By those parameters, doesn’t the chinese invasion of Tibet count as a success?

soru

I think you are arguing against a position I have not made. There were a number of decisions made in the Korean War. The North Koreans decide to invade (pace Bruce Cumings), which was the first crazy decision. The South Koreans and the UN forces eventually repelled them. They then decided to penetrate deep into North Korea. The Chinese then decided to intervene with huge numbers of troops.

These were all decisions made that are relevant to John Quiggin’s thesis.

Slight confusion here. The first Gulf War didn’t consist of [liberation of Kuwait] followed by [attack on Iraq]; the course of events was roughly [air campaign against Iraq] followed by [invasion of Kuwait and southern Iraq simultaneously]; two days after the invasion, the Iraqi army withdrew from Kuwait, and a ceasefire was called the day after that.
Or are you referring to the 2003 invasion?

I think that the definitive verdict on the Batista regime was given at the Bay of Pigs, when the Cubans had the chance to trade back, and as I recall they didn’t.

Of course I am focusing on long-term consequences. My point is just that the intervention of China into the Korean War was also a decision to seek war instead of negotiation, and that it lead to very bad long-term consequences.

I’ve read Bruce Cumings’s history of Korea, and though his research and conclusions don’t hold up vis a vis the start of the Korean War after the opening up of the Soviet archives, he is of course correct about massacres on both sides.

China’s decision to intervene did prevent the unification of the Korean peninsula, and their support of North Korea is the only thing keeping that country going right now. I find this dimension of Korean history to be downplayed by people like Bruce Cumings.

Now if you compare the two Koreas in the past couple of decades, you’re right.

Judging from the relative development of the two Koreas, there is no question that had Korea been unified under the UN forces, a lot of people would be a lot better off. No huge famines, for a start, and substantially better medical care and standard of living, not even to mention far greater political and cultural freedoms in a reunited Korea. Should it have gone the other way, there would have been massacres that made the Kwanju massacre look like a walk in the park.

Data gathering in the countryside under Batista was nonexistent.

This is from something I wrote on Cuba at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/cuba.htm

What did Cuba look like under Fulgencio Batista, the dictator who Castro toppled?

The social and economic contradictions of the island then were typical of nearly all Latin American countries that had been exploited historically by imperialism.

The Cuban economy was based on export agriculture. The main crop was sugar, followed by tobacco, cattle and coffee. Agricultural resources were underutilized. For the hacienda owner, this was no problem. It might mean spending January through March in the US or Europe, shopping or attending the opera. For the farm worker, this meant unemployment and suffering. In 1954, for instance, Cuba’s 424,000 agricultural wage earners averaged only 123 days of work; farm owners, tenants and sharecroppers also fared poorly, averaging only 135 days of employment.

Unemployment led to all sorts of hardship. 43% of the rural population was illiterate. 60% lived in huts with earth floors and thatched roofs. 2/3 lived without running water and only 1 out of 14 families had electricity. Daily nutrition was terrible. Only 4% of rural families ate meat regularly. Most subsisted on rice, beans and root crops. Bad diet and housing caused bad health. 13% of the population had a history of typhoid, 14% tuberculosis and over 1/3 intestinal parasites.

I think there’s a circle of misinterpretation going on here. I may have misinterpreted your WWII analogy, but you’ve done the same about my comment.

The statement you quote was meant quite literally and seriously – I’m planning a post on this soon and I am genuinely interested to see how supporters of the war and/or Bush react to this news.

On the Lancet business, I didn’t know where you stood. I was just attempting to foreclose the possibility of another round of debate on an issue I regard as settled.

On a more positive note, I’m glad my post stimulated you to think about the question I raised. One effect of my thinking about the Iraq issue has been to push me to a more generally (though not absolutely) anti-war and anti-revolution position than I held previously.

Why do you think this has anything to do with the US’s invasion of Iraq? I thought we were merely discussing hypotheticals. I was not trying to say the US should have invaded Iraq, I was just pointing at a ready, well exposed and discussed example that most would be familiar with and whether a hypothetical invasion should have ocurred.

If you were a regular at Lambert’s you might even know that I agree that mortality rates rose after the US invasion.

BTW, I note in today’s WP that the Admin has declared there will be no more money for reconstruction. I’d be v. interested in your response to this.

You’re a great read with lots to say, but have a little patience for those who disagree as we might not disagree as much as you think. I have spent a lot of time, since your post, thinking about the possibility that almost all conflicts, US invovled or not, have been much worse than the worst possible negotiation. This will probably effect my political outlook for the rest of my life. I just wanted to see where you would draw the line over when violence becomes necessary and instead you assume I’m sneaking in some pro-Bush arguements.

BTW, I note in today’s WP that the Admin has declared there will be no more money for reconstruction. I’d be v. interested in your response to this.

Do you favor intervention when a government is shooting its people, but favor the status quo when a government dams up the rivers that the Ma’dan needed for survival? I’m not being obtuse here, I’m just seeing where you draw the line, because death by bullet is just as dead as death by refugee camp.

(Also as far as human rights go, Cuba wasn’t “too bad” under Batista compared to Jamaica etc. either. This just goes to show that “not too bad” can still be pretty damn horrible. Furthermore recall that Batista actually had Fidel and his brother in his grip after they attacked a military barracks (i.e. for a legitimate reason not a trumped up charge) but released him due to pressure from a mostly free press – contrast that with Armando Valladares whom it took decades and three world leaders to get released)

Given all that, I don’t see what your point is…