And if LBJ was possessed of what is now the conventional wisdom about Vietnam (yours), you might have a point. But LBJ was an interventionist liberal anti-Sovie

And if LBJ was possessed of what is now the conventional wisdom about Vietnam (yours), you might have a point. But LBJ was an interventionist liberal anti-Soviet. That's why Prados has an article to write, after all – almost every post-Vietnam liberal, in LBJ's position, would have pulled out of Vietnam ASAP. Prados' piece is about how the players of the time, as they actually were, reacted to and shaped the events of the time. On that note, what is so damnably awful about learning Westmoreland's point of view? Do you really think that the article would have been improved by the rote acknowledgement "… and as a historian, I must say, he was dead wrong", or is that simply what it takes for those in left-wing circles to feel better about reading history in late '10's?