Brutus 2.0:1) We promised our help to the South Vietnamese
Who promised what to whom? The American taxpayers and draftees never promised anyone anything. And in any case, if someone promises to murder innocent civilians, they are morally obligated to break, not fulfill, that promise.
Brutus 2.0:2) Not winning can cause strategic problems later on by emboldening potential enemies
To what end is this strategizing directed? If the goal is to protect freedom, security, and prosperity, then certainly there are better methods than murdering innocent civilians. More likely, however, it is simply one criminal gang trying to subjugate others.
Brutus 2.0:Suppose that a people who subscribe to privately provided defense by a company are attacked by another group. This group mixes in with a population which has not advocated violence against the aggrieved party, but are not willing to cooperate in bringing the attackers to justice. How is justice done? Sometimes you can't tell a soldier from a non-soldier until it is too late.
First of all, there are at-large criminals everywhere, but it is never suggested that we should indiscriminately kill everyone in a certain area just because we know that there are some criminals among them. (Anyone who wanted to do this would rightly be regarded as a sociopath.) That's why we have detectives: to find and target individual criminals.
To some extent, those who actively hide and shelter criminals are not entirely blameless, but no one is guilty of a crime simply for being a criminal's neighbor. So when you ask, "How is justice done?", what about justice for the innocent bystanders? Surely they have a better claim on their lives than someone who wants to get revenge on their neighbors?
Brutus 2.0: 1) Abandoning a war makes future enemies more willing to engage in prolonged conflict and hope to wear you down. Bin-laden has cited Vietnam specifically as evidence that Al-queda can win in the long run.
1) Abandoning a war makes future enemies more willing to engage in prolonged conflict and hope to wear you down. Bin-laden has cited Vietnam specifically as evidence that Al-queda can win in the long run.
And in a guerilla war, Al-queda can probably win in the long run. Winning in Afghanistan (assuming that it is possible) will not win the war against Al-queda: it will win a prolonged battle that is part of that war. Winning in Afghanistan, in the fashion that the United States sees victory, is also very questionable. I think there is a lack of understanding of Afghan history.
2) It makes future allies less likely to trust you when you promise help to them.
In the case of the Iraq War, the most valuable US allies have already left (apart from the UK, which will leave). The rest, I'm sure, are just waiting for the word.
3) We made a promise to aid those fighting a Communist regime and should not have broken that promise.
The problem is that a large portion of South Vietnamese sympathisized with the Communists, because the totalitarian government backed by the U.S. in the south was even worse.
Why is everyone forgetting the Soviet involvement in Vietnam? Soviets trained Vietnamese, sent supplies and weapons and even their own military personnel to assist Vietnamese (maybe not on the same scale as US, but still significant). So, it was essentially an internal struggle with parties backed by the two superpowers which turned it into another arena for the not so cold Cold War. If it wasn't for ideological difference, it might have gone unnoticed and the Vietnamese could have a chance to sort it out between themselves.
Now, was it moral to help the South Vietnamese in light of mass murder that happened once the Communists took control of the country? Only if it was done by by privately funded volunteers (think about some Brits fighting with Greeks against the Turks even when Turkey was still an ally of the Empire). Stealing from people to fund the war that doesn't even affect them, drafting people against their will and committing various atrocities to the people you supposedly want to save - i.e. fighting evil with more evil - is definitely not moral.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings