Getting out is tougher.
Mr Nixon ran in 1968 promising to put an end to one quagmire (while treasonously perpetuating it to enhance his political chances). Then, of course, he invaded Cambodia with the advice and consent of Henry Kissenger.
Now, I think this was actually intended as a means of keeping his promise. Let us remember that the military and assorted experts were whining about how it would be impossible to win the Vietnam war while allowing the NVA sanctuary in Cambodia (much the same argument was made about China during the Korean war). Let us recall that in 1968, much of our military still had the Dien Bien Phu mindset: if only we could bring the enemy to battle, our superior firepower would triumph. And a casual study of small unit engagements in the Vietnam conflict bears this out; the problem, as so well-stated by Ho Chih Minh, was that we could kill 10 of his for every one of ours killed and still lose. Insurgencies are not conventional military struggles, and thus the rules of conventional military struggle do not apply. No matter: I am sure that Mr Nixon and all top advisers sincerely believed that an expansion of the war would raise the price high enough that Hanoi would quit. It didn't, of course, and then Nixon and Kissenger became hot on detente and cultivating China as a counterweight to the USSR, so the old "containment" reason for the Vietnam war became inoperative. The point of this history lesson is that, given the chance, the executive will trust and follow the advice of his military advisers even if that advice is not relevant to the issue at hand. After all, wars are about the military, right?
Since war is all about killing people until they do what you want them to, a leader who favors military solutions to foreign problems is always going to support solutions that rely on killing people, and will heed the military advice that seems to create the highest body count among the selected "enemy." Since we've selected much of the world as our enemies, there's a powerful amount of killing ahead.
Mr Sanders would appear to be something of an isolationist, not a neocon, although in the current political atmosphere even he has to demonstrate some chops about keeping America powerful, so we can force others to do our will (even if our military force is largely irrelevant to forcing or influencing others to do our will). Every President in my lifetime (with the notable exception of Mr Carter) has found it necessary to demonstrate his military prowess by exterminating as many of the chosen enemy as is expedient. I honestly doubt it will be any different no matter who is elected in November; but possibly Mr Sanders has less desire to work out on hapless enemies as do any of the other choices. His agenda does not appear to incorporate shaping the world in our image, which I don't think is the case with any other candidates.
-- Mal
= new reply since forum marked as read
