ddw@cornell.UUCP (David Wright) (08/12/83)
From: ddw (David Wright)
To: net-politics
Okay, here I go on Daniel Cobb's latest. This will probably be my last
message on the subject unless new issues are raised in the future.
Your "careful demolation of ... [my definition of] the domino theory"
is simply your interpretation of why Laos and Cambodia fell. I didn't
respond to it because of the futility in attempting your position.
The fall of these two countries was ensured when Vietnam fell, and this
would have been true even if the war hadn't spilled into their countries.
The whole point of my submission was that "the fall of these two countries"
was NOT ensured. It was "ensured when Vietnam fell" because of our involvement
in the region. HAD WE STAYED OUT OF VIETNAM, I state that there is not a
compelling reason to assume that the fall of Cambodia and Laos was inevitable.
Remember, proponents of the domino theory often cited Thailand and Malaysia
as other countries that would fall, and this has not happened.
Let's try a simple analogy. I come to the scene of a house fire. I say,
"Those houses over there will burn down if this one does." I then proceed
to douse the other houses with gasoline and run a trail of gas from the
burning house to the other houses. Sure enough, they burn down. The big
question, though, is: would the houses have burned down anyway? Maybe,
but I certainly haven't proved it. I do not feel that this analogy is far-
fetched, either.
This is my point about Laos and Cambodia. I don't think I have ever seen
evidence that Hanoi coveted those countries back in 1960, say. The Khmer
Rouge weren't buddies of Vietnam, and isn't it true that Vietnam invaded
Cambodia in part because the Khmer Rouge were backed by China? (Which is
not exactly a good friend of Vietnam either; they like each other so much
that they fought a brief shooting war a few years ago.)
About supporting unpopular governments. I guess the question really is,
do we support a right-wing dictator and try to coax him to permit various
reforms, improve human rights, and generally try to move him in a more
democratic direction (here our success rate has been low)?
Low indeed. Are there any cases where this worked? I can't think of any
right off hand, but would like to hear of examples. I can think of cases
where it failed (Nicaragua, Guatemala, Greece, Dominican Republic, Chile),
but I don't know as much American history as I should and would be interested
in hearing of successes. (This is not sarcasm, for anyone who's wondering.)
Or do we take what we know will come with a Marxist revolution?
Do we \know/ this? It seems to me that many Marxist regimes in this world
are hostile to us because we've tried to sandbag them from the beginning.
Are there cases where we were on good terms with such governments at the
start and they now hate us anyway? I couldn't think of any examples.
Maybe it's inevitable that the results of a Marxist revolution be bad, but
I don't know. This country's leaders have tended to be (or talk) so milit-
antly anti-Communist that I don't know that the latter case has ever existed!
Our choice is flawed miserably, but I simply don't know of any real
alternatives. I am open to them if they exist, but they have to provide
a real solution for the people of the country for reasons of stability,
(Democracy?) and they have to take into account the security interests
of their neighboring nations.
But what does this mean? "Security interests" is a very broad phrase, and
if you're willing to interpret it liberally enough, you can use it to
justify nearly anything. General principles may simply be too vague here.
... please try to limit the name calling. Knucklehead is harmless, but
it seems out of place.
True. I withdraw it.
David Wright
{vax135|floyd|allegra|decvax|ihnp4|uw-beaver}!cornell!ddw
ddw.cornell@udel-relay
ddw@cornell (Arpanet and CSnet)