.S. to win they had to completely defeat the Viet Congress, the North Vietnamese army and subjugate the Vietnamese people (an almost impossible task). While Vietnam just had to survive and keep costing the U.S. in men and money. Eventually, the war became too expensive to continue with no end in sight.

The lesson was again taught by history in Afghanistan. The United States (and its allies) clearly had the superior force - and once again won all (or nearly all) of the battles fought in the war. But, like in Vietnam, having the superior force did not give the U.S. the advantage. The Taliban had the long-term advantage because all they had to do was survive and keep costing their opponent in men and money. Eventually, with no end in sight, the U.S had to withdraw and the Taliban won the war.

While Donald Trump is quick to try and rewrite history, he doesn't learn from it. The result is a third "forever" war that the United States cannot win. The Iranians did learn from this history. They knew that to win they just had to survive and keep costing the United States in men and money (and economic pain). This gives them the long-term advantage. And with the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranians have an advantage the Vietnamese and Afghans did not have.

The war continues, but I see no way for the United States to win it - no matter how long it goes on. It is likely though, like in the two previous examples, Iran will survive and emerge victorious.

That will happen because Trump did a very stupid thing in starting the war.

Maybe We Should Listen To The Protesters This Time

In the late 1960's and early 1970's, protests broke out in colleges across the nation. The students were protesting the Vietnam War.

There was an immediate backlash from many in the country. The protesters were label as "communists", "radicals", and "Anti-American". While the protests were mostly peaceful, the backlash was not. College administrations invited police on campus to attack and remove the students, and they were also attacked by anti-protest demonstrators.

But history have proven the student protesters were right. The Vietnam War is now viewed as a bad mistake which took the lives of far too many U.S. soldiers and Vietnamese civilians. 

Now student protests are again happening in colleges across the nation. This time they are protesting the way the Israeli government is waging war in Gaza (and U.S. government support for it). They are protesting the tens of thousands of civilians killed, and the lack of food, shelter, and medicine allowed to reach those civilians.

And again, there is a backlash to the protests. This time the accusation is that the protesters are being "antisemitic". They aren't. It is not antisemitic to oppose the actions of the Israeli government (anymore than it is wrong to oppose the Russian government for invading Ukraine).

And once again, college administrations are inviting the police onto their campuses - and the violence is mainly done by the police and anti-protest demonstrators. 

We should react differently this time. Instead of demonizing the protesters, maybe we should listen to them. Maybe they are right. There is a good chance that will be the judgement of history.

Kim Phuc Phan Thi ("Napalm Girl") Speaks Out On Violence

 Everyone has probably seen the iconic photo above of the little girl burned by napalm in Vietnam in 1972. The photo clearly showed the awful nature of the Vietnam War. It is now 50 years later, and that girl, Kim Phuc Phan Thi, has grown up, healed, and become a spokesperson opposing violence around the world. Here is her op-ed for The New York Times:

I grew up in the small village of Trang Bang in South Vietnam. My mother said I laughed a lot as a young girl. We led a simple life with an abundance of food, since my family had a farm and my mom ran the best restaurant in town. I remember loving school and playing with my cousins and the other children in our village, jumping rope, running and chasing one another joyfully.

All of that changed on June 8, 1972. I have only flashes of memories of that horrific day. I was playing with my cousins in the temple courtyard. The next moment, there was a plane swooping down close and a deafening noise. Then explosions and smoke and excruciating pain. I was 9 years old.

Napalm sticks to you, no matter how fast you run, causing horrific burns and pain that last a lifetime. I don’t remember running and screaming, “Nóng quá, nóng quá!” (“Too hot, too hot!”) But film footage and others’ memories show that I did.

You’ve probably seen the photograph of me taken that day, running away from the explosions with the others — a naked child with outstretched arms, screaming in pain. Taken by the South Vietnamese photographer Nick Ut, who was working for The Associated Press, it ran on the front pages of newspapers all over the world and won a Pulitzer Prize. In time, it became one of the most famous images from the Vietnam War.

Nick changed my life forever with that remarkable photograph. But he also saved my life. After he took the photo, he put his camera down, wrapped me in a blanket and whisked me off to get medical attention. I am forever thankful.

Yet I also remember hating him at times. I grew up detesting that photo. I thought to myself, “I am a little girl. I am naked. Why did he take that picture? Why didn’t my parents protect me? Why did he print that photo? Why was I the only kid naked while my brothers and cousins in the photo had their clothes on?” I felt ugly and ashamed.

Growing up, I sometimes wished to disappear not only because of my injuries — the burns scarred a third of my body and caused intense, chronic pain — but also because of the shame and embarrassment of my disfigurement. I tried to hide my scars under my clothes. I had horrific anxiety and depression. Children in school recoiled from me. I was a figure of pity to neighbors and, to some extent, my parents. As I got older, I feared that no one would ever love me.

Meanwhile, the photograph became even more famous, making it more difficult to navigate my private and emotional life. Beginning in the 1980s, I sat through endless interviews with the press and meetings with royalty, prime ministers and other leaders, all of whom expected to find some meaning in that image and my experience. The child running down the street became a symbol of the horrors of war. The real person looked on from the shadows, fearful that I would somehow be exposed as a damaged person.

Photographs, by definition, capture a moment in time. But the surviving people in these photographs, especially the children, must somehow go on. We are not symbols. We are human. We must find work, people to love, communities to embrace, places to learn and to be nurtured.

It was only in adulthood, after defecting to Canada that I began to find peace and realize my mission in life, with the help of my faith, husband and friends. I helped establish a foundation and began traveling to war-torn countries to provide medical and psychological assistance to children victimized by war, offering, I hope, a sense of possibilities.

I know what it is like to have your village bombed, your home devastated, to see family members die and bodies of innocent civilians lying in the street. These are the horrors of war from Vietnam memorialized in countless photographs and newsreels. Sadly, they are also the images of wars everywhere, of precious human lives being damaged and destroyed today in Ukraine.

They are, in a different way, also the horrific images coming from school shootings. We may not see the bodies, as we do with foreign wars, but these attacks are the domestic equivalent of war. The thought of sharing the images of the carnage, especially of children, may seem unbearable — but we should confront them. It is easier to hide from the realities of war if we don’t see the consequences.

I cannot speak for the families in Uvalde, Texas, but I think that showing the world what the aftermath of a gun rampage truly looks like can deliver the awful reality. We must face this violence head-on, and the first step is to look at it.

I have carried the results of war on my body. You don’t grow out of the scars, physically or mentally. I am grateful now for the power of that photograph of me as a 9-year-old, as I am of the journey I have taken as a person. My horror — which I barely remember — became universal. I’m proud that, in time, I have become a symbol of peace. It took me a long time to embrace that as a person. I can say, 50 years later, that I’m glad Nick captured that moment, even with all the difficulties that image created for me.

That picture will always serve as a reminder of the unspeakable evil of which humanity is capable. Still, I believe that peace, love, hope and forgiveness will always be more powerful than any kind of weapon.

Will Trump Accomplish Anything In Vietnam? - Probably Not!

(Image was found on Facebook. The originator is unknown.)

Donald Trump is in Vietnam for a second meeting with North Korea's Kim Jong-Un. The last time they met (in Singapore), Trump got nothing except an agreement that didn't oblige North Korea to do anything.

In spite of that, Trump claimed that he had made the world safe, and North Korea had agreed to give up their nuclear weapons. It was not true. North Korea continues to make nuclear bombs and missiles capable of carrying them -- and the world knows that. Note in the chart below (from the Pew Research Center) that both Americans and people in other countries are still concerned about the danger of North Korea having nuclear weapons.

Since then, he has scaled his claims back, since his own intelligence agencies have said the North Koreans have done nothing to disarm. Now Trump claims that his visit caused North Korea to stop testing nuclear bombs and missiles. That's another disingenuous claim. They have tested both enough to know they work.

Will Trump be played for a fool again this time? It's likely. No one believes that North Korea will give up their nuclear weapons. Even many in the White House are nervous that Trump will give up too much for spurious promises from North Korea -- promises they have no intention of keeping.

The meetings start Wednesday, and the world holds its breath -- hoping that Trump doesn't blow it too bad this time. Sadly, that's probably a vain hope.

Some People Never Learn

The chart above reflects the views expressed in a new Rasmussen Poll (taken on January 7th and 8th of 1,000 likely nationwide voters, with a margin of error of 3 points). About 25% (or one out of every four Americans) would be in favor of using military action if al-Queda was to take over in Iraq or Syria (where they have recently had some success). Obviously, these people haven't learned yet that you can't impose a regime change with military power -- even after the examples of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Opposition To The War In Afghanistan Is Very High

The illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has now entered its 13th year, and there is still another year to go before the U.S. will pull any of its troops out of that country. President Obama has promised to end the war by the end of 2014, but that's just a bit of an untruth. What the united States wants to do, and probably will do, is to leave 10,000 troops in Afghanistan for many more years -- perhaps another 10 years or more.

But if they do that, it will be against the wishes of the American people. A new CNN / ORC Poll (taken between December 16th and 19th of a random nationwide sample of 1,035 adults, with a margin of error of 3 points) shows that the Afghan occupation has become very unpopular in the United States.

Back in 2008, even though the war had dragged on for 7 years and was accomplishing nothing, a slim majority of Americans (52%) still supported it. But the bottom has dropped out of support for the war/occupation. Now only 17% of the population supports it, while a whopping 82% does not. That makes this military action in Afghanistan the most unpopular one in modern U.S. history. Opposition to the war in Vietnam never got over 60%, and opposition to the second Iraq invasion (and occupation) topped out at 69%.

We should never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place, and the poll shows that 57% of the public believes it was a mistake. That same 57% would support withdrawing all of our troops before the December 2014 timeline of President Obama. The truth is that we have not accomplished much (if anything) by invading Afghanistan, except to replace one corrupt government with another and cause the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and innocent Afghan citizens -- and there is little chance that staying longer will accomplish anything more.

The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been a terrible mistake, and it is time to put an end to it. The United States should immediately withdraw ALL troops from Afghanistan.

Syrians Believe War Will Be Prolonged And U.S. Has Chosen Its Side In That War

The chart above was made from a Gallup Poll -- taken in June and July of 1,022 Syrians age 15 and older (with a margin of error of 3.4 points). It shows that more than half of the Syrian people think the current civil war tearing that country apart will last more than another year. And 29% (about 3 out of 10 Syrians) will last more than 2 additional years. Only 30% think the war could end in less than a year.

Meanwhile, the United States moves closer to using its own military to attack the Syrian government. Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to approve the president's request for a U.S. military strike. The vote was 10 to 7.

VOTING IN FAVOR OF A MILITARY ATTACK
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Ben Cardin (D-Maryland)
Chris Coons (D-Delaware)
Bob Corker (R-Tennessee)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Jeff Flake (R-Arizona)
Tim Kaine (D-Virginia)
John McCain (R-Arizona)
Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire)

VOTING AGAINST A MILITARY ATTACK
John Barrasso (R-Wyoming)
Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut)
Jim Risch (R-Idaho)
Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin)
Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)
Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
Tom Udall (D-New Mexico)

The White House says we are not interested in regime change. That's a bit disingenuous, since we've already picked a side in the conflict. Last June, President Obama instructed the CIA to arm and train the rebel forces -- and that has begun. But that doesn't seem to be enough. White House sources are saying the president is unhappy with the help being given by the CIA -- and is seriously considering taking that job away from them and giving it to the military officials at the Pentagon, who he believes could significantly increase the shipment of arms and training of rebels.

This is all very troubling, because Syria poses no danger to the United States, and because of that, we should be staying out of this conflict altogether. Now it not only looks like Congress will allow an attack on Syria by our own military, but the government wants to ramp up our involvement in the ground war.

Isn't this the same way our long and bloody involvement in Vietnam got started? First we sent military advisors to arm and train the South Vietnamese, and when that didn't have the desired result the help was gradually ramped up, and finally American troops were sent. We seem to be following that same path to war in Syria -- even though many of the rebel factions fighting the Syrian government are avowed enemies of the U.S. (like al-Queda). This whole adventure in Syria just doesn't make sense. We seem to be on the road toward another bloody and seemingly endless quagmire. Didn't we learn anything at all from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

Vietnam: Creating A Serious Gender Imbalance

Modern technology, medicine and growing wealth for a country can be wonderful things.   They can lead to a better way of life for all the citizens in that country.   But they can also lead to unforeseen and undesirable consequences, especially when combined with ancient social structures and values.   Vietnam is now finding that out.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is warning that the ratio of male births to female births is quickly  getting out of whack in the country.   The natural ratio in the country is 105 male births for every 100 female births.   But in just the last five years the ratio has grown to 110.6 males for every 100 females, and the problem could escalate even further.

Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Thien Nhan says this gender imbalance could lead to more than 3 million men being unable to find a wife by the year 2030.   Clearly something must be done to encourage a more stable and sustainable gender balance.   Vietnam has banned fetal sex selection, but passing a law and enforcing that law are two different things.   The practice continues.

The problem has been exacerbated by growing family wealth, which makes families want to have fewer children, and medical technology, which lets families know early in a pregnancy the gender of an unborn fetus.   This gives families the opportunity not only to have fewer children, but to determine the gender of those children (or child).

I know some on the right would just say the answer would be to ban all abortions in the country.   I disagree.   You cannot solve one social problem by creating another.   That would just take away a woman's right to control her own body and result in unwanted and unloved children.   That cannot be the answer.

Western countries also have growing family wealth and the early ability to know the sex of a fetus, and yet those countries are not developing a gender imbalance.   That means that while these may be exacerbating the Vietnamese problem, they are not the cause of it.   What then can be done to solve the problem.

First, the real cause of the problem must be understood, and that cause is not abortion, modern medicine and technology, or growing family wealth.   The root cause is gender inequality.   The simple fact is that men are considered to be more important in the society.   Social custom, law, tradition and even religion combine to give men a superior status in society than women.

Until at least a significant degree of gender equality is achieved in the society at large, prospective parents will opt to have boys over girls.   Like it or not, this is only natural.   Given a choice, wouldn't nearly any parent want their children (especially if they're having only one or two children) to have the best chance to succeed (higher status, legal benefits, societal and religious acceptance, job opportunities, higher pay and promotion opportunities, etc.)?

Other countries in that part of the world have had this problem.   China's gender imbalance was even worse (130 males to 100 females), although it happened over a longer period of time.   They are now restoring a proper gender ratio, done largely through the increase in gender equality in that country (women were given more rights and opportunities).

It is not easy to change centuries of tradition and thinking, but it is the only real solution to the problem of gender imbalance.   The modern world requires a modern way of thinking and living, regardless of where a country is or what kind of traditions they have.   Gender equality is not just the right thing to do, it is imperative for a modern society to exist.   The only alternative is a country with growing problems caused by a growing gender imbalance.

Even in Western countries there are those who whine about "feminism", but they just don't realize the truth.   Gender equality (feminism) is not a bad thing.   In this modern world, it is just common sense.