That article reads to me like conservatives whining that the US was on the verge of "winning" in Vietnam before public outcry forced us to leave - an argument IMHO largely supported by the firm belief that the US could never actually lose a war. Also, a bit of research reveals that Mark Moyar, the author of this piece sounds like a serious wingnut crank.
Oh, I can see that in tehre as well also - I was more interested in more of a meta-commentary about how the Academy tends to treat military subjects.
And just because he's a crank doesn't mean that he's wrong, it just means that the slant is going to have it's own unique spin...
In general I'm not exactly impressed with the scholarship on the Vietnamese conflict for pretty much the same reasons - a s a rule I think most of it has been written by ideologues (sp?) and we'll be lucky to get anything decent out of the next generation of scholars as they look at it in context of the arc of WWII through Korea past Vietnam and into the Grenada/Panama/GW1 as it leads up to GW2.
Comments 4
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/scheff/4.html
c.f. the revisionists to the argument mostly presented P. 9-10 in Handel (P. 6-7 in amazon's look inside)
http://www.amazon.com/Masters-War-Classical-Strategic-Thought/dp/0714681326
Reply
D.
Reply
Reply
And just because he's a crank doesn't mean that he's wrong, it just means that the slant is going to have it's own unique spin...
In general I'm not exactly impressed with the scholarship on the Vietnamese conflict for pretty much the same reasons - a s a rule I think most of it has been written by ideologues (sp?) and we'll be lucky to get anything decent out of the next generation of scholars as they look at it in context of the arc of WWII through Korea past Vietnam and into the Grenada/Panama/GW1 as it leads up to GW2.
D.
D.
Reply
Leave a comment