Shows how much that left-leaning liberal loonie bin knows about the US military. Most of the kids in the junior ranks are from middle class homes and have high school diplomas. The vast majority of senior enlisted have college degrees, many of them advanced degrees, earned while on active duty.
Nice try, HJ, but no cigar.
Well Tim, It may have been a utopia for the Muslims, I don’t think Spain or the rest of Europe thought it much of a utopia with religious fanatics constantly nipping at their heels. Sure it flourished for a little while, but as is the way of extremists, order broke down and infighting took over until the Spanish with the help of the rest of Europe were strong enough to take back their country.
it’s a shame that Islam couldn’t do in the middle east what they accomplished in conquered Spanish territory for a brief period. They may have been a little more respected than they are now. The middle east is just as example of where Islam heads when given half a chance. It’s probably a good thing they hadn’t discovered airplanes and gunpowder yet.
Kinda funny that it all turns around to the US when one describes the current state of affairs when the only constant is this whole thing is Islam. The current make-up in the middle east was created by the League of Nations after WWI. The US had no hand in that either. But like you said, some people just bury their head in the sand and think it can be just wished away. Or maybe I should say 'Intellectualized" away.
The “stab in the back” theory! Much beloved of right wing loonies. We would have won except the (insert enemy of choice) stabbed us in the back!
Anyone who thinks we would have won in vietnam is delusional, flat out delusional. Won what, exactly? It was never about communism, it was always always about the Vietnamese people’s desire to have an independent country. We took over the job of occupation and propping up lame governments after the french failed at it. It was a mistake. We could have stayed in Vietnam for 100 years and we’d still have faced constant attacks by Vietnamese nationalists, like the French in Algeria or the Russians in Afghanistan or the Brits in Ireland.
But hey, we would have kept a movement for independence down! Gee, great!
Countries make mistakes. Even the US is not perfect. Hard to accept, I know. Much easier to talk about “the stab in the back.”
Here–this is my professional take on Vietnam. Accept it or reject it, but it’s based in pretty careful consideration of the evidence
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/vietnam/lecture.html
I can add that my father in law, a retired Marine Lt. general who served once in Korea and twice in vietnam, read it and agrees with it.
No one said The US doesn’t make mistakes. It’s run by people and people make mistakes. Every war we ever fought is full of blunders. It’s called the “fog of war”. The best laid war plans usually go right out the window as soon as the first shot is fired. We had the chance to prop up a Communist Viet Nam and we chose not to after WWII. Was that a mistake? Probably. Was it a mistake to get involved in the fracas? Probably. A democratic president didn’t think so. Was it a mistake to to try and micro-manage a war from the White House? Definitly! Was it a mistake to tie the hands of our combat troops with questionable “Rules of Engagement”? Probably. Was it a mistake to cut and run? Most definitly! What was delusional was thinking the South Vietnamese were up to the task of defending their own country by themselves. So we pulled the troops out and a bloodbath ensued. It just didn’t involve our blood.
General Giap has already stated that we had it won and he should know. After their '68 Tet offensive they were finished, ready to throw in the towel, they had shot their wad.
We had beaten the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong in just about every engagement we fought with them. They saw the American anti-war movement as the best place to put their money, hoping the American people would grow tired of the war. It worked.
mike omalley said:
Here--this is my professional take on Vietnam. Accept it or reject it, but it's based in pretty careful consideration of the evidencehttp://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/vietnam/lecture.html
I can add that my father in law, a retired Marine Lt. general who served once in Korea and twice in vietnam, read it and agrees with it.
Dear Mike,
I take it that you are a professor at GMU. Correct?
Do you know Walter E. Williams? Great sense of humor. His wife must have some thick skin.
I was looking for footnotes in your lecture.
Are on-line “hot links” the modern day “footnote”? Isn’t there a danger that what you’ve linked to will disappear?
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
I just read it it and it’s a pretty fair take on the situation and generally agree with your assesement. The only point I don’t agree on is whether we could have won it or not, since we’ll never know for sure. In 20-29 hindsight I think most of the military would agree with you
One paragraph stood out that I found particularly interesting involving Goldwaters statement of bombing back to the stone age that pretty much sums up what happened in WWII. But eventually we helped rebuild both countries and they became economic powerhouses out of the rubble. But again, we’ll never know.
As for soldiers getting spat on, that I would have to say happened. I know of one or 2 people that served in VN that it happened too. Fortunatly it never happened to me as I was medivaced out of VN on a military transport and went through military installations on my way back to the states. I didn’t have any contact with civilians till I was recovered enough to spend some time at home with my parents.
Your article does beg the question though of when is it time to get involved with another countries affairs that threaten ours or if we should. Viet Nam is just another book mark in that equation when we ask ourselves that question.
Thanks Mike. I’ll have to Bookmark that and read it again.
Steve Featherkile said:
Shows how much that left-leaning liberal loonie bin knows about the US military. Most of the kids in the junior ranks are from middle class homes and have high school diplomas. The vast majority of senior enlisted have college degrees, many of them advanced degrees, earned while on active duty.Nice try, HJ, but no cigar.
Ken Brunt said:
.................One paragraph stood out that I found particularly interesting involving Goldwaters statement of bombing back to the stone age that pretty much sums up what happened in WWII. But eventually we helped rebuild both countries and they became economic powerhouses out of the rubble. But again, we’ll never know.
…
Bombing back to the stone age had been replaced by spraying with Agent Orange. Nice big article about the effects of that in Vietnam and the parallels in Canada in the “Globe and Mail”. Also covers the machinations of the different US government departments to abrogate responsibility for the whole damn mess and the double/triple/quadruple talk/dealing that goes along with it.
I’m well aware of that, too HJ. I’m just lucky that I never ran into a situation over there that involved Agent Orange. I drove a tank and we pretty much stayed along the coast and didn’t venture to far into the jungles where it was used.
Damn gorgeous countryside BTW, looking back on it now I wish I had taken more photos.
Hey folks,
listening to the discussion makes me sick, i belief that live is the most important thing I have, giving it for any political leader or idea (left or right) seems way off dumb. I served for 20 years in a army, which by law was restricted to the own territory, was maintained just to protect the homeland. With this kind of army I have no problem, because i belief that we have the right to protect our selfs. Do not get me wrong, i do not say that the army is something bad, but the way we use it might be wrong.
It is true that the USA army is the strongest in the world, and it would be hard for others to defeat it. And because of that fact, it forces our enemy to fight as terrorists, and all of us should know that you can’t win a war against an army of terrorists or a Army like we met in Vietnam.
What is our latest war all about, freedom for others or simply oil we need to run our suburbans or the V8 gas guzzlers. Each time i have to remove my shoes in the airport, and with that pickup the pleasant fungus, i get the awareness that i lost a lot of that so important freedom. Looking back, i recognize that the USA is constant at war, even if it is just a cold war. Having this awareness i ask my self the question if it might be that we are the aggressor. My kids know the routine, it is easiest to give any blame to others, we are adults and should have the awareness that it is a healthy thing to question our on action.
think global Pius
Steve Featherkile said:Steve, my point is: there are only a few smart nations that have learned the lessons of history.
And your point is?..... :)
Lesson 1: War hurts both sides and is an utter waste of precious resources.
Lesson 2: War is an extension of failed trade relations and/or perceived incursion in one’s sphere of influence.
Lesson3: Trade and the resulting influence is preferable to war.
Hmmm … ever considered what the Chinese have been doing for quite some time? And what the Japanese are doing for even longer, not to mention the Germans? And holy Batman, sure looks like the Russians are slowly catching on, too.
So what’s next?
Ken Brunt said:Why not go back?
Damn gorgeous countryside BTW, looking back on it now I wish I had taken more photos.
From what I understand those coastlines today now sport some truely amazing vacation resorts now, and unlike the other 80% of the world, the dollar still goes a long way purchase wise.
mike omalley said:
Here--this is my professional take on Vietnam. Accept it or reject it, but it's based in pretty careful consideration of the evidencehttp://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/vietnam/lecture.html
I can add that my father in law, a retired Marine Lt. general who served once in Korea and twice in vietnam, read it and agrees with it.
Limited War
This didn’t refer to minimal impact on the homefront even though that was of course desirable and strived for.
Rather it meant limited as to objectives as well as geographical/political area. Korea was a limited war in that care was taken to assure the Soviet Union wouldn’t find it worthwhile to interfere directly. China’s entry was a miscalculation as their warnings against UN forces taking North Korea were not taken seriously.
Vietnam
US forces were prohibited from invading North Vietnam for the same reason, limited war, keep China from entering the war directly. Even bombing was limited somewhat to avoid sinking Russian ships and killing Russians. Such a war is impossible to win if your opponent is supplied from the outside by another power as well as given a relatively safe haven in the north. The idea of body counts to assess performance is of course ridiculous. No war has ever been won by not ocupying the enemy’s homeland so it is really not so remarkable that North Vietnam was able to hold out. Waging war in such a manner is tantamount to playing a chess game where your opponent is allowed to remove his pieces from the board only to re-enter on another edge whenever you get him in check. We have a similar problem now with Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s why only those people themselves can ultimately provide for their own security.
Dominoe Effect
A theory? Yes to a point but it was based, rather correctly or not, on past actions by the Soviets especially under Stalin. In Europe communist countries were all under direct Soviet rule except for Yugoslavia. Marshall Tito proclaimed his independence from the Kremilin and cooperated somewhat with the west. I can’t read the Kremlin’s mind but I have a hunch that they didn’t invade because they didn’t want to pick up the scepter from Tito and have to maintain order in an area noted for its ethnic hatreds. Too these problems would certainly have been exploited by the west.
The reasoning wasn’t therefore altogether so farfetched. The Soviets had no hesitancy about putting down the Hungarian uprising in 1956 or dragooning the Czechs and Poles at the time.
Treatment of returning troops
You state that there is no evidence to support that troops were spat upon or made to feel unwelcome when they came home. I lived in the SF Bay Area at that time and spent quite a lot of time in Berkeley. Believe me those stories are true. You needn’t have been there to verify, a check of the Oakland Tribune for the era is full of examples. Even then I saw a number of things first hand that went unreported in the newspapers. I won’t go further into those things as the only doubt you stated was of the troops being spat upon.
My take with which you can agree or not. I have to leave so that’s all for now.
Once again I think you did a very credible job on your presentation.
Nice idea, but I’ve already seen it although I won’t rule it out. I’m now concentrating on seeing more of this country.
Thanks to all those who took the time to read my lecture and thank you for the comments!
I wrote that about ten years ago, and I keep meaning to go back and add a paragraph like this:
“the counter argument suggests that containment worked–the goal was to thwart and destroy the Soviet Union without all out nuclear war, and indeed the Soviet Union, and global communism, has collapsed. By fighting a series of overt and covert “proxy wars” as in Vietnam, the US outlasted the Soviet Union and brought an end to the Cold War. In that sense Vietnam might be considered a lost battle in an overall victory.”
Regarding the spitting, I’ve brought this up in grad classes a lot–we get a lot of retired and active duty military in our grad program, because of our location, and we get a lot of Vietnam vets. Their feelings are mixed. Some insist spitting never happened, that they came home, kissed their families, and got on with their lives. Others say they heard about incidents of spitting from a guy, etc. etc. Others say while they didn’t experience spitting or “baby killer,” they did experience getting the “hairy eyeball” or a bad vibe from people when they wore their uniform. My father in law, the Marine, says, and this is close to a quote, “Bullshit. Never happened. You would have read about broken jaws and blood on the floor.” One of my favorite students, a former Green Beret who rose to colonel, says he thinks it did happen but also that lots of people are fakers–that most soldiers were “REMFS” who didn’t see combat, and they have invented these stories as an act of self aggrandizement. I was in middle school when the war ended, but when my Uncle came back from vietnam as a Gunnery Sgt., we made a banner and had a party in his honor.
My feeling is that my father in law is probably right. I know that were I twenty years old and coming back in uniform, I’d have punched the lights out of anyone who spit at me. But I know people who were anti-war in the 60s who think that yes, soldiers were looked on with disrespect and suspicion, and they regret it. I think that’s probably it–people came back to a different world than they left, and they were looked on with some distrust and unease, and their experience of war didn’t match their expectations.
Mike,
an excellent synopsis of the conflict and American anti-communist thinking in the forties and fifties and the consequences that exist to this day. As well as Ho Chi Minh there was also Fidel castro who sought U.S. assistance in his freedom fight and also when the choice was made between Mao Tse Tung and Chang Kai Shek, the American philosophy lead them to invest their effort into supporting the Nationalist (non-communist) regime. Post China 1949 history and the repressive regime in Formosa (Taiwan) would reflect the views held over the treatment of Ho Chi Minh. Taiwanese history and reunification will always be hampered by the repressive Nationalist Taiwanese government.
The American 'war machine' is simply that - a machine and considered invincible. When American aircraft were bombing Vietnam back to the stoneage, the VC were retaliating with stoneage implements. Reports of bows and arrows bringing down U.S. helicopters. Alas, the end result was "if only we could have done what we wanted to. Our hands were tied behind our backs. We could not win in those circumstances." For goodness sake the air force was bombing the country out of existence on a daily basis. Maybe the then leaders could write a book on "How to make friends and influence people." Would have been a best seller.
Not all the war was fought from the air and many thousands of ground troops returned psychologically scarred and from press reports were met with open hostility from the American population. In Australia, the soldiers' commitment and sacrifice to the Vietnam war, was not officially recognised until around twenty years later when they were allowed to march on our official day to mark those who have died in battle. As draftees they were required to serve in the war, whether just or unjust. The 'war' achieved only one thing, it amalgamated the Vietnamese people in their struggle for independence. Imagine how the British troops felt when drafted in the early 1770's, to fight the colonial terrorists in the colony of America, that were fighting for their independence. From all accounts that war was also as brutal and aggressive against the colonials as the American campaign against the Vietnamese. One would think that a country born out of a struggle for its own independence would have sympathy for newly emerging countries seeking their own independence. Alas, self interest gets in the way of any country that goes to the 'aid' of another.REMFS…now theres a term I haven’t heard in a long time. They were always easy to pick out stateside. Whereas most veterans didn’t really care to talk about their experiences with others, “REMFS” were more than ready to delight their listeners with their “combat” experiences…
Boy, Tim, you really don’t like us, do you?
Arrows bringing down a helicopter…even Rambo couldn’t do that.