Bush v Greene

I was a trifle scoobied when I read that President Bush said in a speech last night, after introducing the "complex and painful subject" of Vietnam:

In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called, "The Quiet American." It was set in Saigon, and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism -- and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."

After America entered the Vietnam War, the Graham Greene argument gathered some >steam. As a matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people.

He goes on to refer to the dreadful aftermath of the war.

This all looks a bit fishy for literary as well as logical reasons.

The Quiet American's a great book. The film wasn't bad, though painfully two dimensional in comparison with the novel. I'm not sure where Bush (or more likely, his script writer) gets the idea that Pyle is a "symbol of American purpose and patriotism", though he's spot on with the "dangerous naivete" [sic]. He could also have mentioned the amorality that comes with self-righteousness, and the innocent lives lost as a result.

The illogical aspect is that Dubya seems to be saying that because the US forces left Vietnam, things got worse. You could speculate on that all day. But it ignores the obvious point: the chain which led to the Khmer Rouge and the killing fields began with the real life Pyles. "The Graham Greene" argument is not (necessarily) that they should have left, but that they should never have been there in the first place.

And that's the horns of the dilemma. In a sane world, the British and US governments could say "We made a terrible blunder when we invaded that country. But the present reality is that if we leave things will get far worse." They can't say that because politicians don't do mea culpa. And so they have to cope with the consequences of their dangerous naivety, whilst pretending superlative motives.

In a hole and digging, in other words.