I thank those who answered my query; I don’t entirely agree, but I have a much better idea of the POV now.

I don’t agree that it was appalling and disgraceful to criticize Diem, to go back to an historical parallel of sorts (I am not pressing a particularly direct comparison to Allawi, whose future behavior remains to be seen, but so far has seemed unobjectionable). Diem and Madame Nhu, however, were corrupt, undemocratic, and perfectly happy to shoot enemies, encourage Buddhist priests to set themselves on fire, and were, moreover greatly unwilling to press the war, being far more interested in spending US aid to solidify their rule over their rivals.

It was for these reasons that the Kennedy administration concluded that the war could not be won with Diem in power, and wisely or not — they certainly didn’t foresee the spiral downwards that followed, overall, over the longterm after that — they authorized instigating a coup that, while all evidence suggests they were genuinely (naively) shocked to have it result in Diem’s assassination, certainly was intended to, as it successfully did, remove Diem from power.

That’s a lot more serious, as an example, than saying “Diem/Allawi’s statements here weren’t accurate, and seem suspiciously partisan.”

I think criticizing Allawi is no more out of bounds than criticizing Kerry or Bush, but I do take the points made. Thanks again.