Judging history pt 2

**a completely inoffensive name** · 10-13-2013, 06:01

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I am not trying to diverge the conversation here. I am trying to make a point that I find it a bit amusing how a bunch of men and women likely born after the Vietnam War are giving respectful statements to a man who committed war crimes against the French and sent thousands to get slaughtered by Americans in order to kill thousands of Americans. The war might be over, but I am sure there are still Vietnam veterans still alive that wouldn't lay flowers on his grave.

Lots of people here put up a solid front against my attempt at an Osama death thread that wasn't just high fives and jingoism, I am just curious whether the time difference is really the reason whether someone considers a man a monster or just another actor in a long and complex play.

The recent Gal Giap provoked a question that has been bothering me since the last judging history thread where we all talked about the standards used to judge men long ago in "history".

This topic I want to bring up the issue of when a man has become "history". As you can see from my quote above, I certainly do not view Gal Giap as someone you read about in a history textbook in a boring class. This was a man that many Americans still alive today fought against. A man with a clear case of atrocities and distasteful tactics in order to win a war.

I wish to hear why his thread should be in good taste and respectful while Osama's thread was aggressive and rampant cheering. I don't want to give the wrong impression, I no longer have any problems with how the Osama thread was handled, my opinion back then was probably more than a little naive.

But I want this question in specific to be answered, if the War on Terror was deemed a failure and ended tomorrow, and Osama was not killed already but instead died of natural causes 30 years from now, would that death thread show the same neutrality or even positivity that Gal Giap has received today? Do we only show emotion when the monsters are men who have lived in the same time as us?

**PanzerJaeger** · 10-13-2013, 06:13

The difference is in the ideology and tactics employed. Giap largely respected the notion of keeping the battle on the battlefield, if that makes sense. Battlefield atrocities are nasty, but more understandable to most than flying a plane into a building. Maybe that shouldn't be the case, but it is.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 10-13-2013, 06:27

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The difference is in the ideology and tactics employed. Giap largely respected the notion of keeping the battle on the battlefield, if that makes sense. Battlefield atrocities are nasty, but more understandable to most than flying a plane into a building. Maybe that shouldn't be the case, but it is.

I understand that this may be the case for many people, but if so, I think it is an inconsistent position.

We can easily point to the Civil War and talk about the degree to which Sherman kept the battle "on the battlefield" or we can talk about Henry Wirz's views of civilian casualties. I suspect we would just end up defending some and condemning others because of our background bias.

**Pannonian** · 10-13-2013, 11:31

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Regarding Osama, it is too early to tell what effect his life had on the world of military strategy. Far too early. But there will be lessons, and those lessons will be taught. Just like with Giap. Unlike with Giap those lessons will never be considered worthwhile, however. Osama's lessons are political. Cautionary tales. Lessons hard learned. Very unlike Giap, who at least gave us some constructive examples in the area of military strategy. Osama's lessons will center around being careful who you arm, and being careful who you get in bed with.

Hard to imagine Bin Laden's disciples sitting down with the US Army's strategists for a friendly chat and discussing how things could have been different if a different approach had been taken, as Giap did with McNamara. IIRC that chat also led to a reappraisal of the events around the initial stages of war, with Giap's version of events leading the US to reassess what was historically seen as a naval attack by North Vietnam. I think McNamara's lesson was that a tendency to think a certain way can lead one to appraise evidence towards that preconceived conclusion, blotting out any objective assessment of the evidence.

**Husar** · 10-13-2013, 11:36

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This topic I want to bring up the issue of when a man has become "history". As you can see from my quote above, I certainly do not view Gal Giap as someone you read about in a history textbook in a boring class. This was a man that many Americans still alive today fought against. A man with a clear case of atrocities and distasteful tactics in order to win a war.

It was actually a war fought for freedom by his side and his enemies had no business being there in the first place except their own imperialistic and political ambitions. If you don't like fighting unfair enemies in other countries, stay out of other countries. If you want to secure your global hegemony at all costs, well, these are the costs.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I wish to hear why his thread should be in good taste and respectful while Osama's thread was aggressive and rampant cheering.

That's for Americans to explain, I didn't cheer about Osama either. I would agree that Osama was a lot more evil but I don't think that having an evil enemy justifies becoming more like that enemy, it just blurs the lines.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

But I want this question in specific to be answered, if the War on Terror was deemed a failure and ended tomorrow, and Osama was not killed already but instead died of natural causes 30 years from now, would that death thread show the same neutrality or even positivity that Gal Giap has received today? Do we only show emotion when the monsters are men who have lived in the same time as us?

No.

**Montmorency** · 10-13-2013, 13:04

What you personally think of this or that man is irrelevant.

With that said: Osama bin Laden was a fanatic who devoted his life to making a permanent existential enemy of the US and others; Giap was a military officer who made an enemy of the US for the duration of their political offense to his country.