1949 Redux: Who Lost China?

Chiang Kai-Shek And Mao Zedong (NY Books)

72 years ago the United States suffered a "geopolitical disaster" that makes Afghanistan look like a stubbed toe.

The current parallels to "Who Lost China?" are obvious: in 1949 the intelligence and diplomatic agencies showed that they had totally misjudged the situation on the ground, and the widespread corruption of the U.S.-supported Nationalist government made the success of "our side" impossible.

Wikipedia: [bold added]

During World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt had assumed that China, under Chiang Kai-shek's leadership, would become a great power after the war, along with the U.S., the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union.

John Paton Davies Jr. was among the "China Hands" who were blamed for the loss of China. While they predicted a Communist victory, they did not advocate one. Davies later wrote that he and the Foreign Service officers in China reported to Washington that material support to Chiang Kai-shek during the war against Japan would not transform the inefficient and corrupt Nationalist government, adding that Roosevelt's poor choice of personal emissaries to China contributed to the failure of his policy. Historian Arthur Waldron argues that the president mistakenly thought of China as a great power securely held by Chiang Kai-shek, whose hold on power was actually tenuous. Davies predicted that after the war China would become a power vacuum, tempting to Moscow, which the Nationalists could not deal with. In that sense, says Waldron, "the collapse of China into communism was aided by the incompetence of Roosevelt's policy."

In August 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson issued the China White Paper, a compilation of official documents to defend the administration's record and argue that there was little that the United States could have done to prevent Communist victory.

In 1949, the fall of the Kuomintang government was widely viewed within the United States as a catastrophe...At the time, Acheson's China White Paper with its catalog of $2 billion worth of American aid provided to China since 1946 was widely mocked as a lame excuse for allowing what was widely seen as a geopolitical disaster which allowed the formation of a Sino-Soviet bloc with the potential to dominate Eurasia.

One '50's parallel that I hope doesn't repeat: the subsequent "witch hunt" by Congress, particularly Sen. Joseph McCarthy, searching for those "who lost China." The accusations went far beyond incompetence to treason and ruined some individuals who were only marginally involved.

In my humble opinion, the backlash against the Afghan debacle won't abate, the reckoning will come, and the establishment should pray the investigation is as finely targeted as the American rules of engagement in Afghanistan.

The Era of Hope, Change, and Immunity from Criticism

(Guardian image)

Why it's better for America's standing in the world that Barack Obama is President and not Mitt Romney:

America can bomb hospitals and no one cares.

(It happened on October 3rd.)

Sunday Reminiscence

After the morning service we were in the office counting the offering when the conversation turned to Andy's nephew. It wasn't that long ago, said Andy, that he was picking up Jameson from day care.

Jameson Lindskog was a quiet child, and his social awkwardness concerned his parents. He was enrolled in a school for children with learning disabilities, and his grades improved markedly. After high school Jameson studied to become a massage therapist, obtained his license, but couldn't find work. He joined the Army and was sent to Afghanistan as a medic. In 2011 Jameson's squad was ambushed. The U.S. Army Medical Department describes what happened next.

Specialist Lindskog at great personal risk to his life showed no hesitation and bounded to the wounded Soldiers through withering enemy fire while brush, trees, and debris were destroyed around him. Once the reinforcements reached the ambushed men, Specialist Lindskog immediately assessed the situation, evaluated casualties, and issued priorities for first aid. The team leader was ambulatory so Specialist Lindskog began treating the squad leader, checking buddy aide that had already been rendered while checking for other injures. Again disregarding his own personal safety, Specialist Lindskog packed the squad leader's wounds with Kerlix and adjusted existing pressure dressings, even as enemy fire impacted all around him. Once the secondary aide on the squad leader had been completed, Specialist Lindskog instructed others on how to care for the wounded squad leader and moved to the wounded ANA Soldier, even after another Soldier was shot twice in the front ESAPI plate just moments before at the same location.

As Specialist Lindskog passed out medical equipment to help treat the wounded and began treatment on a wounded ANA Soldier, he was struck just under the left arm by an enemy round that lodged in his chest. Specialist Lindskog slumped to his side, and even though he was mortally wounded he continued to instruct his fellow Soldiers on how to treat his wounds and give care to other wounded Soldiers. Specialist Lindskog remained lucid for another thirty minutes, continuing to give instructions on how to care for others and himself until he succumbed to his wounds. At no time did Specialist Lindskog hesitate nor ask to be evacuated once severely wounded and in fact asked to stay and assist with the casualties, knowing both the severity of the situation and the wounds he received. He continued to give instructions to others to continue on site care for the wounded until he succumbed to his injuries. Specialist Lindskog's medical care and instructions stabilized one U.S. casualty and one ANA casualty until the MEDEVAC could finally arrive. Specialist Lindskog's valorous actions are in keeping with the finest traditions of military heroism and reflect great credit upon himself, the 2-327th Infantry Regiment (No Slack), the 1st Brigade Combat Team (Bastogne), Combined Joint Task Force 101, and the United States Army.

----------From Jameson Lindskog's Silver Star citation, 2012

Memorial Day, 2011

The colombarium at the National Cemetery of the Pacific, Punchbowl crater.

Memorial Day, 2011, is especially poignant because this year marks the tenth anniversary of the Afghan war, the longest (under some definitions) in U.S. history. The immense expenditure of resources and, more importantly, American lives seem never-ending. Was it all worth it to finally kill the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks? Did the war help prevent other terrorist attacks from happening?

Paying respects to Uncle Jack and
his three brothers at Punchbowl

Reasonable people will differ because there is no way of knowing what the alternative history would have been. History is not a computer simulation that we can restart to see the effect of different decisions. All we can do in our own lives, like the brave soldiers who gave their all, is to try to act with principle and wisdom while the shadows dance mockingly on the cave wall.

Lately I've been thinking more about the generation that fought and won World War II. Today's problems are daunting, but they are nothing compared to what they faced--economic catastrophe and the destruction of nations. They secured the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity, in the words of the Constitution, and so shall we, if we remember our forefathers' example.

Look Who's Transparent Now

The WSJ reports:

In a rare break from traditional military secrecy, the U.S. and its allies are announcing the precise target of their first big offensive of the Afghanistan surge in an apparent bid to intimidate the Taliban.

Military operations are now more transparent than deliberations on major domestic (e.g. health care) legislation. It's a strange new world.

Joe Says No

President Obama gave the impression during the campaign that he was a more attractive, charismatic version of Joe Lieberman, that is, a liberal in domestic policy but someone who would be aggressive in advocating America’s interests abroad. The President’s recent waffling on his campaign pledge to pursue the “necessary” war in Afghanistan seems to confirm moderate and conservative suspicions that the Obama foreign-affairs toughness was just a campaign mask to be thrown under the bus on Inauguration Day.

And now Joe Lieberman doesn’t like what he sees in the Baucus health care bill:

Mr. Lieberman criticizes the bill's overall size and scope, saying Democrats are trying to do "too much" in a recession. He also complains that it would "raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country."

Under President Obama the government is taking on vastly more domestic obligations and is retreating from its foreign commitments. Yes, he is certainly no Joe Lieberman. © 2009 Stephen Yuen

No More Drudge-read

Conservatives have contended that the “liberal media” are so opposed to the war that reporters will reveal information--for example, the program to monitor terrorist finances--harmful to America’s interest. Such reporting ultimately costs lives.

But now we have the Drudge Report disclosing that Prince Harry was serving on active duty in Afghanistan. Because this revelation not only endangers Prince Harry but the British troops whom he serves with, Harry will return home.

Matthew Drudge rose to prominence in the 1990’s during the Lewinsky scandal, and his site is considered to be aligned with conservative groups. Regardless, both conservative and liberal patriots should decry his act of placing self interest above the national interest. Count me as one Internet user who won’t be clicking on the Drudge Report any more.