Today's Similarity with Vietnam

[DaveP]

I have been watching the excellent PBS programme on the Vietnam war on Netflix.
Although I was of draft age (had I been a US citizen), we did not get the full detail at that time in the UK.  I never got involved in any of the demos in London because I didn't like the type of people involved in them. (Anarchists and Revolutionaries)

A few observations:

In many ways the US army was like the French/British/US Armies in WW1, they didn't find a winning formula until it was too late in the game.  Just like in WW1, the actual soldiers performed a lot better than their generals and politicians!

The many US presidents who tried to deal with it were at their wits end and generally powerless.

The protesters in 1968 reminded me of today's anti Trump protesters, one even had a "Resist" placard.  The division in US society was maybe even worse than it is today.

Even now after 50 years, I wonder what would have happened to the world, if the US had not got involved?  I know at least 56,000 guys would have been alive now, but without that proxy war, would there have been a hot war that turned nuclear?
I guess we will never know, but for the families who lost their sons, it would be good to know that their sacrifice saved humanity from something far worse.  I'm thinking ultimate Domino Theory here.

I had no idea that wealthy families and college students were able to get draft deferments and it was only the college drop-outs who got called up to fight.

I was surprised that Ho Chi Minh was only a figurehead and that he was reluctant to get into combat with the US: That was forced on him by others.

Anyway it was a very well produced historical programme that was not dumbed down like much that is produced nowadays.  It fills in a great deal of the background and secret details that we were not aware of at the time.  I recommend it.

DaveP

 

[PRR]

> The many US presidents who tried to deal with it were at their wits end

They and their advisors (Henry) were witless.

40+ years later, AFAIK they thought they were fighting for rubber trees.

VietNam was the major source of rubber before the upset of WWII. France, actually Michelin, beat the VietNamese to produce cheap rubber, regardless of the impact on the people or the trees. Japan's take-over in WWII forced development of artificial rubbers, better than natural. Postwar Michelin moved back but realized it was never going to work again. They wisely left.

Various tensions from French and Japanese abuses meant VietNam "needed" a civil war. They could not retaliate against France or Japan, but they could fight each other. Of course both sides sought outside help. They probably mentioned rubber trees.

Bit by bit, the US fell into this hole. Moral support incited reciprocity from Russia and China, which escalated to indiscriminate carpet-bombing.

If the US had kept out, VietNam would have had the same turmoil they had after the US left, just a little earlier, and without the stigma which has kept them out of the mainsteam for decades.

Similar factors in Laos, Cambodia, Burma etc led to similar upsets and genocide, despite much less US involvement.

"Domino Theory" was totally bogus. So frikkin what if some small nations "go commie"? But the 1950s US was so Commie-Phobic that this stupid thought made sense through the 1960s.

Aside from 50+K men and many women, some I knew, and many times more returned alive but damaged in body and mind (also revulsion at home), we would not have thrown a million pounds of copper and millions of beer-cans in a swamp.

 

[CJ]

Everything that could go wrong went wrong in that war.  One of the biggest problems was that the country was too close to China and Russia.

Millions of people died besides the US soldiers.  That whole area was like one big death trap.  Even after the war was over millions of people died on overcrowded boats.  After the North took over, the economy faltered, so now what they have is basically the old economy being supervised by the North.  In other words, they would have ended up at the same place they are at now had they simply let the North take over, only their would have been infinitely less suffering on both sides. Very sad all the way around.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Opinions vary...  (you can't say PBS without BS). It doesn't seem very similar to me.

The world has been all about competing world powers since WWII. China didn't like France in their back yard, let alone the US.  (That much is similar).

I will not insult you with Viet Nam dumbed down into 25 words or less, but IMO it was actually lost back home on the evening news when media broadcast ugly images of brutal conflict into our living rooms every night. This was something we didn't get with such visceral impact from previous wars. WWII and Korea were equally brutal and ugly but didn't show up in our living room every night to ruin our home life tranquility. I suspect modern terrorist organizations learned lessons from this and strive to recreate similar disturbing intrusions into our daily lives, with high profile terror events that media can't help but to deliver into our homes, to diminish our will to resist them.

We (the military) could have squashed the NVA and viet cong like bugs if we had the public will to unleash hell on them. Indeed it was a failure by our political leaders to manage this (public sentiment, et al). Instead it turned into an embarrassing cluster fxsk (which actually may be the proper military term.)

I was more than 100% opposed to fighting in Viet Nam since I was drafted in 1970 (near the end) and had skin in the game. In hindsight we should never ever do anything half-axxed like that (not unlike the surge light in Afghanistan).  The more recent campaign against ISIS/ISIL in Syria/Iraq was a better example of proper military execution using ballistic force to secure a clearly defined result with minimal collateral damage.

As Sun Tzu said several centuries ago, keep the politicians away from waging war.  Tell the general(s) what you want them to accomplish and stay out of their way. Politicians blew it more times than I can count. 

I knew a number of viet  nam veterans, while I didn't personally have to go over there.  I served time with many soldiers who were waiting for their conscription/enlistment to expire stateside, after first completing their 12 month tour fighting over in VN.

Back in the late 60s before I was drafted I worked with a guy who was US special forces (green beret). He served in VN training/advising (cough) Hmong tribesmen in the mountainous region of VN, long after France gave up and pulled out leaving the Hmong to fend for themselves. 

There is an old argument in military circles that we didn't really learn the lessons from VN repeating some old mistakes in Iraq. I am not following this very closely but there is now debate about publishing a rigorous review of military strategy and execution in the Iraq war. Some in military circles probably fear some embarrassment but unless we study history we are subject to repeat the old mistakes. 

I am disappointed that I lost a couple years of my young adult life, but angry that it was pretty much for naught. Of course for many (RIP) it was the ultimate sacrifice, so I can't really complain.

JR

PS: speaking of rubber, I recall at Peavey when one inexperienced purchasing guy, bought some cheap guitars made in VN from old rubber plantation trees...  not very good guitars. 

 

[DaveP]

IMO it was actually lost back home on the evening news when media broadcast ugly images of brutal conflict into our living rooms every night.

I agree with that, I got that impression too.

It was a strange sad irony that the openness and transparency of US media was actually helping the North Vietnam cause, not the US one.  The exact same thing happened in the UK when we were in Afghanistan and Iraq with you guys.  The bad guys use our democracy against us, something the protesters don't seem to be aware of.

The more recent campaign against ISIS/ISIL in Syria/Iraq was a better example of proper military execution using ballistic force to secure a clearly defined result with minimal collateral damage.

I agree with that, some lessons were learned at last.

DaveP

 

[cyrano]

It's still the same. Nothing changed...

Just a few examples:

- There's a US trade embargo on Somalia. The country is the sole mass producer of quality Arabic gum. Coca Cola needs that gum. So the French are playing intermediary and all's well. Of course, the French pay very little for the gum, since there's no other way to export it. The gum collectors don't even make enough to stay alive. Why do you think piracy is so rampant in Somalia? Remember there's very little other produces in that drought ridden part of Africa.

- Khadaffi was eliminated. You'd say "good, a brutal dictator gone". Only the country is much worse off now, in the hands of criminals and extremists. The real reason Khadaffi had to go, was the pan-African organisation. That organisation was finally getting most African countries on one line, for education, healthcare and defense against predatory corporations. It was bankrolled by Kahdaffi's money, in the form of gold. Of course, French and US corporations didn't want a strong Africa. So Khadaffi was eliminated and the gold vanished. Weapons from Kahadaffi's weaponry started showing up allover the Middle East days after he was gone.

And the strategy is failing again. Not the commies from Russia this time, but the Chinese are slowly taking over Africa, just like they are taking over Indonesia.

 

[DaveP]

Why do you think piracy is so rampant in Somalia?

I thought it was because large scale fishing by other nations (China?) took away their livelihoods.

I agree that it is a waste of time removing tyrants like Khaddafi, the evil just comes out in another form, like the weapons turn up in CAR.
The Russians understand this better than us, that's why they backed Assad.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

It's still the same. Nothing changed...

Just a few examples:

- There's a US trade embargo on Somalia. The country is the sole mass producer of quality Arabic gum. Coca Cola needs that gum. So the French are playing intermediary and all's well. Of course, the French pay very little for the gum, since there's no other way to export it. The gum collectors don't even make enough to stay alive. Why do you think piracy is so rampant in Somalia? Remember there's very little other produces in that drought ridden part of Africa.

I am on the record here multiple times about the need for rule of law. 

Piracy is rampant in Somalia because they can.  :

- Khadaffi was eliminated. You'd say "good, a brutal dictator gone". Only the country is much worse off now, in the hands of criminals and extremists. The real reason Khadaffi had to go, was the pan-African organisation. That organisation was finally getting most African countries on one line, for education, healthcare and defense against predatory corporations. It was bankrolled by Kahdaffi's money, in the form of gold. Of course, French and US corporations didn't want a strong Africa. So Khadaffi was eliminated and the gold vanished. Weapons from Kahadaffi's weaponry started showing up allover the Middle East days after he was gone.

Again I have been pretty clear about this... Gaddafi had voluntarily given up his WMD program after seeing how it turned out for Saddam. He was no longer a serious security threat to the west. IIRC that was an example of the Obama administration "leading from behind". My sense was that the EU precipitated his being deposed. We didn't actively participate in the fighting but supplied (and restocked)  $millions in munitions to NATO partners.  Indeed Libya is worse now than before, an example why regime change is not as simple as just removing the bad guys. As Powell famously said,"if you break it you own it". (Iraq is still finding its sea legs as a fledgling democracy, with neighbors who are very apprehensive about a successful democracy next door setting a good example for their citizens.) 

And the strategy is failing again. Not the commies from Russia this time, but the Chinese are slowly taking over Africa, just like they are taking over Indonesia.

Yes China is feeling their economic wheaties, expanding their sphere of influence into so china sea. Their "Belt and road" initiative is a massive infrastructure investment into the old silk road trade routes, no doubt to buy them new customers and expand economic growth, and more dominance over world trade. The Chinese are long term thinkers, looking for more trade to keep their growing middle class fat and happy (not a democracy but public sentiment still matters).

Nature abhors a vacuum and when the US withdrew military power, Russia and China were happy to expand into the spaces. This does not make me more optimistic about the future.  Just like I really hated being drafted, I do not care for our expensive military presence all around the world, but IMO better us than the next two alternatives. The world will not magically become peaceful without a cop on the beat. It is better today than it ever was, but bad actors are leveraging new technology to be even more dangerous (like terrorists and the WWW). 

JR

 

[cyrano]

I thought it was because large scale fishing by other nations (China?) took away their livelihoods.

That contributed too. The largest fishing fleet in the world is still Spanish. I don't know if they operated on the Somali coast, but they seem to be everywhere. Even in the Antarctic.

I agree that it is a waste of time removing tyrants like Khaddafi, the evil just comes out in another form, like the weapons turn up in CAR.
The Russians understand this better than us, that's why they backed Assad.

DaveP

It takes a brutal chief to keep Arabs in line. While Khadaffi was a dictator, he did some good for his people. Health care was one thing. It's all gone now. Resulting in even more refugees heading to Europe and providing a perfect base station for the human traffickers.

 

[cyrano]

Gaddafi had voluntarily given up his WMD program after seeing how it turned out for Saddam.

There was no WMD program. All that was a fabrication.

He was no longer a serious security threat to the west.

He's never been a threat to the west. He was a threat to big corporations, plundering Africa.

IIRC that was an example of the Obama administration "leading from behind". My sense was that the EU precipitated his being deposed. We didn't actively participate in the fighting but supplied (and restocked)  $millions in munitions to NATO partners.

I have no idea who did what precisely. I just figure it's decided when something needs to be done, who will carry it out this time and that's usually the one who can take the bad press and won't face internal opposition.

Indeed Libya is worse now than before, an example why regime change is not as simple as just removing the bad guys. As Powell famously said,"if you break it you own it". (Iraq is still finding its sea legs as a fledgling democracy, with neighbors who are very apprehensive about a successful democracy next door setting a good example for their citizens.)

Iraq is very far from a democracy. The internal struggle just restarted after the US pulled out. It's still in the hands of extremist groups, financed by Saudi's. The only part of the country that resembles a democracy, is the northeast, Kurdish country. And the Saudi's and the Turks would be very glad if they could commit another genocide there.

Yes China is feeling their economic wheaties, expanding their sphere of influence into so china sea. Their "Belt and road" initiative is a massive infrastructure investment into the old silk road trade routes, no doubt to buy them new customers and expand economic growth, and more dominance over world trade. The Chinese are long term thinkers, looking for more trade to keep their growing middle class fat and happy (not a democracy but public sentiment still matters).

They're buying their way into the mines. And it's not diamonds they're interested in.

Nature abhors a vacuum and when the US withdrew military power, Russia and China were happy to expand into the spaces. This does not make me more optimistic about the future.  Just like I really hated being drafted, I do not care for our expensive military presence all around the world, but IMO better us than the next two alternatives. The world will not magically become peaceful without a cop on the beat. It is better today than it ever was, but bad actors are leveraging new technology to be even more dangerous (like terrorists and the WWW). 

JR

The two alternatives (don't forget India), weren't interested in having influence in the rest of the world, military speaking. They only became interested because the US was at their door.

To give you an idea about military strength, the number of aircraft carriers in the world's military:

- USA: 12 + a number that could be resurrected in a few years.
- UK: 2, one is ancient
- Russia: 1 and it's out of service for a long time
- China: 1, bought from the Russians, and they're building a second one.

No other countries come close.

The same goes for nukes, only Israel is in the top five there. And the same goes for all other arms.

That's one side of the story. But the USA has also "relocated" numerous people to start military bases all over the world. No other nation has done that...

 

[JohnRoberts]

There was no WMD program. All that was a fabrication.

? Saddam's was arguably on hold, Gadaffi was still trying, until he stopped.

He's never been a threat to the west. He was a threat to big corporations, plundering Africa.

I'm not big on conspiracy theories.

I have no idea who did what precisely. I just figure it's decided when something needs to be done, who will carry it out this time and that's usually the one who can take the bad press and won't face internal opposition.

Iraq is very far from a democracy. The internal struggle just restarted after the US pulled out.

The massive shia majority is struggling with democracy after years of minority sunni rule. Too much history to easily forget.

It's still in the hands of extremist groups, financed by Saudi's.

Iran is not sitting by passively, but supporting shia factions (while the majority should not need any support). Iran wants to control them.

The only part of the country that resembles a democracy, is the northeast, Kurdish country. And the Saudi's and the Turks would be very glad if they could commit another genocide there.

we finally agree on something, you forgot to mention that Iran and Syria have no love for the Kurds either.

They're buying their way into the mines. And it's not diamonds they're interested in.

Its about natural resources and commerce. China has even invested in mining in Afghanistan, before the country is stable (probably dealing with regional war lords for security)

The two alternatives (don't forget India), weren't interested in having influence in the rest of the world, military speaking. They only became interested because the US was at their door.

India is expanding their navy responding to China expanding their influence into the So Pacific after we withdrew.

To give you an idea about military strength, the number of aircraft carriers in the world's military:

- USA: 12 + a number that could be resurrected in a few years.
- UK: 2, one is ancient
- Russia: 1 and it's out of service for a long time
- China: 1, bought from the Russians, and they're building a second one.

No other countries come close.

The same goes for nukes, only Israel is in the top five there. And the same goes for all other arms.

That's one side of the story. But the USA has also "relocated" numerous people to start military bases all over the world. No other nation has done that...

Yes, like I said, this is a massive expense that we could better use internally, but I don't like the changes we see from just two administration terms of softer military presence.  I do not believe the world's problem areas will spontaneously break out in peace, if we just look the other way and withdraw.

JR

 

[dmp]

I have been watching the excellent PBS programme on the Vietnam war on Netflix.

It is really good - I saw part of it when it first aired.  Ken Burns has made a lot of great documentaries.
I didn't know before seeing it about the Nixon had sabotaged peace efforts before the election.

Read about the Pentagon Papers and Nixon's battle with the press. History rhymes.

Even with 20/20 hindsight it's amazing people can't recognize how many mistakes have been made with interventionist foreign policy. Starting wars that turn into debacles - from Vietnam to Iraq / Afghanistan.  Somehow people can justify them with a hypothetical worse scenario.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It is really good - I saw part of it when it first aired.  Ken Burns has made a lot of great documentaries.
I didn't know before seeing it about the Nixon had sabotaged peace efforts before the election.

If that was true I would be really pissed off because I wasn't drafted until 1970 (by President Nixon), so ending it in 1968 before the election would make drafting me unnecessary. 

opinions vary... https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/09/dont_blame_nixon_for_scuttled_peace_overture_127667.html

Read about the Pentagon Papers and Nixon's battle with the press. History rhymes.

Don't have to read about it, I lived through it... major 1st amendment case. But it demonstrates that government leakers have been around forever.

Even with 20/20 hindsight it's amazing people can't recognize how many mistakes have been made with interventionist foreign policy. Starting wars that turn into debacles - from Vietnam to Iraq / Afghanistan.  Somehow people can justify them with a hypothetical worse scenario.

For the record President Kennedy sent 400 special forces troops to south vietnam in the early 1960s... (my green beret friend) and IMO this qualifies as a half-axxed approach. As we got sucked in President Johnson escalated, but his heart wasn't really in it (more half-axx policy). Kennedy was actually ex-military so might have had a decent strategy but his administration ended badly, leaving weak hands in charge.

Nixon was just doing what politicians do, but he did not prevent peace... there was no peace to get without surrender. Shortly later we left with our tail between our legs... Saigon fell in 1975 but it was over long before that. US army was already winding down and reducing forces while I was in (early 70s).

JR

 

[Speedskater]

This Sunday, Rachel Maddow is doing a TV special about the Vietnam war and collusion.

"Betrayal: The Plot That Won the White House"
9:00 PM on MSNBC

Rachel Maddow presents a true story of political intrigue; including firsthand accounts from journalists, history-makers and family members, Maddow unweaves the web that was the 1968 presidential election.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This Sunday, Rachel Maddow is doing a TV special about the Vietnam war and collusion.

"Betrayal: The Plot That Won the White House"
9:00 PM on MSNBC

Rachel Maddow presents a true story of political intrigue; including firsthand accounts from journalists, history-makers and family members, Maddow unweaves the web that was the 1968 presidential election.

If there was collusion during Viet Nam war it was between the political left like "Hanoi Jane" (Fonda), news media, and N. Viet Nam.

For those who don't remember that was a NVA anti-aircraft battery, like the one that shot down sen John McCain' plane.

I'm sure Maddow's audience will eat up the conspiracy spin (I would not be in that audience).

JR