Napoleon was not a particularly philosophical man, but an observation of his that has come down to us bears thinking about. "What is history," he once asked rhetorically, "but a fable agreed-upon?"Well, it is lots of other things, chiefly a story of nuances and near misses. The most useful way to think historically—that is, the way to frame the present in terms established by past experience—is to remember that we are often too quick to package the past into Napoleonic fairy tales. Countries shape and reshape their pasts in the way individuals bring order to their own experiences by creating internal psychological narratives in which memory stokes both hope and fear.There is much danger here, of course. Like individuals, nations always risk falling into denial or can fall prey to reinventing reality to smooth out the rough edges of the past, turning the complexity of experience into too-neat morality tales. We should instead be always open to rethinking and reinvestigation, for in revisiting received history we may learn something new about even the most seemingly familiar of subjects.America's war in Vietnam, the topic of our cover this week, is a case in point. Vietnam has been long understood as a -disaster, an object lesson in the perils of imperial overreach. But what if the reality of history is more complicated than the force of memory—the force of fables, in Napoleonic terms—would have it? The conventional wisdom is that Vietnam was an unmitigated debacle—the wrong war fought the wrong way by presidents who, through misleading the public, did wrong. The dominance of this interpretation is beyond dispute. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was attacked for calling Vietnam "a noble cause"; a decade later, George H.W. Bush hoped aloud that Operation Desert Storm had cured the nation's "Vietnam syndrome."It did not. But events once thought to be fixed forever in a certain place with a certain meaning can come to be seen differently with the passage of time or the changing of perspective. As Evan Thomas and John Barry report, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and other senior military officers have been reading a revisionist history of Vietnam, Lewis Sorley's book A Better War. Evan and John write: "Now in Afghanistan, General McChrystal is implementing a strategy that draws on the lessons of Iraq—and looks an awful lot like the 'pacification' program adopted … in Vietnam in 1968. By ratcheting back the heavy use (and overuse) of firepower (airstrikes, artillery barrages, and the like) McChrystal has cut back on civilian casualties, which alienate the locals and breed more jihadist recruits. At the same time, U.S. Special Operations forces use the intelligence gleaned from friendly civilians to find and kill Taliban leaders. That is precisely what the Phoenix Program—-targeted assassinations of Viet Cong leaders—was designed to do some 40 years ago in Vietnam. McChrystal is focusing on recruiting and training Afghan Army and police so they can take over the job of securing Afghanistan from the Taliban as soon as possible. 'Afghanization' of the war is just the same as 'Vietnamization,' the strategy adopted—successfully, Sorley argues—before the Congress cut off aid to the South."Analogies are tricky things. Every crisis is not a Munich; every scandal is not Watergate; every conflict is not a quagmire. Our story does not argue that there are precise parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan, but that the history of Vietnam is more complicated than many people believe, which means that the familiar lessons of the war should not be taken at face value. We might have won in Vietnam in 1965 with a more dramatic conventional effort, and Sorley makes the case that South Vietnam could possibly have survived as an independent nation if America had built on the counterinsurgency successes of the early Nixon period.Counterfactual history—the scholarly term for "what if?"—is diverting, but it is just that: counterfactual. The lessons from Vietnam for Afghanistan that seem to be rooted most firmly in fact and in history are partial, but interesting. First, there is evidence that counterinsurgencies, when properly supported, can work. Second, presidents can never win military conflicts by halves.Enough with the revisionists, replies John Kerry, who knows of what he speaks, both from his heroic service in the war and now as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The argument is worth having, though, because in politics and in war, history, with all its complexities and -contradictions, is ultimately of greater use than any fable.

Mr. Meacham,
Your point is fatuous and relevant to Afghanistan in exactly the opposite way you imply. It was a stupid, thoughtless, ill conceived, poorly carried out disaster that cost 2 million Vietnamese and 55,000 American lives. As George Santayana once remarked that those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it. Your facile support of Sorley's revisionism, from the comfort of his easy chair, is sad and wrong. However, I am sure it will sell a few more issues.

The mistake of Vietnam was taking on the Soviet Union indirectly through surrogates. When Reagan took on the Soviets directly their system collapsed of it's own weight.

Now we must take on radical Islam where it was created in Saudi Arabia. We can no longer allow their radical Wahhabism to be spread world wide using dollars we provide them for their oil.

Hitler insisted that Germany could have won World War I had Germanynot been stabbed in the back by socialists, Communists, and Jews. So Hitler started another war, and look what happened. The French also believed that if they built the Maginot line they could protect themselves from another German invasion. However they failed to consider the power of the Luftwaffe and were overrun in days. This is the problem with revisionists. It's also the problem with John Meacham.

I say three cheers for John Kerry. I wll also point out that dolandrex also suffers from bad history. Ronald Reagan did not cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. Actually by the time Ronald Reagan made his 1986 speech, the Soviet Union was already in a moribud state because of all the lies and denials.

What donaldrex does not understand is that much of the credit goes to the socialist mayor of West Berline Willi Brandt, who, when he became Germany's leader, institued östPolitik, which in turn made East Germany and much of eastern Europe dependent on the West. Credit is also due to Solidarity, an independent labor union in Poland. (Ironically Reagan hated labor unions.) Let's not forget the Hungarian Communist Party either. by 1989, a group of reformers had gained control of the Communist party in Hungary. They permitted their own citizens to travel to the West. And they got tired of spending money maintaining the Iron Curtain, which by 1989 was in a serious state of corrosion. Their decision to stop playing policeman and to allow everyone in Eastern Europe to cross their borders into the West - with no questions asked - actually caused the Wall to fall.

Ronald Reagan was actually a very bad example to follow. Following Reagan's example, George Bush told Saddam Hussein to pack up and get out of town. He thought by doing so he would bring democracy to the Middle East, just like Ronald Reagan supposedly brought democracy to Eastern Europe - albeit modern Russia is a capitalistic plutocracy, not a democracy. We are paying for Bush's historical stupidity. And if we follow the advice of John Meacham and Sorley, we will make the same mistake.

What does Donaldrex mean when he says we have to take on Saudi Arabia? If we really want to take on Saudi Arabia we need to develop alternative energy. Incidentally, a number of Arabic oil shiekdoms actually have the jump on us. They are investing heavily in the development of solar energy. And the economy that breaks free from fossil fuel will be the dominant economic power in the 21st century. Already China, The European Community, and even the Arabic shiekdoms are ahead of us.

Again, the problem with revisionism is that it only thinks of military power. Our military power is severely limited. It was in vietnam and it will be in Afghanistan. The real trump card is the economy and our casino economy is not making the grade.

Mwalimu,

Some corrections to your version of history:

1. John Kerry lied in his congressional testimony about alleged American atrocities.

2. Donaldrex has forgotten more history than you have ever learned.

3. Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech was made in 1983 not 1986.

4. Ronald Reagan with the able assistance of Maggie the Magnificent and Pope John Paul II kept constant pressure on the Soviets until they imploded. 

a. Support of Solidarity in Poland.b. Stinger missiles to the Mujahideen C. Medium Range, highly accurate missiles with nuclear capabilities to Europe d.. SDI 

The Soviets didn't know which end was up.

5. Ronald Reagan's philosophy on the cold war; "We win, they lose." It worked. 

Mwalimu,

Exactly! "Drill, baby drill!" Oil, coal, nuclear energy, wind, water and solar all produced here. Let the Saudis peddle their oil and there extremism to China. Ignore the environmental wackos and go full bore towards energy independence. It will save both blood and treasure. 

If we back away from the Saudis, their regime will not last a year. Too many people hate the royal family. 

I participated in the Lam Son 719 invasion of Laos in Jan. 1971 that was designed to show that the best of the ARVN could go toe to toe with the NVA even as they relied on massive American air power. It was an unmitigated disaster as the ARVN almost immediately collapsed and began a riotous retreat back towards Khe San. We lost 90 helicopters in that mess and I lost any faith I may have had that the ARVN had the ability or the heart and desire to stop the inevitable southward march of the NVA. Ho Chi Minh's forces had the noble ideal of national reunification on their side while the ARVN had only a corrupt government in Saigon. Ho was Viet Nam's George Washington. Would more British troops have kept America's revolution from succeeding? Revise all ya want John's but wars launched on lies are bound to fail.

John Kerry only allowed the soldiers who had committed the atrocities in Viet Nam to tell their own stories. We, as happens in all wars, did commit horrendous acts of barbarism. I know. I killed innocent people from the air and it haunts me to this day. Wars launched on lies are the most atrocious acts a commander in chief can commit.

bobatkinson:

John Kerry only allowed the soldiers who had committed the atrocities in Viet Nam to tell their own stories. We, as happens in all wars, did commit horrendous acts of barbarism. I know. I killed innocent people from the air and it haunts me to this day. Wars launched on lies are the most atrocious acts a commander in chief can commit.

--------------------------------------------------

John Kerry lied, both in his testimony and in his biography "Tour of Duty." He was and is a dishonorable scoundrel who slandered his fellow soldiers to curry favor with his left wing, anti-American buddies.

Disagree with your version of how USSR was defeated...

The Soviet Union was and empire and therefore to understand why it collapsed you have to look at the "Sorrows of Empire" If Anything Ronald Reagan (who probably did know less history than you have forgotten) so misunderstood the soviets that he nearly did bring us to an unnecessary nuclear war all the while bankrupting the nation. Ronald Regan although a skilled public speaker was nothing more than a ventriloquist dummy for the real power military and corporate interests. Talk of his achievements are far overestimated and his ???notorious??? mishaps far to glossed over. For all the things Reagan was he was not a skilled Diplomat because in order to play the game you have to be able to Read and Understand the Rules.

I want to thank you for your service and for speaking to the heart of this issue. It as simple as this for the Taliban they see foreign invaders and like the Viet Kong have a clear goal the removal of these troops. This seemingly pure goal allows the Taliban to rally support with a call of nationalism and religious values even if their ulterior motives just involve a power grab. The flip side sees afghan mercenaries working for a corrupt and illegitimate regime. The American debacle involves considerable complications and I would venture a guess to tell you many US soldiers would be conflicted as to what they were actually fighting for. Christianity? Freedom? Revenge? Money? Blood? And certainly only the minority of US and Coalition forces could actually explain/grasp the current military strategy. Nothing can unify a people so much as an ???unwarranted occupation.??? And nothing can dishearten a people so much as corruption.

Russel,

Reagan's strategy in the cold war -- "We win, they lose." It worked. 

USSR was a sorverign nation...once felled, a victory could be assured.

 

A religion has no nation and moves about as necessary.  Nor do they wear uniforms, nor do they have a leader, who if annihlated would define the end of radical islamism.  So, from don's advice - off we would go, into another blunder with no end in sight to this "war" nor to the resources or lives to loose in order to achieve the unachievable.  Go get 'em Satan!