The Vietnam War

[Finrod Felagund]

We've just finished this in history class, and it has been discussed in passing many places on the board, so here's a place to discuss it exclusively. I'm sure we'll have lost of posts from everyone. Rian and JD, I hope you'll both participate. Rian, it would be really nice to get your opinion here.

[jerseydevil]

I'll try to participate. Although the Vietnam War isn't my most favorite episode of American history.

A lot of people didn't understand the vietnam war, there was no clear strategy for the US. There were just so many problems with vietnam. I also find it interesting that so many people today blame Nixon for things - when it was Lyndon Johnson's war - Nixon inherited it.

[LutraMage]

The big problem with the Vietnam War is that pratically everybody (on both sides of the debate) can only view the war through the rarified atmosphere created by 20/20 hindsight! To understand how the US (and her allies) ended up fighting the war you have to understand the real history leading up to the event, not the potted, biaised TV histories that we get nowadays.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by LutraMage
The big problem with the Vietnam War is that pratically everybody (on both sides of the debate) can only view the war through the rarified atmosphere created by 20/20 hindsight! To understand how the US (and her allies) ended up fighting the war you have to understand the real history leading up to the event, not the potted, biaised TV histories that we get nowadays.

Exactly. Initially there was a reason and it's been lost in all the rhetoric.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by LutraMage
The big problem with the Vietnam War is that pratically everybody (on both sides of the debate) can only view the war through the rarified atmosphere created by 20/20 hindsight! To understand how the US (and her allies) ended up fighting the war you have to understand the real history leading up to the event, not the potted, biaised TV histories that we get nowadays.

Agreed LutraMage! As unpopular as the Vietnam War is from today's perspective, I keep wondering what would have happened if we (the US) had done things differently.

If we had done any less than we did, communism could have continued to spread, country by country. It was an awful thing for the people of Vietnam that their country was where the line was drawn - but to have drawn it at the next place, or the place after that, would have only transferred that suffering on to someone else... and placed more people under communist rule along the way.

If we had done any more than we did, and prosecuted the war with our full strength, we could have triggered World War III. The 60's and the 70's were a tense time, and I think many around the world thought there would inevitably be a great war between the US and USSR - that it was just a matter of when. In many ways, it's nothing short of a miracle that this never happended.

It was still a terrible thing... but I don't know if we didn't actually do the best thing, all-around. And I'm pretty sure our leaders thought they were doing what was best. It was a tough call to make. If I ever have to make a tough call, I hope people will judge my choice partly on the circumstances I was given to make my decision on...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
It was still a terrible thing... but I don't know if we didn't actually do the best thing, all-around. And I'm pretty sure our leaders thought they were doing what was best. It was a tough call to make. If I ever have to make a tough call, I hope people will judge my choice partly on the circumstances I was given to make my decision on...

yes - Nixon became president partially to get us out of Vietnam - but people expected it to happen overnight. Once he got into office he discovered it wasn't that easy. Then Cambodia occurred and all hell broke loose - because people didn't understand that the north Vietanmese were using that as a base of operations.

[The Gaffer]

I agree with the comments made about Nixon. It wasn't his war and he really wanted to get out of it.

I wouldn't mind so much if we looked on that war with 20/20 hindsight; unfortunately we don't. When we talk about that war we always talk about it from the perspective of the US, never from the perspective of the Vietnamese. How do we think they feel about half a million dead and having chemical weapons used on them?

[GrayMouser]

As someone who cut my teeth on anti-Vietnam demos, this is painful, but...

It would have been far better if the US had been able to defeat the North and the VC.

Just compare:

North and South Korea
China and Taiwan
East and West Europe
Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with Thailand and Malaysia.

Unfortunately the US, through a long train of events, got stuck with the anti-nationalist label, even though it had originally been one of the main opponents of European (esp. French) imperialism.

[Draken]

Let's not forget the most tragic legacy of Vietnam: Oliver Stone films.

The horror....the horror...

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Draken
Let's not forget the most tragic legacy of Vietnam: Oliver Stone films.

The horror....the horror...

LOL.

Graymouser, I don't know if you can call it "unlucky" that the US got stuck with an anti-nationalist label, since they were opposed to nationalist forces. They made their bed...

Also, IIRC, it was the unified Vietnamese who kicked out Pol Pot from Cambodia. (Only to get invaded by the Chinese! You got to hand it to them: the bigger they come..). So you can't really lump them all in the same category as, say, North Korea (I notice you left Indonesia off that list..).

I agree that European imperialism is one of the root causes here, particularly the botched transitions to independence.

Finrod: what's your perspective as someone who has been studying it in history?

[Finrod Felagund]

Well I'd have to say that the war started out on the wrong foot with the Gulf of Tonkin (the Americans claimed to have fired in self defense but in reality fired first, and reported another attack which never happened.) This was not a good start, a war started on the basis of a lie is not goiing to turn out well. Also, the Americans feared communism, but didn't realize that Ho Chi Minh was not like Stalin, he was actually quite peaceful. This was pur paranoid fear of communism (without understanding it) which plagued the US from Roosevelt to Reagan. And there were so many things which should never have happened in Vietnam, (ie. My Lai Massacre)

[LutraMage]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
When we talk about that war we always talk about it from the perspective of the US, never from the perspective of the Vietnamese.

Originally posted by Finrod Felagund
And there were so many things which should never have happened in Vietnam, (ie. My Lai Massacre)

I was interested in these two comments. Both are correct, it is rare to see objective reporting of the war from the point of view of the Vietnamese. It is also true that there were many things that never should have happened - and the items evidenced are nearly always such horrors as the My Lai Massacre.

But there is an element of having one's cake and eatting it here. When we do see reports from the Vietnamese viewpoint, it is all too often simply sentimentalised gush about how a poor, noble downtrodden people were further victimised by a nasty Superpower. There is never any attempt to discuss how a regime with no respect for human rights came to be supported by the majority of those people, despite cruel and barbaric punishments being meted out to members of their community who simply didn't share the political views of the new elete.

And when talking of the things that never should have happened, it is rare indeed that the crimes of the Vietnamese (whether state-sponsored or individually motivated) are raised - many American prisoners of war were brutally and cowardly murdered by their captors - often after terrifying torture.

Now, I'm not for one second condoning the Western transgressions, nor saying that we wouldn't be better off for a greater understanding of the conflict from the point of view of the people of Vietnam. I am saying that in our liberal-democratic rush to accept the bulk of the responsibility (probably rightly so) for the mess we sometimes gloss over the fact that the Vietnamese combatants were not all angels.

[brownjenkins]

actually it was eisenhower who first sent american troops into vietnam to support the french... jfk continued this presence and increased it a bit... as did both lbj and nixon

i wouldn't be too quick to put the blame on any one of them too much... we were overconfident as a nation, and also still caught up in the irrational fear of communism

a few lessons we should have learned (though i have my doubts these days):

1) never enter armed conflict without a clear-cut goal and exit strategy... for both a victory and a defeat

2) always ask the "is this really necessary" question

3) don't lie, or shade the truth to the american public (and "national security" is no excuse), or else it will come back to you in the end

"Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -- Hermann Goering

4) Never put an enemy in a position where they have nothing left to lose but their lives

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by LutraMage
When we do see reports from the Vietnamese viewpoint...

When have we ever seen such reports??

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
actually it was eisenhower who first sent american troops into vietnam to support the french... jfk continued this presence and increased it a bit... as did both lbj and nixon

Yes - I know that. As I have posted in the past - a year and half ago. I didn't feel like going into a history like that. But the war did not start until Johnson. Kennedy was ardently against a war getting started, but Johnson disagreed and the war was started with him. Regardless, people like to blame Nixon more for Vietnam - even though he inherited it.

i wouldn't be too quick to put the blame on any one of them too much... we were overconfident as a nation, and also still caught up in the irrational fear of communism

Irrational fear? Only to a communist would people think that there was nothing wrong with what the Soviet Union was trying to do - or the speeches that many of the Soviet Leaders had given regarding "burying the West".

a few lessons we should have learned (though i have my doubts these days):

1) never enter armed conflict without a clear-cut goal and exit strategy... for both a victory and a defeat

2) always ask the "is this really necessary" question

3) don't lie, or shade the truth to the american public (and "national security" is no excuse), or else it will come back to you in the end

4) Never put an enemy in a position where they have nothing left to lose but their lives

Yu have your doubts because you just seem to be one of those people that believe that if we didn't do anything in Iraq the world would go on merrily forever more without Iraq ever being a problem.

To answer these questions on in regards to Iraq...

1) Yes - we have a goal (removal of Hussein and promote democracy in Iraq). Yes we have an exit strategy. Will it happen over night - will plans change - yes they will. They did after WWII in Germany and Japan where we were in those countries for TEN years before they had a truly functioning government.

2) Yes it was necessary. It is necessary to bring about change in that region. The status quo that so many peopel advocate wasn't working and hasn't for decades. It has only been letting the problem fester. It's better to go in and operate than to wait.

3) The WMD - Clinton even said that Iraq had WMD, the UN felt that he had WMD, all intelligence said that Iraq had WMD - and I believe they did or they were attempting to get it. But it was mroe than about WMD and that isn't why I supported the war. I supported the war because of the acid baths and the torture chambers and the 2 million dead. It's funny how some people here criticize the US for supporting Hussein in the 80's and complain that we let him kill the kurds and just turned our back, but then they turn around and complain that we went in there now and took care of him. I seriuously doubt many people would have had a problem if Clinton had done this same thing - which he actually had in the plans.

4) There is only a few peopel attacking our troops really. Ae there still attacks - of course there are. They want us to fail. Theyu want to keep the UN out, they want to push us out. If they succeed in doing that - then the terrorists have one. The only thing to do is to get jobs, infastructure up in iraq. I don't care who does it. I don't care if it's Halliburton, I don't care - just as long as it gets done as soon as possible - because that is the ONLY way we will win the peace.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's funny how some people here criticize the US for supporting Hussein in the 80's and complain that we let him kill the kurds and just turned our back, but then they turn around and complain that we went in there now and took care of him.

As one of those people, I should point out that I rejoiced the day Saddam was hauled out of his lice-infested hole. It is good and may well have positive ramifications around the world.

I also demonstrated against our support for Iraq in the 80s; I would have supported intervention then, perhaps even after Gulf War I (though by then most of those 2 million you quote had already been killed).

What I object to is our leaders' hypocrisy and disingenuousness. "Democracy for Iraqis" is merely the only fig leaf that Bush and his oil industry club members have got left to cover their naked ambition and greed.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I also demonstrated against our support for Iraq in the 80s; I would have supported intervention then, perhaps even after Gulf War I (though by then most of those 2 million you quote had already been killed).

Actually that is incorrect - most of the genocide has been going on since Gulf War I.

What I object to is our leaders' hypocrisy and disingenuousness. "Democracy for Iraqis" is merely the only fig leaf that Bush and his oil industry club members have got left to cover their naked ambition and greed.

I guess that is your opinion. The US won't get anything from that oil - compared to what we put into "get it" as you think. The ultimate goal, and sorry you can't see it, is to bring democracy to the region. It also helped to scare Qadaffi. Iran, if everything goes right in Iraq and Afganistan - will be surrounded by three democracies. This wil hopefully push them over into a true democracy. This will also put pressure on other countries in the region.

You wouldn't like anything that Bush does - pure and simple. Europe doesn't like his attitide because he doesn't water things down in a lot of pilitical speak like Clinton did. He says what he feels and that is it. He rubs Europeans the wrong way.

[LutraMage]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
When have we ever seen such reports??

Gaffer, the BBC has many faults (believe me, many, many, many faults) but we do get to see things from the other guy's point of view quite frequently.

[LutraMage]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
"Democracy for Iraqis" is merely the only fig leaf that Bush and his oil industry club members have got left to cover their naked ambition and greed.

Gaffer, this seems just an itsy bitsy teenie weenie bit of a biased view. Bush is no saint, but perhaps for once we can just applaud him doing the right thing - for whatever reason?

[The Gaffer]

I do, and have on this forum. In fact, I did in that same post you just quoted, though perhaps indirectly.

I agree with you that consequences and motives are different things. I also accept that mine is a "biased" point of view regarding the Bush administration's motives (is there any other kind?). However, nothing that has happened since the invasion of Iraq has presented me with any evidence to change it.

The real test will come when the Iraqis vote in an Islamist government.