From Charles Krauthammer's column today:
The first George Bush once said he thought the Persian Gulf War would cure America of the Vietnam syndrome. He was wrong. There is no cure for the Vietnam syndrome. It will go away only when the baby boom generation does, dying off like the Israelites in the desert, allowing a new generation, cleansed of the memories and the guilt, to look at the world clearly once again.
Replace "Vietnam" with "Vatican II" and you have a succinct reason why the Church will not fully recover its voice until the final shovelful of dirt is deposited on the last of the Least Generation.
Standard disclaimer: I'm talking about the ersatz "Spirit of Vatican II," not the actual council with its documents and suchlike.
I hope the horror of the Vietnam War, which needlessly resulted in the loss of so many American and Vietnamese lives, is never forgotten. I'm 20, and I'll be sure to still be talking about it when I'm 40, lest the government think that it can go about fighting unjust and totally needless wars throughout the world now that everyone's forgotten Vietnam.
Of course, for those of us who have forgotten all about Vietnam, we will still have Iraq as an example of another unjust and needless war that resulted in so much loss of American and Iraqi life.
As for Vatican II, I completely agree with you there.
Nathan,
Whether Iraq will be remembered as another Vietnam, which resulted in nothing except bloodshed and heart-ache, or another Korea, which actually resulted in some real good (where would you rather live, South or North Korea?) is yet to be determined.
I know how I'll remember it, so it's pretty much determined in my own mind. How history remembers it is very much dependent upon who ends up writing the history books.
Nathan, since you brought up the quantifier "so much" it might be useful for you to take on an extra homework assignment and compare deaths/week or deaths/year -- civilian, military, etc. -- between the two and come back and report.
I hope you find the differences worth discussing.
Yes, every death is a terrible thing, but no, the two wars are not particularly comparable.
I know how I'll remember it, so it's pretty much determined in my own mind. How history remembers it is very much dependent upon who ends up writing the history books.
So basically unless the history books are written by a foaming-at-the-mouth Bush-hater, you'll think it's a crock of bull. This strikes me a "Please don't confuse me with the facts!" type of attitude.
Contrary to your set-in-stone opinion, a war can fail to meet the requirements of Catholic Just war theory without becoming another Vietnam, and without nothing good coming out of it.
If it fails to meet the criteria for a just war, then I reject it as any Catholic should.
Nathan,
You missed my point. You have already determined that you will always remember Iraq to be another Vietnam, an unjust war that led to nothing but bloodshed and ultimate defeat. My point was that good can come out of a war that doesn't fit just war theory (or at least your interpretation of it). Look at Korea, for example (you said on The Tower that you doubt the justice of every war since WWII). While North Korea is ruled by perhaps the most vile and oppressive regime on the planet, South Korea is a modern democracy. North Koreans live in crushing poverty and many die of starvation, because of the actions of the government, while South Koreans live in relative prosperity. The results of the Korean and Vietnam wars are hardly comparable. If both were unjust, then good can come from even an unjust war (just as the good of a new human person can come from the horrendous injustice of rape).
My overriding point is that, even granting your position on the justice of the war, you don't know whether it will be a useless tragedy or whether some real and enduring good will come out of it, whether it will be a Korea or a Vietnam. Making up your mind now to always remember it as a useless bloodbath with no good results is closed-minded, and if I can be frank, rather pig-headed.