tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6986438942434321556.post5305270840957294435..comments2013-01-03T16:13:06.977-05:00Comments on excaliburs word: The Ghost of Quagmires PastJohn Feeneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05171604352699411361noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6986438942434321556.post-86302957026938259602009-06-12T17:56:09.641-04:002009-06-12T17:56:09.641-04:00Reply to CJ: Unlike you I am not a foreign policy ...Reply to CJ: Unlike you I am not a foreign policy analyst - US history, constitutional and criminal law are my forte - but I am well acquainted w/the Vietnam conflict. As I recall it turned out to be China that was the major support behind the North, and by extension the Viet-Cong. It was Kissinger's secret negotiations w/China (not to mention Nixon's well publicized visit) that ultimately facilitated the American withdrawal in 1972-73. <br /> My argument in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan is simply that as a straight forward military victory against an insurgency of this kind is a hopeless enterprise - that negotiation w/the "client-states" that back these people might produce concrete results. It would seem that President Obama's desire to go to the table w/Iran or Syria for instance (for which he has caught a lot of flack from the Republicans) is a good idea. This was where I thought the analogy w/RFK's views seemed to fit.John Feeneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05171604352699411361noreply@blogger.com