Yes, reluctantly I suppose I lean to the right in this arena.
I guess I was moved a bit further to the right by Albright's statement that US policy in Korea worked during the Clinton administration because "there were no nuclear tests during the Clinton administration"
Ok. I guess there weren't, but I don't buy the reasoning or the conclusion.
It seems clear that the North will do what it has decided to do regardless of what the US might like.
The Koreans hate the Japanese still. so I doubt that any Japanese "involvement" would produce other than a massive backlash.
The Chinese, despite their attack into the south in 1950, have historically (see "The Cyclical Theory of History China" and "The Kuomintang Debacle" which I read years ago so I don't think you will actually be able to find them) not varied from their historical goals of 'maintaining self sufficiency', 'maintaining the Chinese sphere of interest' , maintaining the 'integrity of the Chinese 'Land"; adherence to Confucianism and "following the Mandate of Heaven"..
In terms ofUS relations with China, because of their present stability and their historical tendencies and ours, I suppose you could say I lean to the left.
I disagree with your analysis of the relative importance of the Vietnam War vs. The War in Iraq.
Vietnam was and will remain a historical sideshow to be likened to the Spanish Civil War where the "Soviet" version of socialism was cleanly arrayed against The German view.
The National Socialist version triumphed.
Clearly backing either side heavily, nonetheless, could only be seen as a lose lose situation for the US.
Francisco Franco eventually passed away and with him passed the iron rule of socialism in Spain.
It seems that getting involved in idealogical Civil Wars in smal countries should remain a "bad idea" from our point of view.
It should be noted that perhaps neither the continued existence of Franco's long lived repressive regimein Spain nor the Loss in Vietnam seriously affected our own long term national interest.
Is this view leftist or rightist?
One pundit noted that disagreement with the War in Iraq has not translated into the ugly treatment of our troops manifested in the Anti War movement of the Vietnam era.
Is oppostion to such ugly treatment leftist or rightist?
Historically one view of the Vietnam War simply views it as lost battle of the "containment" doctrine vis a vis Communism.
The Battle was lost but the "War" was not, if you will, else the Berlin Wall would not have fallen.
The Wars in Iraq and Afganistan migh be viewed as battles "battles" in the War on Terror.
So far it is a split decision.
Is it leftist or rightist to be unhappy with a loss in either battle, despite the fact that neither may be determinant of the Defense Against Terror?
Such a view might be termed "Pragmatic and Bismarkian" but not, I think, tainted with the smell of leftist or rightist 'views' of history.
I suppose 'liberal' veiws of History may not view such a position as Rightist, but I do not.
I am not smart enough to judge how many battles in the war we can afford to win or lose as the outcome of the conflict may depend on simple overall staying power.
I support our troops, but do not necessarily think the war in Iraq "a good idea".
I believe fundamentalist Radicalism in the Arab world willl eventually fade regardless of the outcome of these battles.
Our support of Israel, and of the "Jewish State" or "Jewish Homeland" (Israeli words not mine) is not entirely "rational'.
The Arab world's view of the "Jewish State" as a "Crusader Enclave" simply seems to jump around from group from one to Arab group to another and from one Arab Nation to another, depending-------on what?
4000 years ago the battle between the Hebrews and the Phillistines (palestinians) began and the outcome is not decided yet.
Do I believe our support of Israel is a moral imperative that counters a more 'pragmatic' view of the actual consequences to the US should Israel be destroyed?
Maybe i am rightist here-just not as far right as some "Born Again" groups.
Another view is that the UN created the Jewish State and the Arab world has never bought into that decision.
Perhaps we could survive in the face of another "holocaust".
Iran's leaders preach that the 'holocaust' never happened "how real is that"?
The US survived a holocaust in China in the 30's, although we eventually did get involved. (because of FDR's imposition of 'sanctions' against Japan)
The US clearly feels the de facto 'holocaust' against non Muslim Sudanese can be tolerated, but 'ethnic cleansing' against the Moslem peoples of the Balkans could not?????
The West has opposed the destruction of "the Weak man of Europe" (Turkey) since 1854 and at the same time succored and supported the Hellenic State since the Greek Rebellion against Ottoman Rule in 1830.
(Lord Byron died as a volunteer in that War---)
So, sure, as long as our armed forces remain intact as well as our will to use them, the US will survive any number of "failed adventures'.
I am surely not certain that an invasion of Iraq served our long term interests at all.
"Can not we fertilize the Desert" with other than blood?
Clearly the Israelis will ever say no and others will say------We are not Sure.
Is this a rightist or leftist view?
After all, there was no 911 during the Clinton administration.
Nonetheless Bill Clinton's view of the Arab world did not lack realism as witnessed by his "Open Letter to the Arab Peoples":
"What have you exported to the rest of the world other than Oil and terror in the past 75 years??"
Well, pistachios I guess, but Iran, the major exporter of this commodity is not really"arab" .
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"