home

Yemen: U.S. Drone Kills 15 Civilians in Wedding Party

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 12:42:30 PM EST
Tags: Yemen, drones (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A U.S. drone in Yemen has mistakenly killed 15 civilians en route to a wedding. They were mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy.

< U.S. General Who Opened Guanatanamo: Time to End the Mistake | Friday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Yemen: U.S. Drone Kills 15 Civilians in Wedding Party | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Shame (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    Shame, shame, shame. And for what? To kill some guy who would be replaced by a clone of that guy in a few days, to be killed by another drone and replaced by a clone of that guy in a few days, to be killed by another drone and replaced by a clone of that guy in a few days, to be killed by another drone and replaced...

    It's a phucking malevolent farce.

    Disgusting. And inexcusable on every level in, supposedly, the greatest nation on earth.

    Waiting for the usual comments from (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 01:08:26 PM EST
    our White House spokesperson, Miss Emily Latella.

    Never mind...

    Parent

    With all this talk about drones.. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 06:53:06 PM EST
    who's getting those "high tech" contracts and who's "diversified portfolios" are getting fattened by drones? Who's congressional districts benefit directly or indirectly from drones?

    This is a money trail worth delving into.

    How long before a well-funded contingent starts claiming that "drones don't kill people, people kill people"?

    Parent

    I only have ten shares of malevolence (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 07:41:36 PM EST
    Raytheon locked me out, the cynical bastards.

    Parent
    I always flash on the old (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 08:04:08 PM EST
    Bill Murray skit in which he's an enthusiastic entrepreneur developing and marketing an exclusive line of post-apocalyptic cosmetcs for the mutated human survivors..

    Get in on the ground floor now. Operators are standing by..

    Parent

    Drones, whither flyest [thine profits?] (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    As always, follow the money:  OpenSecrets,  Mother Jones, The Atlantic Monthly.

    And, trying not to be left out in the cold, Unions are organizing civilian Drone pilots.

    Joel Grey - on American Foreign Policy.

    Parent

    Now that's... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 01:19:24 PM EST
    a war on traditional marriage...where's the family values brigade?

    But as long as the shipping lanes are open, and our dear friends in the Saudi Royal family aren't feeling too threatened by the unrest in Yemen, all is still right in the world.  Perpetual war ain't so bad as long as others far far away are the only ones who perpetually feel it.

    Traditional Marriage? (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 02:51:42 PM EST
    Well I am not sure what you mean by traditional, but Yemen still allows child marriages, and is supposedly making plans to ban them. And if men can marry up to four wives (polygamy) also does not fall under the canopy of traditional marriage in the US..

    still tragic... we are not winning hearts and minds in Yemen.


    Parent

    And we kill hundreds of thousands ... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 02:59:02 PM EST
    of children in unprovoked wars.

    We ceded the moral high ground ages ago.

    Parent

    Just snarking... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 02:57:17 PM EST
    on the one issue where Brand D and Brand R are in total agreement...drone bombing brown people.  Cruz, Boehner, etc won't be b*tching about this part of the Obama presidency.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 03:03:42 PM EST
    I know...  just wanted to point out that the only thing that seems traditional here is our killing civilians, and wedding parties are not a new target.

    Parent
    It is a long tradition... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 03:10:44 PM EST
    just the technology changes.  Yemenis, the new Native Americans.  The latter had our land, the former the shipping lanes for our oil.

    Parent
    If another country did this ... (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 01:39:35 PM EST
    in America:

    We would invade five countries who weren't even involved.

    Start a global "War on Drones".  Compare everyone we could think of to Hitler.  Call a bunch of people we probably made up "cowards".

    Any involvement with drones would be grounds for immediate imprisonment without trial. Radio controlled airplane hobbyists would be decried as fifth columnists.  Many would be imprisoned.

    Democrats and Republicans would agree wholeheartedly on these policies. And higher-ups in both parties would trip over each other to be first to say the most blood-thirsty things to waiting camera crews.

    Meanwhile the media would gin up a phony debate between the parties about the use of salad forks.

    As horrible a development (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 03:39:58 PM EST
    as this drone strike is, it,  unfortunately, is one that continues.  This strike apparently was misdirected unless the bride was suspected as being a bad guy.  However, what would have been our expectation  if the "right" convoy was targeted?   Or, looking it in a fundamental way, what are we doing there?  What are our aims for this poverty and water-crisis stricken country?

    Are we at war with Yemenis?  It does not seem so, since we are spending vast amounts of taxpayer money to finance a fragile government in exchange for their cooperation.  The surge of drones may be intended to get al Qaeda, but drone attacks are likely to inflame their prominence--violence through drones will surely guarantee a strengthening of al Qaeda.  

    And, of course, it is hard to keep our al Qaeda's straight, since those affiliated groups in Syria, for instance, may become a part of our attempts at a political solution in that civil war,   I can see why it is more convenient and more blurred, to just call them the "bad guys." (until they are not).  

    If drones are to be the face of America, there ought to be some clearly articulated goals that might justify the warts, beyond involvement in another incoherent and inconclusive misadventure in a distant land.

    Drone Protests Threaten $1.6B in US Bribery (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 12:54:12 AM EST
    Defense Secretary Hagel Has threatened to cut off $1.6 Billion in aid unless Pakistan stops the Anti-Drone mass protests currently impeding the UNocal convoys supplying Afghanistan's occupying Army.

    http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/pakistan-protests-blocking.html

    I sometimes forget that my little brother... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 12:04:01 PM EST
    ...now works for the NSA, spies on people, travels the world, blah blah blah, and while I love this kid, while we have a very difficult history together, I have to be honest and say he is a guy who has no, and I mean ZERO, even marginally savvy understanding of what makes people tick. It's only recently in fact that I have come to believe my beautiful little brother is, in fact, an almost heartbreaking example of very highly functioning Asperger's. And he works for the NSA, and he is a terribly sensitive kid. Oy, I just wish he would quit, or get fired, anything to get him out of the military, intelligence world. Atheist prayers have been said. But, as I know...such is the difficult grip of mortal and rational existence.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 216 (link)
    American theatre history is an indispensible element of our national narrative. And it can be pretty freaky, too.

    Openheimer may've had a touch (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 12:31:39 PM EST
    of that, at least while he was working on the Manhatten Project..

    There's something very Aspergers-like about this tendency some have to focus and compartmentalize to the extent that they seemingly never think about the wider implications of what they're doing.

    Not that the value and meaning of empathy is ever going to get a lot of airplay when so many are still embracing the idea that Darwinian hyper-competition is conducive to a "meritocracy".    

    Parent

    WIth my brother, they know what they have (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 03:19:24 PM EST
    They're cynical, and they know they have the most loyal, committed employee they could ever want in my brother. As such, they can abuse him silly. And have. Phuckers.

    Parent
    When this is what happens... (none / 0) (#5)
    by unitron on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 02:19:31 PM EST
    ...under the administration of the guy you voted for and you know it would have been even worse under the other guy if he'd won...

    ...it's mighty discouraging.

    It's like we get to vote on the length of the spoon, but we're still stuck supping with the devil.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#15)
    by kmblue on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 05:15:28 PM EST
    what Obama will say about it--if anything.

    Yet (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 06:04:27 PM EST
    when we firebomb eighty-effing-thousand men, women, and children in Tokyo all we hear about it is Audie Murphy movies and The Greatest Generation and John Phillip Sousa marches..

    Point being that an utterly savage, total-war precedent has already been firmly established in the military strategist mentality that makes fifteen "collateral" casualties acceptable if not negligible..


    Parent

    Have you seen the (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 02:52:16 AM EST
    movie clip of LeMay explaining during a lecture at the time that the idea was to make sure the rice paper houses in Tokyo caught fire?    

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 08:12:58 AM EST
    we are currently being made to feel that chemical weapons are barbaric, but good old warm and fuzzy nukes - set to incinerate millions at a go - paper houses - brick and mortar - steel - straw - the lot - That's cool. That's Christian.

    Talk about victor's justice.

    This is evil being defined by the current top dog.

    Parent

    LeMay did not drop (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 04:30:37 PM EST
    any nukes--they were conventional bombs.  Tokyo had been so bombed prior to Hiroshima that many say the nukes were not required.

    No, Obama is not evil.  And, the fire bombing of Tokyo is much, much different than the drone strikes.

    As long as you are saying Obama is evil it will be hard to have a serious discussion with you.  Obama is as evil as, and much less so imo, than LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR, Wilson, Jackson and let's toss in Jefferson for kicks.  Maybe Carter was more pure but he has his detractors as well.  Now that we have established that every President has been evil, we can just congratulate ourselves on our great insight.

    Parent

    The words are (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 04:35:27 PM EST
    collateral damage.

    But I wonder, do we have less now than in the past??

    Is war becoming more humane?

    Parent

    Is war (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 06:45:24 PM EST
    becoming more humane?

    I dunno.

    Why don't we ask the Iraqis who might have survived our little shock and awe festival.

    Parent

    I know you don't know (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 10:19:24 PM EST
    But when you look at how war was carried out in the past you can see that, at least in the west, collateral damage is less than it was.

    In other places and cultures, no. Civilians are routinely targeted.

    Parent

    I suppose (none / 0) (#87)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:39:54 PM EST
    that measuring collateral damage has its place. Unless you are among the damagees.

    From what I have read, there is a certain amount of "collateral damage" that is acceptable for any specific attack. According to the "value" of the target.

    As far as I am concerned, that is a mindset I cannot feel.

    Parent

    For LeMay it was not (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    "collateral"--the homes of the Japanese civilians were the intended target.  Hence, his teaching reel explaining how the bombs were designed to make sure the rice paper houses caught fire.

    As I said, one of the more chilling videos I have seen.  Cheney's godfather.

    Parent

    You misread (none / 0) (#48)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 06:44:05 PM EST
    my post.

    I did not say that Obama was evil, although he may well be.

    What I said was that chemical weapons are being defined as evil - whereas nuclear weapons aren't.

    Parent

    "although he may be..." (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 08:00:12 PM EST
    Why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly good comment like that?

    I do not think anyone is saying chemical weapons are somehow more evil than nuclear weapons.

    Parent

    I have (none / 0) (#54)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 08:16:24 PM EST
    no way to evaluate Obama except by looking at his actions. Knowingly continuing to use drones as he does, leaves him open to harsh evaluation. I am not, however, making that evaluation in this post - nor did I in the previous one.

    What I said was that chemical weapons have been recently condemned as evil, inhuman and against international law. They are.

    However, nuclear weapons are not the subject of discussion of late. They are, for some reason, considered to be compatible with international law, apparently.

    To me, the reason for this is that the people who possess nuclear weapons control the dialogue.

    In my slender opinion, the issue should be the need to ban all of these weapons. Not just selectively choosing to outlaw those possessed by people who do not belong to the nuclear club.

    Parent

    May I suggest that silence (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 08:33:18 PM EST
    is not acceptance--and no one has used a nuclear weapon recently as has been done with chemical weapons.  That is the reason for discussion of chemical weapons and not nuclear weapons at present.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#58)
    by Politalkix on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 09:16:39 PM EST
    note that BHO has been very interested to control loose nukes and dismantle them from the time he was a Senator. Please note the work he did with Richard Lugar when he was a Senator and with Russian President Medvedev after he became President. link
    Even during campaigning, he firmly took the use of nukes "off the table" and got mocked by HRC for it. (and even BTD thought he made a "gaffe")
    link

    Lentinel, you are once again throwing the kitchen sink at the President without bothering to inform ourself about the facts!

    Parent

    Only one candidate (none / 0) (#64)
    by Politalkix on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 10:30:02 PM EST
    link

    and

    link

    Only one candidate was willing to break long standing foreign policy taboos while being a realist and aiming for a transformative foreign policy presidency....

    Parent

    "transformative?" (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 10:59:01 PM EST
    PK, you are so droll.

    "transformative" - according to Obama.

    Parent

    When (none / 0) (#68)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 07:16:00 AM EST
    even people in Afghanistan are criticizing Karzai for having double standards related to civilian killings by the Pakistani Taliban, it is amusing to see how far some people will go to mouth propaganda of the Pakistani intelligence service for ideological reasons.

    link

    If you really cared about the number of civilians killed in Pakistan, you would also count the number of people getting killed in that country by the Taliban and religious fundametalists. Those numbers are many times higher than civilians getting killed by drones. Being silent in that regard makes you an unwitting tool of religious fanatics.

    Parent

    It's good to be the Empire, eh PK? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 11:12:38 AM EST


    Parent
    Not about empires (none / 0) (#88)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    Liberals should care about loss of civilian life anywhere in the world. Aren't liberals supposed to be the unselfish people?

    The left looks up to France for a lot of things. It is time for people in the left side of politics in America to also take a look at how much France is expanding peacekeeping missions through its military in central African countries to prevent loss of lives after a Socialist became a President.

    But if you think that it is onl about empires, I will still say that the world is still a better place when you have an American empire instead of a Russian or Chinese one. If America withdraws from the world, the Russians and the Chinese will build their empires. Just look at the territorial disputes the Chinese are having with all their Asian neighbors or how aggressively Russia is trying to prevent countries like Ukraine from casting their lot with the rest of Europe.

    Parent

    I didn't (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 07:54:05 AM EST
    even mention Obama - except in connection with his continuing use of drones - with the attendant carnage of the innocent.

    As you often do, you are responding to something that the person you are responding to did not actually say, and changing the subject.

    No sink.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#72)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 08:06:44 AM EST
    I have addressed the issue of drones.
    No lentinel, it is you who is avoiding issues that you do not want to talk about.

    If you do not want to talk about civilian deaths in Pakistan caused by the Taliban and other religious fanatics, it is clear to me that you really do not care about civilian deaths. When you do not care about civilian deaths, your continuous beating of drums about drones does not seem to be anything other than political and ideological posturing.

    Parent

    I am (none / 0) (#76)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 09:28:20 AM EST
    talking about the issue I addressed in my post.

    It is that to which you are unresponsive.

    If you want to post something about the Taliban and other religious fanatics - have at it.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#69)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 07:50:11 AM EST
    but - seriously - must we wait for somebody to use the bloody things again before we do something to outlaw them or destroy them?

    The debate about international law, humanity, evil and the rest must broaden to include all of these weapons of mass destruction.

    Otherwise, it is just empty moral posturing on the part of the nuclear club. After all, none of the members of that club have forsworn not to use nuclear weapons.

    And, the actions of GW Bush, attacking nations who had not attacked us, actions for which he received no censure, should make everyone nervous.

    Parent

    Sounds good to me (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 08:40:46 AM EST


    Parent
    He has (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 07:56:16 PM EST
    already expressed his thoughts:


    The president's specific words: I'm "really good at killing people," authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write in "Double Down: Game Change 2012," The Daily Mail reported. They get their claim from a Washington Post report that buries the statement as a brief anecdote in an article, in which the president is described as speaking to aides about the drone program and then making the claim.

    When asked about this, the denial was swift:

    "I haven't talked to him about the book," said adviser Dan Pfeiffer on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "I haven't read it. He hasn't read it. But he hates leaks."

    Parent

    Shorn of context...... (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 02:59:11 AM EST
    People who are proud of their warlike conduct do not talk like that.  E.g. Cheney.

    This comment sounds as if said in irony or sardonic sadness.

    Parent

    He said it. (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 05:28:04 AM EST
    And it is true.

    If he is ironical or sad about it, the people who have been killed are no less dead.

    And if he truly were sad about it, he would stop doing it.

    Parent

    I doubt anyone is happy to kill (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 04:33:41 PM EST
    but it is viewed as necessary.....and you can disagree with that assessment.

    But we have been at war with Al Qaeda, and stopping the drone strikes altogether sounds nice, but do we really want to give up all our military options?   Perhaps being more careful should be considered.

    Parent

    It sounds (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 08:01:01 AM EST
    nice to say that all we have to do is be "more careful".

    But it is obvious to me that they are incapable of being "more careful".

    There are two reasons for this, imo.

    The first is that weapons like drones cannot pinpoint a target - in the way one person with a rifle can.

    The second is even more troubling: We use these weapons in the full knowledge that civilians will be killed, but do so anyway because those casualties are "acceptable" if the target is of "high value".

    So we blow them away, and then sometimes apologize if it doesn't seem too demeaning.

    Yuch.

    Parent

    A day may come in the future (none / 0) (#90)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    when "Big Dog", "Cheetah", "Wild Cat" and insect robots will be able to chase down Al Qaeda in streets and alleys and drones may only provide some air cover without needing to actually fire and kill from the air.

    link

    Parent

    And how sure are you (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    he actually said it, and said exactly as it has been reported?

    Parent
    Good question. (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    It was reported in the Washington Post, and then appeared in that book.

    Obama never denied saying it.

    The only thing his spokesperson said about it was that Obama "hates leaks".

    Parent

    Credibility (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jack203 on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 07:23:42 PM EST
    Because nothing spells credibility than an unnamed Yemeni official.  I'll wait until I have more information before pretending I know exactly what happened.

    I know there are quite a few far leftwingers on this site, but you're not more sophisticated because you always believe the worst about the United States.  Try having a healthy dose of skepticism for everyone and not just your own country.

    What would our motivations be for purposely attacking a wedding party?

    None.

    So either we are incredibility stupid, we were tricked, or there actually were terrorists in the convoy.

    Was there a post on the suicide bombing in Yemen that killed four times as many people less than 24 hours ago?  Make no mistake, Yemen is in a battle with Al Qaeda.


    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 12, 2013 at 07:50:26 PM EST
    Leftwingers on a site called TalkLeft?
    Incredible!

    The point is not whether the people in the wedding party were killed purposefully or accidentally.

    These drones kill people. They kill people.
    The civilians are dead. Purposefully or not. They are dead. And we are responsible. We coined, during the Clinton regime, the phrase "collateral damage" to mask the reality that we routinely assume that we will slaughter civilians if we feel that the "target" is of sufficient "value".

    So we talk about it.
    You are free to talk about suicide bombings in Yemen by Al Qaeda if that is your desire.

    But those of us hurt by the knowledge of what our government is doing in our name have a right to express that hurt without being lectured by you.

    Parent

    We firebombed (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    Dresden and Tokyo....

    What's your position on those??

    Parent

    A descent into utter barbarism (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    as your personal savior the good Lord Jesus would readily acknowledge.

    Parent
    Oh absolutely (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 04:31:46 PM EST
    and no doubt.. Of course I would ask you should we have waited for the Germans to get rid of Hitler and quit gassing Jews but I don't want to embarrass you.

    kdog had a good point. The only thing that's changed is the technology and the length of the invent.. The barbarians sacked, raped and pillaged Rome for a week or so. Thousands starved during the 100 years war..

    It's almost enough to make a person condemn warfare.

    Parent

    There have been rules of (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    warfare, as silly as that may sound, for a long time.

    The Catholic concept of Just War, which has been around forever, incorporates ideas of proportionality.

    Parent

    There is no such thing as a (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    just war.

    And all proportionally has done for us has caused additional millions to be killed as we refuse to use all our weapons. See Vietnam as a reference point.

    I prefer, "Smoke'em if you got'em."

    Parent

    Vietnam.. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    you do realize that we dropped more ordnance on  Vietnam than we did in all of Europe during WWII?

    This embittered non-combatant "our hands were tied" fantasy is very weak tea.

    Parent

    Yeah, we bombed the same bridges (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 10:24:30 PM EST
    every week.

    Hanoi should have been bombed into the ground and

    Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

    A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

    Link

    Parent