[CLUE-Talk] The prism of our experience

[Jef Barnhart]

On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 17:20, Jeffery Cann wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2003 04:13 pm, Randy Arabie wrote:
> >
> > By the way, what was the clear endpoint of WWII? 
> 
>  I was thinking specifically of the surrender of Japan, Germany, Italy as a 
> 'clear endpoint'.  Whereas in Iraq, as many (maybe more?) US solders have 
> died since the war was 'officially' over.

Let's not forget the men and women that have died on 38th parallel since
the end of the Korean war. I don't recall that there ever was a 'clear
endpoint' to that either. I think that the year 1953(?) is used. Korea
has been in a state of war since the start. In fact I think that North
and South Korea entertained talks of ceasefire just in the last few
years. And the US has had a strong military presence since the start.

My point is that there is rarely a clear end point. Historians in the
future will be the ones that can really talk about that. We are to close
to history to make that call. 

> 
> > The Marshall Plan took years, right?  And numerous European
> > nations basked under the umbrella of US security for
> > decades.  We are only now, in the last decade, closing bases
> > in Germany and Italy.
> 
> Good points --
> 
> I was thinking that the declaration of war lead to a clear understanding of 
> why we got involved.  Although it took a long time (decades) to rebuild these 
> countries, we stayed committed to it.  
> 
> With Iraq, Vietnam, etc. I'm not sure there was/is the same level of 
> commitment.   Take Afghanistan -- one year after liberation, the Bush 
> administration forgot to budget *any* money for rebuilding, security, etc.
> 
> So, my point is that a declaration of war lends a much more serious tone (and 
> I think a commitment) to the task at hand.  I don't get the same feeling with 
> Iraq (or Afghanistan).  A
> 
> Jeff
-- 
Jef Barnhart <jef.barnhart at comcast.net>