I have pondered over why the left in this country favors wars that meet two simple criteria: (1) spill little or preferably no American blood and (2) do not involve anything that anyone would consider a vital national interest. So we intervene in Haiti or the Balkans without the anti-war left causing much stir. I've always found it odd that the anti-republican-war-left which always has such an exaggerated concern for the welfare of American Soldiers hasn't the slightest concern for foriegn civilians if the above criteria are met. And I think the reason is that they really do fear a "Vietnam quagmire" in every war, so it's vitally important to pick wars that don't cause American casualties (apparently the only benchmark of a quagmire) and wars from which we can just run away and not suffer any repurcussions.
Vietnam sure seems to be a turning point because before then the Democratic party had no trouble with warriors as president - men who weren't afraid to pay any price, bear any burden in the cause of Truth, Justice, and the American way, guys like Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, Wilson, Polk, and old Andrew Jackson himself. These guys spent blood and treasure in wars they thought vital to the national interest. Scoop Jackson was the last major Democrat politician of that tradition. As the generation that experience Vietnam fades away, I hope the Democratic party can get over the trauma and return to the American mainstream - the best government is the result of the competition between two fundamentally sound parties.
