The Vietnam War still looms very large in the United States military’s collective understanding of history. So large that, about 15 years after the war’s end and a couple of years after the triumph of Desert Storm, Vietnam occupied a large part of the classroom portion of the US Air Force’s basic training curriculum. I know, because in 1993 I was an enlisted airman undergoing basic at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.
When I attended basic in 1993, the military more or less divided history into two eras: Before Vietnam and After Vietnam. Before Vietnam, the military teaches lessons from the Civil War forward through both world wars and touches lightly on the Korean War. All of those wars come with the feelings one would expect from learning about victories: Americans in arms stood astride the world, fought evil, and kept the world free. Our Army and Marines serve as tripwires protecting innocent people and posing a deterrent to all threats, our Navy keeps the seas safe for global trade and communication, and our Air Force commands the heights from space on down. It’s a stirring picture for a young airman, and I had graduated college with a history degree prior to joining up.
The After Vietnam classwork taught different lessons. America intervened for questionable reasons, was unsure of her strategy, and lost. I never got the sense from the the official military curriculum that fighting in Vietnam served much of a larger strategic purpose. We learned about some of the landmarks, Tet and Operation Linebacker, but not about what the war won, because we lost.
Vietnam did serve a stategic purpose, of course. It was a local civil war with a global spin. The war there was, from the American leadership’s point of view at the time, about halting the spread of international Communism. Communism was an existential threat to our way of life. The Cold War had dominated U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II. Vietnam was one theater in the Cold War, the one we happened to lose while winning the overall war. But that story is hardly ever told anymore, and many veterans who came home from that defeat found themselves scorned by a large slice of society and bearing the stigma of, in John Kerry’s words, having behaved in a fashion reminiscent of Jenjis Khan on behalf of a mistake. Vietnam Syndrome was not so much born in the 1960s and 1970s hippie communes as it was born in the voice of an aristocratic Bostonian who trashed all of the Vietnam War’s nobler purposes and proposed that a generation of “new soldiers” should fight against American interventions at home. Kerry has spent most of the years since then marrying rich and comparing every possible conflict to the one that scarred him and upon which he built his career.
3 purple hearts,no blood! Bob Dole.
You say Obama is out of the mainstream, yet he’s managed to win 2 elections by a sizable margin, in part campaigning on his foreign policy.
Which ironically, isn’t any different than Bush’s in practice. You seem to be acting like Obama is afraid of using the military, but we are still in Afghanistan, we fought in Libya, we’re doing something or other with Syria, we’ve got troops in Yemen and Somalia, we’re gearing up for fighting in Mali.
I wish he did pay more attention to Viet Nam. We lost there, and how did it turn out? Just fine, actually. They figured out themselves that communism didn’t work. The worst thing to happen in the area was the Khmer Rouge, which was largely our fault. The Vietnamese stopped that.
That’s the problem with this country, we seem to be hell bent on telling other people what to do and how they should live our lives, even though we have massive problems here at home.
I realize everyone who writes for this site just seems to be jonesing for a war with Iran, but Bush could have done that at any time while he was in office. The Iranians were still doing the same things then as they were now.
You sound kind of like that Ron guy.
1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
- Ronald Reagan
Unlike so many others, Ronald Reagan learned the lessons of Vietnam and would never have gotten us into exceedingly lengthy and largely counter productive wars like Afcrapistan and Iraq, not for more than a few months and far different wars anyway.
In fact, President Reagan didn’t.
When 241 Marines were killed by a terrorist attack in Lebanon, President Reagan kept his eye on the ball (the Cold War against the U.S.S.R.)–and wisely refrained from massive retaliation in Lebanon.
For this, William Kristol (The Weekly Standard) attacked him strongly. Kristol said that Reagan should have: Invaded Lebanon; wiped out the terrorists; and imposed a new pluralistic democratic government. Essentially the same prescription as Kristol had pushed for Iraq.
If Reagan had done what Kristol wanted, Reagan would have ended up just like Bush did: Highly unpopular and widely regarded as a failure.
Ronald Reagan put those Marines there with no achievable mission and totally inadequate force protection. The guards were not even allowed loaded weapons. Then when they were attacked he “wisely” retreated even as the Hezzies captured and tortured Americans at will. His response? Iran-Contra.
He has his creator to answer to now I suppose but I dont know how he slept at night with the blood of those Americans on his hands. Same goes for his great Sec Def, Casper Weinberger.
Yep, it was and often is the ROE, and half arse-ing that is the real problem.
Im reminded of what the Soviet’s did when their guys were fu cked with by the Hizzies. They cut his head and gonads off and stuffed his gonads in his mouth and rolled his head into the Hezzie headquarters. The Russians never had problems again.
The Root ’83
Indeed, it was the unlearned lessons from “The ‘Nam” that had everything to do with the debacle in Beirut Lebanon…
Namely, what will always happen on the battlefield when you let your political fear of what THE LIBERAL MEDIA will do to undermine your efforts, if you dare treat the situation like an ACTUAL military enterprise. The lesson from ‘Nam and Beirut is, greater tragedies will ALWAYS occur when you worry about “the pretty people” on the nightly news, who disapprove of your politics anyway… so why bother?
In Beirut, some very nice older gentlemen (in slacks and polo shirts) taught us 19-20 year old Jar-heads how to identify the unique characteristics of Russian, Syrian and Iranian (weapons) containers being off-loaded from planes on to trucks, at Beirut Airport… We dutifully watched for what they told us to look for, and reported how many trucks, carried away how many of these containers, every few days.
Funny how those nice gentlemen in slacks and polo’s knew IN ADVANCE which flights, what airlines, and which part of the airport this activity would likely take place, so that we Marines could observe and verify for them…. but no one was allowed to SAY OR DO anything about it. Because the Truth, that Muslim Fanatics are “at perpetual war” with the West, cannot be mentioned, and the “civil war” meme has to be perused, lest The Media call you a warmonger and REALLY undermine your efforts
So, when we began to take (non-fatal) casualties from sporadic “sniper fire” from the MUSLIM guys who RECEIVED those fresh new weapons (the ones we watched get transported right THROUGH our own “position”?), we were not allowed to return fire on them. We could have easily maneuvered into a more “agresssive posture” that would have deterred these acts without requiring a full-on “combat assault” their positions, but no. We cant let The Press see that.
We were told to “stand fast” and ‘hunker down” to avoid any “perceptions of escalating intent” on our part, because Politics, and “news images”, don’t you know, dictate Military Action.
Well, sure enough, the guys taking pot-shots at us with impunity from LESS THAN 400 meters away, eventually felt so comfortably safe, they became Forward Observers for the MORTAR FIRE we started getting next…Mortar Fire that eventually produced some Marine FATAILITIES. We could see them, with binoculars and radios calling and adjusting fire, all within easy rifle range (for us, but not them) but again, we were told “no”.
No small-arms fire from the Company/Platoon level was allowed. It was deemed “too risky” for civilians “downrange”. Too difficult, someone outside The Corps decided, for Marine Corps marksmen who are TRAINED to regularly hit targets at 500 yards with plain old Iron Sights. It would “look bad” on the news if Marines ever fired weapons at the enemy…it would “look like Vietnam”… like we were “getting into a war” or something, and that was political suicide.
Well then, can we have STA Platoon assets (Surveillance/target acquisition , a.k.a. snipers?) to take them out quietly??
No. Their Forward Observers are not FIRING at us, they are only TALKING TO SOMEONE….who MIGHT be firing at us….and the “Alleged Mortars” (and their operators) are themselves dug-in, down in the basements of blown-out buildings somewhere across town….so you cant “see” the Muslims shooting at you to return fire anyway….
What about the Daily Patrols in town? We have Comm with them, cant THEY look for the Mortar Teams when we have incoming fire ? Nope. They are ordered to STAY OUT of neighborhoods where they hear any “weapons firing”, so just S.T.F.U. and stop asking for “trouble”, you crazy hotheaded Marines…take your casualties and don’t give The Press anything that looks “Vietnam-ish” to beat The Administration over the head with.
So, whenever we took Mortar fire (and had Marines KILLED by it) the “counter-battery fire” was limited to a single illumination round….one green (or red or white) parachute flare gently wafting directly over their Forward Observers Position, just to let them know they were “made” and hopefully “scare them away” while somebody on our side bleeds to death.
Thus went the dance, them sneaking up every day before dawn to try “dialing in” rounds onto one of our positions real quick before we could spot them, and call for ”The Flair”…. which told them the jig was up and they’d better leave just in case we grew a pair of balls and The State Department lets us fire an H/E round next. We called it the ”Hooterville Shuffle”
They didn’t dare ambush one of our patrols because they knew it was “too provocative” and they’d get their ass handed to them…. but they learned they could hurt us for “free”, for as long as it took us to spot them and call in their grid….at which point they were free to go without penalty and try again the next day…all while mapping our positions and dialing in the range and azimuth of every bunker we had, because we were too afraid of what a “response” would get reported as by The media.
We eventually had several open firefights with them before “The Blast”, but it was always treated it as “accidental” and we could never break The State Departments Hold on the ridiculous R.O.I.s that were DICTATED TO US FROM STATE, IN FEAR OF THE MEDIA, TO THE AGONY OF OUR OWN BATTALION CHAIN OF COMMAND THAT KNEW BETTER.
According to my parents glued to the TV that summer, ALL US casualties in Beirut, from Day One until the Barracks were bombed, (except for two E.O.D. guys killed handling mines) were reported as ”accidental deaths” coming from “stray rounds” that “somehow” struck the Marines area, as various “Lebanese militias” fought between themselves. …
When actually, it was a brush war, the first open fight between Muslim Terrorists, (mostly Iranian, with the PLO, Hezbolla, Hamas, Madi Army and some others shit-birds competing for “Street Cred” just like the original Mohammad) against the “combined” Western Judeo-Christian forces of Lebanon, Israel, France, and the US…as we desperately PRETENDED, to appease leftests in the Media clamoring to call Regan a “War Monger” , that is was a “civil war” we were “helping to solve” without “taking sides”.
The lesson from ‘Nam is the same lesson from Beirut, Iraq and Afghanistan:
When you conform your Combat Forces to minimize antagonizing the PET POLITICAL FANTASIES OF THE LEFTIST MEDIA THAT IS DETERMINED TO CALL YOU A DICK NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, you’ve already lost the war.
Sorry to hear about your BS experience The Root. Maybe something will sink in to sinz.
I had a buddy in Somolia with the same type BS. They landed and were based in some warehouses for 2 weeks. The local Muslim yahoos would fire on the warehouses and nobody was allowed to fire back or do anything about it. Then they were all packed up and left.
This BS has got to stop. You fire on US military and you die. Period. That will stop a whole heck of a lot of firing on US military, who sit around like Ducks at a Carnival shooting gallery, now. Peace through strength and ruthlessness.
You kick the enemies arse until total unconditional surrender and THEN you win hearts and minds after nobody has the will or ability left to inflict harm upon you. This is the successful model…ala Japan and Germany.
So…deleted my admittedly passionate reply…but leaves the post where the guy doesn’t care about 241 dead people…’cause Reagan walked on water.
Gotchya.
Here’s the REAL problem:
Ever since Ronald Reagan left office, the US has been fighting on the side of Muslims all over the world.
Muslims, BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION, are the eternal enemies of all non-Muslims.
Giving aid and comfort to any Muslim country, faction, or power is treason.
Chuck Hagel was one of the biggest shills for bombing the Christian Serbs so that the local branches of al Qaeda could set up strongholds in the Balkans.
I am old enough to remember when treason was a capital offense.
The US was fighting on the side of Muslims even in Reagan’s time. Taking up where Carter left off, Reagan’s CIA was arming the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan fighting against the Soviets. That project included close cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Even back then I had a sinking feeling this would come back to bite us.
That was back in the days when we thought we could “show them” they had nothing to fear from “The West”.
Back in the days when we thought “helping them” throw off a communist regime would enlighten their mind to we were not The Enemy they thought…and see totalitarian puppets are never really their friends…but we COULD be…If they would only look and see….
See the way we reconciled with Japan after such a “hate-filled racist fight to the very death”, and realize the positive future they could have with us a s friends.
Come into the Light, the Self Evident Truths of the way mankind should be, and CAN be, if you would only see.
We had dreams of success, based on fairness and truth…
Reagan, God bless him, was an Optimist.
He believed the simple “judeo-christian model” of sucess was universal.
But he was wrong.
That model of sucess only works with good people, of good character.
The Character must come first for the “method” to attach itself to.
And that Character DOES NOT EXIST in the Muslim World.
And it no longer exists in Leadership circles of the Western World Either.
Hence the moral social and financial mess we find ourselves now in.
The use of assignation drones is still being used as of 1/8/13 but you can’t find that in our media.
The drones are secretly meeting with their lovers? Wow, they’re more advanced than I thought.
Obama is out of the main-stream. He managed to win 2 elections by a microscopi margin, and scamming.
Good Lord did you re-write history:
“It turned out fine” – yea, except for the more than 100,000 people who were rounded up and placed in slave-like “re-education” camps. And that number, 100,000, is the LOWEST one I could find.
Villages who had supported the U.S. had their rice (their FOOD) taken from them, their livestock taken, and many former political officials were MURDERED. But, that’s “just fine”. What is WRONG with you!?
The “Khmer Rouge was largely our fault” – Are you freaking kidding me?! He was a communist, supported by the Vietnamese and Chinese communists. They stopped him because even in their twisted minds he was so over the top and had killed over 25% of the Cambodian population and even the liberal press was horrified by his actions and reported on it. There was a movie made about it. He was insane and making the communists look bad.
How, exactly, since we were GONE, was that OUR fault? Had we stayed, and supported the Khmer Rouge and then deposed him after he had committed mass genocide …. Would you be blaming the North Vietnamese?
“The Vietnamese stopped that” – yea, AFTER he had murdered so many people that the liberal press, which diligently scope locked on the Mai Lai massacre, but which had turned a blind eye to DOZENS of documented cases of similar massacres done by the Viet Cong, even the liberal press was mind-numbed-horrified by what was happening in Cambodia. It was making the already murderous-by-nature communists in Vietnam and everywhere else look really really bad.
Here the communists had won the war, and could now produce propaganda film after fake news and made-up statistics of how wonderful things were in Vietnam, and next door was some maniac who was doing what they had done, but with naked exuberance and not caring one whit about public relations – and he was doing it on an industrial scale. They didn’t CARE, they were EMBARRESED.
By the way genius, this same large scale murder industry was carried out in both Soviet Russia and Communist China but both those countries had pretty well sealed borders and were able to murder a combined total of 50-120 MILLIION of their own folk in relative obscurity for a really long time because apparently a few Soldiers murdering some innocent villagers in Mai Lai during war time was huge news, but wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians by “peace loving” communists was a non-story.
Those that were starved, beaten, worked to death, and watched their families tortured under communism and whose souls are now in heaven must be weeping at your willful ignorance.
Learn some history before spouting off.
Steve,
You are 100% right on target….
But of course you also know thats not the “official narrative”, right?
Actually, the rise of the Khmer Rouge to power really was the fault of the USA.
While Norodrom Siahnouk was the ruler of Cambodia, the Khmer was effectively neutralized.
Unfortunately for the Cambodians, Siahnouk refused to play ball with the USA and allowed the North Vietnamese to operate out of Cambodian bases. The CIA either sponsored (at worst) or condoned in advance (at best) a military coup. The military ousted Siahnouk and replaced him with CIA puppet Lon Nol. Despite receiving huge amounts of aid, the Nol regime was a disaster and was defeated by the even worse Khmer Rouge.
So if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?
“Our Army and Marines serve as tripwires protecting innocent people and posing a deterrent to all threats”
Oh sure. Now they serve as Human Sacrifices to the Most Holy Doctrine of COIN/”Winning Muslim Hearts and Minds” in The Trillion Dollar Bridge To Nowhere in Afcrapistan.
I agree with FeralCat on this one. See the latest episode of the super-popular NCIS, which I synopsized here. http://clarespark.com/2009/10/15/the-christianization-of-ziva-david-ncis/.
“our Air Force commands the heights from space on down”
Apparently not down to whatever elevation Benghazi is at.
“Vietnam did serve a stategic purpose, of course. It was a local civil war with a global spin. The war there was, from the American leadership’s point of view at the time, about halting the spread of international Communism. Communism was an existential threat to our way of life.”
Congress basically gave authorization for the Vietnam War with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, a resolution based on ‘events’, part of which were highly exaggerated and part of which never happened. 50,000 more Americans then went on to die – for nothing. “There is nothing new under the sun”.
“Indochina is devoid of decisive military objectives and the allocation of more than token US armed forces in Indochina would be a serious diversion of limited US capabilities” (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 26 May 1954).
“Vietnam in Retrospect: Could We Have Won?” from the US Army War College Quarterly, Winter 1996-97.
An excerpt – Norman Podhoretz, who believes that American intervention in the Vietnam War was “an attempt born of noble ideals and impulses,” has concluded that “the only way the United States could have avoided defeat in Vietnam was by staying out of the war altogether.” His judgment, in retrospect, appears to be as reasonable as any. The United States intervened in the Vietnam War on behalf of a weak and incompetent ally, and it pursued a conventional military victory against a wily, elusive, and extraordinarily determined opponent who shifted to ultimately decisive conventional military operations only after inevitable American political exhaustion undermined potentially decisive US military responses. Even had the United States attained a conclusive military decision, its cost would have exceeded any possible benefit. Vietnam was then, and remains today, a strategic backwater, and the US decision to fight there in the 1960s was driven by a doctrine of containing communism that in the 1950s was witlessly militarized and indiscriminately extended to all of Asia. Bernard Brodie observed in the early 1970s that it is now clear what we mean by calling the United States intervention in Vietnam a failure. We mean that at least as early as the beginning of 1968 even the most favorable outcome could not remotely be worth the price we would have paid for it.”
Also see, “Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam” by H. R. McMaster
With all do respect, McMaster’s book is not about why the war occurred, but how it was handled.
Truth be told, Vietnam was a war that should have never happened. I do not mean to say that it was not necessary – it was – only that it should never have gotten beyond advisers and airstrikes. Mark Moyar’s Triumph Forsaken is perhaps the best work on the subject. The McMaster’s book you mentioned is excellent for showing the piss poor management of the war; strategic micromanagement while using inadequate force to maintain a positive image for LBJ. McMaster’s opinions on the cause of the war are simply rehashes of what he was taught in the military (he was a colonel at the time); his expertise is in leadership, not diplomacy. Moyar points out that by 1965, strategy was more focused on exiting without losing face than actually winning, so there was never any effort to win; besides, doing so would make LBJ look bad. LBJ’s costly strategy worked, notice how Nixon is the one most associated with Vietnam? LBJ has a lot of blood on his hands.
As for the article’s questioning of the war’s influence today: veteran status does not necessarily mean you know what you are doing – much less having 3 purple hearts (you have to apply for them, you know). I suggest the author look at B.G. Burkett’s Stolen Valor. He is quite good at destroying many of today’s Vietnam myths. Like that one this article uses about the Army being mostly composed of draftees.
While one can nominate one’s self for any award it is considered quite nekulturny to do so. Unless you’re a Massachusetts scion with an eye to the future, that is, nicht wahr? You don’t ‘apply’ for them.
Couldn’t agree more with your post. I would only add that Eisenhower was asked repeatedly to increase US involvement in Indochina and refused every time.
No one is willing to admit the obvious,the reason the prez gets away with all this crap is anyone who stands up to him is called a racist he covers himself with the black mantel . Some one has to call a spade a spade and until one stands up to him he will continue down the path of destroying our way of life and stay on the path of socialism
President Eisenhower set the set the pholosophical need for expanding into the Vietname war as you related to the communist fear factor, thus, the domino factor was born and rolling. The greatest contributing factors of defeat early on, was military infighting for command leadership and strategical tactical planning and operations. General Westmoreland was an egotistical maniac in constant battles with USMC General Krulak and the other early USMC command generals. He final won out and had the likes of DOD Secretary McNamara and President Johnson on his side. The rest of the story is history!
“If anything, World War II and Desert Storm say more to most of us than Vietnam does.”
Tell that to the troops in Afcrapistan.
“Both Kerry and Hagel are decorated Vietnam veterans, which is to their eternal credit.”
Nonsense with Kerry as he awarded himself his own decorations.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
Kerry arrived in Vietnam on November 17th 1968, and he left in March of 1969 with three purple hearts, a silver star, and a bronze star. Snopes can say what they want, but fishy doesn’t even begin to cover it. He basically had ZERO convalescence for any injury for which he was awarded a purple heart.
My brother-in-law took shrapnel to his leg in Iraq and was in traction for a couple months.
I’m sure in his “4 1/2 months” he saw enough “action” to get 5 awards, right?
Oh, and all that baby killing and other atrocities he witness in that short time frame too.
Maybe he should have been less “gung-ho”, fighting the enemy so ferociously as he was (more awards in less time than even Audie Murphy?) and instead STOPPED some of those “atrocities” occurring every day, hmmm?
And you were where? In the womb? Hiding under Mommy’s petticoats? Big talk, no action. Lemme guess, you have guns to protect you from “tyranny”. God bless and go forward.
What exactly is your point?
You guys fabricate documents to tarnish one politicians Military record, and swallow anothers hook line and sinker, when it doesnt come CLOSE to passing the smell test?
Challenge authority, but only the ones you dont like?
Assault Weapons are only for the enforcement goons advancing YOUR PRESENT political agenda, but not for YOURSELF in case they ever CHANGE THEIR MIND about who they “like”?
Are you that much a danger to yourself and others without realizing it?
“Both bear internal scars from their experiences”
I think those 3 little scratches that Kerry awarded himself Purple Hearts for have healed by now. Of course, I suppose, he could still be suffering a mental scar from having lost his Magic Hat in Cambodia.
“The U.S. military is the best trained and funded in the world, and is quite a few notches above the Vietnam-era military that was composed mostly of draftees and had not yet come to terms with modern styles of warfare based much less on large command structures than on small cells that engage in infowar and hit-and-run attacks against America’s superior forces.”
I would remind you that America’s WWII Army, the one that won against two superpowers of the day, and in less than 4 years, had a larger number, and even percentage, of draftees than did Vietnam. And as far as Vietnam v. Afcrapistah goes, at least it didn’t take as long to lose that war and there were a lot more opposing forces killed. In Afcrapistan a couple of thousand rag-tag Taliban have fought 100,000 American and other NATO troops to a standstill. Of course, with different ROE it might have been a lot different, but it still is what it is.
“many veterans who came home from that defeat found themselves scorned by a large slice of society”
Scorned as much as by someone who would say something like this?
” and is quite a few notches above the Vietnam-era military that was composed mostly of draftees and had not yet come to terms with modern styles of warfare”
“My point is, the American military has learned the lessons of Vietnam and applied them as much as possible to the conflicts that have followed.”
You have got to be kidding me! They haven’t learned a G_d damned thing – they have regressed in the opposite direction to a 3200 mils out lunacy even greater than Al Gore’s Global Warming Insanity. Have you never even heard of The Trillion Dollar Bridge To Nowhere in Afcrapistan? I know it doesn’t get reported on much anymore, but we still have several tens of thousand Human Sacrifices to the Insanity Of COIN/”Winning Muslim Hearts and Minds”/”Partners in Peace” there and it is now in it’s 12th Cluster Frack year.
I’m afraid I have to agree. I was a military brat, and I recall the kinds of books my dad read and the courses he took at the Naval War College in the 1970s. The impression I got was that military folks thought the Vietnamese won by using some special Oriental Way of War. They were studying Mao Tse Tung, Hsun Tzu, and Miyamoto Musashi to figure out what went wrong. At the same time, it appeared to me that everyone had decided Vietnam was an anomaly – a mistake not to be repeated if they could avoid it. Their primary task was still preparing to fight the Soviets in Europe. Everyone’s attention returned from the DMZ to the Fulda Gap. Most of my father’s classes in the late 70s were about “classic” land and sea warfare, with lip service to counterinsurgency.
This “forget about Vietnam” trend seemed to continue through the Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton eras. We managed to “fight communism” in South America and Africa without actually shedding little or no American blood. We acted as “peacekeepers” in the Balkans using conventional forces subject to strict ROE, with a clear goal not to escalate into a full-blown war. When we did intervene, we went in heavy and won – Grenada, Panama, Haiti, and Iraq. Beirut and Mogadishu served as reminders of what happens when we go in soft.
But then along came Bush II, and it was like everything that had happened since 1975 was completely forgotten. Suddenly, we were fighting guerillas with conventional forces, supporting weak, unpopular governments (this time of our own creation), and trying to win people’s hearts and minds while dropping bombs on them. We did the very things that we had successfully avoided doing for almost thirty years – and not in just one country, but in TWO, simultaneously. And we allowed our mission, such as it was, to “morph” (as the author says) into something nebulous that we’ve been struggling to achieve for ten years. And now, again, we’re about to give it all up as a lost cause.
So I wonder what kind of transformation the military underwent between 1975 and 2003. Did the older generation of officers all retire – Vietnam vets like Schwarzkopf and Powell, who had insisted on a clear mission and overwhelming force before committing American troops? How did we go from that to “sometimes you have to fight with the army you have?”
You would think that Vietnam had never happened.
Sorry, “forget about Vietnam” in paragraph two should read “no more Vietnams.”
Ugh. Too many typos to count. This comment system needs an Edit button…
Yep. You win hearts and minds after total unconditional surrender. That is what works.
It’s relatively easy to make a government surrender. We could have made the North Vietnamese government surrender IF that had been our goal and IF we had been willing to escalate to the appropriate level of force, consequences be damned.
I don’t know if it’s even possible to make an entire population surrender if it doesn’t want to. That’s our problem in Afghanistan and Iraq – many of those people don’t care what their governments do. They have other loyalties, other goals, and they seem willing to tolerate (and create) an enormous amount of civil disorder until they get what they want. Comparisons to nation-building in those countries and nation-building in post-WWII Germany and Japan are vacuous.
The population just hasnt suffered enough. Youve got to bring the pain, until they cry uncle. Much more suffering is needed, ala William Tecumseh Sherman.
“A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences. Many, many peoples with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence.”
Does this mean Kerry is going to release the remaining 93 pages of his military records to the public? He promised that after losing the 2004 election. Heh
Cannot be released as as of 2004 he could not find his records.
Bullshit. All his records are on file with the government, and he can personally request copies. He just doesn’t want to release them.
Surely you jest. Secretary of State is one of those convenient jobs that permits people to bury inconvenient documents permanently.
My generation, of which Barack Obama is a member, tends to see Vietnam as one of several conflicts, not the defining American conflict. If anything, World War II and Desert Storm say more to most of us than Vietnam does.
Well, he’s a bit more towards my “half” generation, e.g. those too young to serve in Viet Nam (though only by a few years), but have older siblings who did (my older brother served there). I say “half” generation as we are not of the late 60s, we’re the one’s who came of age in the mid-ish 70s immediately following them.
My recollection as a boy and then my early teens is, you could not avoid hearing about Viet Nam 24/7. Nowhere. It was a constant on the news, being talked about all of the time, protests abounded.
No, when I was growing up, Viet Nam was everywhere.
At 51 years of age (I am 54), Obama could not have helped but been bombarded with news and stories of our soldiers and S/E Asia and, given his peculiar upbringing, all of that news and those stories would have been the most negative possible.
So not only does Viet Nam affect people such as (ha!) John Freaking Kerry or Chuck Hagel, it affects Obama far more than you might realize. It couldn’t possibly not it was a persistent part of his childhood “narrative.”
All that being said, were one to be able to peer deeply into Obama’s psyche, I suspect you’ll note he nominates people like Kerry and Hagel precisely because they are the jaded, anti-war, disaffected Viet Nam veteran types. They match his warped child-of-the-protest generation personal narrative to a “T.”
It’s fairly apparent that Obama and the Democrat Party far-Left want to recreate that era. They want us to go over all of the same territory, but this time, they want to be our “saviors,” not “The Man.”
Finally, yeah, I entered the Army in 1977, and at that time, I got the same kind of analysis’ about the war, but times ten. The Army was still staffed with a lot of veterans who’d fought there, Viet Nam had fallen all of two years prior, and demoralization and apathy was rampant. But as time marched on, it got better and things changed.
Unlike Obama, Kerry and Hagel, who never will…
“My recollection as a boy and then my early teens is, you could not avoid hearing about Viet Nam 24/7″
You have me by a couple years…I am the same age as Bronko-Bama, and I have to tell ya, I have no “real” genuine recollections of my own about Viet Nam news coverage as it occured…
My earliest memory of “events” in real time, is a fleeting wisp of MLK’s assassination….mostly I think, because a child recognizes the word “king”, and it was being spoken over and over on the TV. I cannot recall anything about Bobby Kennedy’s Assassination and that that happened the same year, AFTER MLK.
The first news event I can “really” remember, was the ’72 Olympics…Going to bed one night nervous about “the Hostages” and waking up the next morning to Jim Mcay saying they’re “all gone”…Sitting at the kitchen table shocked that someone could do that “on purpose”.
Luckily Dad was a WW-2 vet (I was the yougest child of 4) so I was brought up “right”…all that lefty crap permeating the culture in the post-nam 70’s, especially effeminate long haired sissies in “army jackets”, was put in its proper perspective.
Basically, I knew when the chips were down Archie Bunker and Colonel Flag had your back.
Meathead and Hawkeye?
Not so much.
People like Kerry and Hagel are a perfect match for a socialist like Obama. All three are part of the “Hate and Blame America First” crowd, always seeing America as the major problem in the world, never dictators, terrorists, tyrants, or religious fanatics. And with Obama’s ingrained hatred for America, it’s no wonder he picked people like Hagel and Kerry (a guy who hates this country yet sees nothing wrong making millions off of it through his rich wife). I don’t know who to dislike more, them or the radical Islamists they always seem to want to embrace.
Excellent choices,they will be the perfects enablers.
Of all the Patriotic,God fearing old fashioned Patriotic Americans in this Country LOOK WHO GETS TO BE PRESIDENT! This(not our)flea market media shines like a freshly minted fake of the original. shinning brightly like a trillion dollar coin,that unlike an old Morgan dollar couldn’t buy you breakfast! But of course people outside of Washington won’t be going out to breakfast anymore.
I don’t know what to say about Hagel and Kerry but it seems to me that they are united with Obama by a hatred of Israel. That is where the rubber really meets the road with those three.
Now, on to the Vietnam generation. It is so misleading to try and tar the whole post WWII generation by the actions of a minority of the then population. The media, being basically socialist, has glorified the protest movement and ignored the rest of us that made out the best we could and lived productive and normal lives working and raising families. In fact the base of the conservative movement as well as the libertarian movement is made up of members of this generation. Just something to think about.
Certainly so. This is why, whenever I might speak on this particular subject, I always specify that I am referring to the Radicalized subset of that generation, not everyone.
Yes, Yes Yes.
Whenever we rant about “those jerks” we mean the Priviliged Leftist Minority who usurped “right” to represent that generation, and are fawned over by the MSM as the de-facto “leaders” of that generation.
We always assume “everyone knows what we mean” but sometimes we have to clarify.
Asia times
Hagel reveal the Real Obama
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/OA10Ak01.html
All we need now is Jane Fonda… what’s she up to lately?
I wish never again to see the name ‘Jane Fonda’ unless part of a sentence containing the clause ‘passed away today, unremembered and unlamented’. Although I will still whizz on her pic in any nearby urinal.
You do realize, that is the ONLY reason anyone EVER listened to her B.S., dont you?
“The Problem with John Kerry and Chuck Hagel: They Are Products of the Vietnam Generation”
I would suggest that the real problem with Kerry is that he is a pathological liar and a self serving hater of America. His generation has nothing at all to do with his lack of character.
You do realize that you’ve just defined the prerequisites for serving in this Administration in a Cabinet-level post or its equivalent, don’t you?
clear ether
eon
I think you have Kerry pegged quite well.
Good point.
Every generation has its own traitors. Some did not start out as traitors, but at some point drew wrong conclusions from personal experience + ideology.
You are absolutely correct. I don’t believe Hagel started out that way, but he made some breathtakingly bad conclusions. John Francois however is a cold calculated, self serving liar. He will say or do anything to further an agenda, promote himself or place negative attention on our country. He is also an elitist prig. I hope the “Swiftboaters” come out again in full force during his nomination process.
Naw. The trouble with people like Hagel and Kerry is that the world revolves around them. The world did not exist before they were born and will not exist after they die.
That’s the problem with people like Hagel and Kerry.
“…and will not exist after they die”
That’s what we’re afraid of.
America is suffering from the fact that, following WWII, it changed the War Department to the “Defense Department.” Those who are engaged in war know what business they are in, and understand that the choice is victory or defeat. Those merely engaged in “defense” are not concerned with victory; they are merely concerned with fending off. A “defense” department simultaneously broadens its area of concern and dilutes or weakens its mission.
” A “defense” department simultaneously broadens its area of concern and dilutes or weakens its mission”
Brillant!
I think the one commonality of the time from Nov. 22, 1963, until sometime in the late ’70s is that growing up in that period made most of that cohort deeply distrustful of people in high places and of institutions and made many of us deeply cynical.
Unless you were of a cognizant age in the early 1960s you have no idea what an idyllic time it was, especially if you were young, white, and economiclly anywhere from wage-earner middle class on up the ladder; the sky was the limit! There were new things discovered and made available every day. Even in the backwater South with its festering racial problems, standards of living were dramatically improved from the pre-war level and dramatically improving with each new factory being created in The South or relocated from the North.
The Beach Boys and the idyllic California life was every young person’s aspiration, and there were one Helluva lot of young people; everybody was a teenager in the ’60s or so it seemed. Anything resembling a job would get you a new car, a decent apartment. About the only “bad” things that knawed at your mind were car wrecks and unwanted pregnancies. If you were male, the draft was somewhere in the back of your mind but not oppressively so; they almost glorified the experience when Elvis got drafted and served in the Army. You had to be a real student of history or what passed for a news junkie in those days when Huntley-Brinkley was only 15 minutes to have even heard of Vietnam.
And then it all started when the intercom came on at 2:35PM EST in Mr. Harper’s 8th Grade Geography class and the Principal announced that President Kennedy had been shot. Then that Sunday many of us came home from church just in time to watch Jack Ruby kill Lee Harvey Oswald live and in person. With all the brutal dying that has been done since then, much of it in the glare of cameras, it doesn’t seem like such a big deal, but then it was. In a naive and incredibly optimistic world, those events were unthinkable – even in The South where we “didn’t hold much” for Mr. Kennedy.
And then came the demonstrations, the marches, and the riots. And you started hearing more and more about that place in Southeast Asia and more and more were being drafted and before long you knew or knew of people who were serving there – and dying there. And then there were more riots and more marches, and more killings and then there started to be demonstrations and marches about the draft and about The War. And then there were more killings and on the news every night was the numbers of deaths in Vietnam and assurances from people in high places that there was light at the end of the tunnel. And more people got drafted and more got killed or came back totally f**ked up, and phrases like that started to creep into the conversation more often. And then you got your letter that began, “Greetings and salutations, you are hereby ordered to report…”
And RFK got killed, and MLK got killed, and cities burned. And there were demonstrations and riots about The War and The Draft. Colleges seethed and Little Red Books became popular. Hair got longer, even for the frat boys, of whom there were far more than of the long-haired radicals. But it became a schitzoid world of radicals and riots punctuating homecoming dances and football games and guys with long hair still wanted a GTO. And we went from light at the end of the tunnel to peace with honor and “drawing down” while the bombs rained down and there were riots about incursions into Cambodia. Where the Hell is Cambodia? And then Nixon resigned and then we saw the helicopters loading people off the Embassy roof …
Somewhere in there a huge percentage of a generation that had entered adolescence in an idyllic and optimistic world, had made Barry Sadler’s “Ballad of the Green Berets” a Billboard Number 1 in 1965, learned not to follow leaders and not to believe in anything or anyone. We also learned that the Most Likely to Succeed was probably going to be a liar or a scammer. Nothing much has changed.
“…growing up in that period made most of that cohort deeply distrustful of people in high places and of institutions and made many of us deeply cynical.”
I’ve heard the distrust narrative. It makes me wonder why at least half of that cohort are now determined to give institutions and people in high places more power, money, and control over their lives. Do they think they’re rebuilding Camelot or something?
“makes me wonder why at least half of that cohort are now determined to give institutions and people in high places more power, money, and control over their lives”
I don’t think it is anything like half; it’s a noisy minority that happens to be in influential places. You could keep the same dumba** ideas you had smoking dope in a college dorm room in ’69 if you went straight from school to government, media, entertainment, or the special interest groups and non-profits, and most, though certainly not all, that did go there did indeed keep those same dumba** ideas and try to inflict them on everyone else. If you went from school to work in the private sector or even for government in the trades, law enforcement, and such, you very quickly got mugged by the reality of double digit inflation, gas crises, double digit home mortgage interest, and very tight credit. As soon as you got married and had kids you felt all the presures on marriage and family life that the ideas of the social liberals were causing. Abortion was OK until it was your wife without so much as a by your leave to you. No-fault divorce was just fine until it was your wife who needed more space and was taking the house and kids. Dr. Spock was great until it was your kids who were screaming brats. There were a lot of people who, if they voted at all in ’72, voted for McGovern and by ’80 or certainly by ’84 voted for Reagan.
Whew! I was seven in ’63; you have just given a distressing synopsis of life until we elected Reagan. Life after that was actually pretty good until the PC crowd (those Sixties nitwits you mentioned) got entrenched in the early 90′s.
Many people detested Bush ’43, but I was able to breathe a sigh of relief when he got elected, despite the specter of terrorism. I feel like I’ve been living in one long nightmare since Nov. 2008, and I don’t think it will ever end, even when and if King Barry leaves office. Kerry and Hagel are two of the reasons for that, but there are so many more, and nearly all of them are located in D.C.
These kids today might have more to worry about in reality, but as long as it doesn’t interfere with zombie apocalypse, vampires, American Idol, youtube, and video games, it doesn’t even reach their radar. Sometimes, I envy them.
I was in high school wood shop when the school intercom told us to leave early. The intercom did not bother to tell us it had to do with JFK!
At any rate, general awareness of the truly evil nature of communism has decreased steadily since 1963 thanks to our anti-informative academic world and medis. This makes it possible for communists and symapthizers to rise to high levels nowadays.
Spelled better:
At any rate, general awareness of the truly evil nature of communism has decreased steadily since 1963 thanks to our anti-informative academic world and media. This makes it possible for communists and sympathizers to rise to high levels nowadays.
In the immoral words of Bart Simpson “We need another war to thin there numbers.”
The problem with Hagel and Kerry is they are statists.
… and collectivists, … and anti-semites, … and, at least in the case of Kerry, primitivists.
Kerry is only believes in a “primitivist” lifestyle for the rest of us…
He will enjoy the luxury of the Heinz Undustrial Fortune for himself.
Thats either an “elitest” or what my father called..
A real “Dick”
The generation in question seems to fall into two categories. For some, everything is all about Vietnam and for others, it’s like Vietnam never happened. Kerry waved the bloody shirt (his own, as it happens) in the 2004 Presidential campaign, turning it into a referendum on a war that ended almost 30 years ago. Bush invaded Iraq with “the army we had” and tried to fight guerillas while making the people love us for rebuilding their country in our image – Vietnam redux, only with fewer resources.
I agree that the “Vietnam generation” is somewhat damaged.
We have one President at a time. The one we got, came to power by damning our war efforts. Once in power, he has done nothing different from his predecessor, except massively exploit a new weapon, no risk drones. Gitmo, his No. 1 war priority, close it, is still open. He will pull the troops out of Afghanistan in 2014, and the certain slaughter will commerce, just like “Nam. Native peoples, who put their life on the line, allying with us, will die violently.
Every President has the right to staff his Administration with his people. If a President was elected by voters who hate our military and our corporations more than the Taliban, more than the bomb makers in Iran, then his cabinet should reflect these views. He believes if you are soft, your enemies will turn soft, become nice people.
Hagel will defund the DoD. IMHO the military can lose bloat without effectiveness, on one condition: America must accept that war means dead Americans. We have proven that war without victory, cessation of slaughter, without a significant number of US graves, costs a fortune and does not work. The Army now has more suicide deaths than combat deaths.
Kerry works on one premise, which is widely held by US voters: the US is the prime cause of some of the world’s biggest problems, e.g. global warming.
Elections have consequences. These men reflect the will of the people who voted Obama into power. They should be confirmed.
God help America. God help Israel.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” –H.L. Mencken
Kerry is sellout and makes Benedict Arnold look heroic!
Swiftboat Veterans Ad on John Kerry – Sellout (2004)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phqOuEh
Not all of “US” who served during this period look at the world the way Hagel and Kerry do and did when they were there. You folks -civilians and other Mil brats need to remember that.
Check “6″
The Problem with John Kerry and Chuck Hagel: They Are Products of the Vietnam Generation
Bingo!
Like a dog that grew up being kicked and abused…there reflexive response is to cower and demure on foreign policy.
History will show that Obama gave away the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. i had a co worker who served with 173 in Vietnam and we got into an argument about whether we had lost in Vietnam. i played the devils advocate, he got red in the face and screamed at me “lost hell we were winning when i left there” ya to bad they put the JV in and war was lost. Again the Best of America kicks some serious ass in combat and the politicos give away the win, deja vu all over again.
Right. Bombing North VietNam was effective, so the communists lobbied against it.
We disrupted the Ho Chi Minh trail by raids and bombing, so the left whined and insisted we stop.
We kicked their rears when they tried the Tet Offensive, but the media leftists declared it a defeat for the USA.
It’s clear that the left — in the USA, USSR, Britain, France, and Red China — wanted their fellow leftists to win and the more capitalistic USA to be defeated.
And so it continues to be to this day.
The problem with both Kerry and Hagel is they still see the war through the soda straw perspective of their own experience and never understood much beyond that. I suspect that both will want to revert to micro managing the use of force. I have no confidence in either of them.
I am a combat Vietnam veteran who served in 1969 and 1970 as a patrol dog handler with the 483rd SPS Cam Ranh Bay.
In reading Mr. Preston’s article, I am in agreement with his analysis with why neither of these gentlemen should be appointed to the cabinet level positions they’ve been nominated for.
In Mr. Kerry’s case, while he may be a decorated veteran, he is also a consummate liar. His depiction in the House Committee testimony of Vietnam veterans as murderists and rapists who piledged Vietnamese villages was an outright lie and fabrication.
While isolated cases like Mi Lai and Lieutenant Calley certainly exsited, to disparage all of us with those remarks was criminal and unforgivable in my eyes. Mr. Kerry never served with ground combat troups and most of his service was limited to swift boats. So he had little or no knowledge of how these operations were carried out and what we did. In my case, I remember volunteering to run food and medical supply convoys up Highway 1 to orphanages, while we were regulary ambushed by VC and NVA forces.
John Kerry is a disgrace to all of us who served. And when he threw his medals over the fence at the White House, that is the defining moment for Mr. Kerry. He is truly a grandstanding, pompous, indefensable ass and opportunist. Now you know what I really think.
Regarding Mr. Hagel, he served honorably and was wounded in combat twice. I have no idea where some of his unique opinions come from; however, I find it curious that the most liberal president in the last fifty years and liberal Democrats rush to defend this Republican senator when he bashes gays, is openly antisemitic and often sounds like he’s one taco short of a combination plate. I seriously question his judgement and whether he should be making decisions about when, where and how to deploy U.S. military strength.
Unfortunatley, these two nominations point to an evermore strident and in-your-face attidude by the Obama administration that will keep foreign policy and defense policy in lock step with Mr. Obama’s leftwing views.
Colon Powell would have been a far better choice for defense secretary and, barring retaining Hilary Clinton, who has done a good job, Mr. Obama could certainly have found someone more qualified and far more respected than John Kerry.
Powell, then I believe a Major, was one of the main ones who tried to cover up Mia Lia.
I SERVED IN VIETNAM FOR 4 YEARS WITH THE 3RD MARINE DIVISION AS A INFANTRY PLTOON SGT. WHEN PEOPLE SAY WE LOST, THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THE Y ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE DID NOT LOSE ON THE GROUND. WE WON EVERY BATTLE. WE LOST 56,000 MEN, THE NORTH VIETNAMESE LOST MILLIONS. WE WERE STABBED IN THE BACK BY THE DEMOCRATS. IN ANOTHER YEAR THE NORTH WOULD HAVE AGREED TO QUIT FIGHTING.
Year after year after year, it was always success is just around the corner. The American people finally got fed up with all the lies from the military high command.
Mr. Hart has indicated that he served as an infantry platoon sergeant in Vietnam and has provided first hand testimony. If you thing he is lying or a fool then should say so. In any case, how does an qualify in your mind as the “military high command”?
In any case, it is a fairly non-controversial position that the US won the battles in Vietnam but lost on the strategic/political level. The only point that is debated is whether defeat was inevitable.
See comment 6 above. Vietnam was an utter waste of 60,000 American lives. I suppose we could have gone for an utter waste of 120,000 American lives.
Also do a search on ‘Five o’clock Follies’.
But when you “won” those battles, could you hold the territory? Were you prepared to keep “winning” battles there for the next ten years? A majority of the country had had it with the war, but I belabor the obvious. There really wasn’t much to win and what we had to lose were the lives of guys like you and your buds.
Back during those wonderful, peaceful days of Viet Nam, I found myself driving back onto Travis Air Force Base. Those of us in the car were in civvies, and because there were protesters outside the main gate everybody was being stopped. Well, after being duly stopped by the APs, who were asking for IDs before letting anybody on base, sitting minding my own business in the front, passenger side I heard this ‘SNAP — CLACK’ behind and to my right. I turned to my right… unbeknownst (is that a real word?) to me one of the USAF’s finest had sidled up behind and to the right of the car, just behind and to the right of me. What was I staring at? Anybody remember those old 3-prong flash suppressors on M-16s? That thing was about an eyelash distance from my right eyeball and I was staring down it and down the barrel of that rifle.
Guess who was out in the mob protesting? I would like to take this opportunity to finally thank that dumbass Kerry for just about getting my head blown off.
” Anybody remember those old 3-prong flash suppressors on M-16s?”
Yup, sure do…
They used to get bent alot…
‘Specially when you used them to break the steel packing bands on ammo and C-rat cases….
Insert band across the muzzle, twist and pry the whole damn rifle to make it tear…worked best when you used TWO rifles with “the buddy system” because you were REALLY hungry… but it plays hell with you at the 500 yard line on Qual-Day!!
Admit it! You did it too!
It’s really about Jeffersonian Democrats vs leftists. Vietnam is just another of the thousands of excuses ginned up by the left to justify a return to feudalism by undermining the country that has done more good for the world than all the others combined by orders of magnitude. And, of course, the leftists will be in charge of the new feudal state forever. We don’t call it feudalism anymore, naturally, since the left has taken control of the language. We don’t want to dredge up any ideas of inequality while the ultimate inequality is imposed on mankind.
Of course we can’t win a war in which we don’t destroy the enemy. Haven’t won a significant long-lasting armed conflict since WWII and never will again unless the nation of fools and pickpockets wakes up. This despite uncontested military power. Power soon to be under the complete control of the new feudal lords. THEN you will see it used…for sure.
Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are all wars that were/are a waste. They were the elite using normal citizens (pawns) to push an agenda that was not achievable. They ignored history and cultural differences.
Congress must act to stop a President from sending any troops overseas in large scale operations unless a “war” is declared. That is their constitutional duty.
Politicians start wars and the military pays the price. WWII was worth it. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are/where a fools war.
If they attack us, we need to decimate them and get out! No one else will bother us!
Preston can go to hell with the rest of the Whiner Gemeration.
“Vietnam did serve a stategic purpose, of course. It was a local civil war with a global spin.”
Wrong. Badly wrong. The war in Southeast Asia, i.e., Laos, South Vietnam, and Cambodia, was the doing of Ho Chi Minh. He had military assitance from the PRC and members of the Warsaw Pact. The Viet Cong and Pathet Lao were mere fronts for the North Vietnamese Army which invaded all three countries. I will refer Preston to Dr. Pham Kim Vinh as an authoritative source. Dr. Pham was there when it all happened; he did not read about it in some watered down version of what was claimed to have happened.
I get the impression the Preson believes Chrstopher Hitchens’s endless claim that the whole thing was a civil war. Silly man.
Nicely put.
I wish more would take the time to learn the facts, rather than repeat the narrative.
‘Tet and Operation Linebacker, but not about what the war won, because we lost.’
Brian,
We did not lose in vietnam. the 68 tet offensive was a stunning victory for the US forces no matter what Time and Kronkeit said. The NVA were in Hue with tanks, artillery, trucks, etc. everything that was not a cong force.
later,
The US and north and south vietnam signed a peace treaty.
the subsequent attack years later which was forbidden by the treaty was not repelled by the US because Ford could not get the D party to fund.
Senator Fulbright D. Ark, (billies mentor) stated that the loss of the south against the north in vietnam was not more important to him than if Arkansas lost a football game to Alabama.
Ford tried to help, but the unelectd president was stopped.
i and thousands more were rushed to I corps to engage in the 69 tet. did not happen because the north were defeated the year before and it took years for them to recover their losses.
ONCE AGAIN brian. WE did not LOSE the vietnam war.
Harvey Steele, 31m20, sp5e5, phu bai 69-70.
Nicely put.
Like I noted before, one of the great rewrites of history was the blaming of Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ. Nixon achieved the peace he sought, but Watergate and Ford’s subsequent inability to combat Congress threw away everything we had fought for.
“one of the great rewrites of history was the blaming of Vietnam on Nixon”
The other was the Media’s Permanent Political Color (Re-)Assignment
Commie Lefists are now “Union Blue”
While Lincolns Republican Party is commie/rebel flag red.
WTF?
I was the in between generation after Vietnam and before the Gulf War. I speak only from a reading of history, perception of Vietnam Vets who still love America and whom I do trust, and what I believe a well founded perspective about war.
I thought we had buried the mistakes of Vietnam in ’91 and for a very short time, it appeared we had. Bill Clinton and his feckless ilk from the MSM changed that.
America should never enter a war that it doesn’t have the intention of annihilating the enemy, if required, with unconditional surrender by the enemy the only relevant goal.
It would appear to me we now enter wars with our first concern to limit the collateral damage and make friends in our image. That’s no way to win a war IMO and certainly no way to make the peace.
I’m simply appauled at the lack of factual assumptions and information represented on here about the French Indochina/Vietnam relationships leading up to the U.S. war involvment.
In July 1945, inn order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies, U.S., UK, and the Soviet Union divide the country in half at the 16th parallel. The Chines were to clear the japanese for north of the 16th parallel and the allied force to clare to the south of the 1th parallel.
During the Potsdam Conference representatives from France request the return of all French pre-war colonies in Southeast Asia (Indochina). Their request was granted. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia once again, become French colonies following the removal of the Japanese.
September 1945, Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the independence of Vietnam by quoting from the text of the American Declaration of Independence which had been supplied to him by the OSS — “We hold the truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America –these are undeniable truths.” Ho Chi declares himself president of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and pursues American recognition but is repeatedly ignored by President Harry Truman.
From latter 1945 the French and Ho Chi were in conflict to include major armed conflicts over Hichi demand for a unified Vietnam. In january 1950, The People’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union recognize Ho Chi Minh’s Democratic Republic of Vietnam. China then began sending military advisors and modern weapons to the Viet Minh including automatic weapons, mortars, howitzers, and trucks. Much of the equipment is American-made and had belonged to the Chinese Nationalists before their defeat by Mao. With the new equipment and Chinese advisors, General Giap transformed his guerrilla fighters into conventional army units.
In February 1950, the United States and Britain recognized the Bao Dai’s French controlled South Vietnam government. In July 1950, President Harry S. Truman orders U.S. military involvement in Vietnam was authorized $15 million in military aid to the French. American military advisors were ordered to accompany the flow of U.S. tanks, planes, artillery and other supplies to Vietnam. Over the next four years, the U.S. spent $3B on the French war and by 1954 provided 80% of all war supplies used by the French. In September 1950, the U.S. established a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.
In January 1950, Eisenhower, newly elected, greatly increased U.S. military aid to the French in Vietnam to prevent a Communist victory. The U.S. military advisors continued to accompany American supplies sent to Vietnam. To justify America’s financial commitment, Eisenhower cited the ‘Domino Theory’ in which a Communist victory in Vietnam would result in surrounding countries falling one after another. The Domino Theory was be used by a succession of U.S. Presidents and their advisors to justify ever-deepening U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
Jumping on ahead the U.S. continued to increase its involvment and support in the South as the French faultered. In January 1957, The Soviet Union proposed a permanent division of Vietnam into North and South, with the two nations admitted separately to the United Nations. The U.S. rejected the proposal, as it was unwilling to recognize Communist North Vietnam.
In July 1959, two U.S. military advisors, were killed by Viet Minh guerrillas.
This factual history will help some, hopefully, understand the Vietnam war a little better and where to correctly place any blame if so desired, for its place in our history. While I was not directly in on the battlefronts, I was an aid to the commands of FMFPac and CINCPAC and in country from 1964 through the end of 1966. I also assisted in establishing the Combat Information Bureau (CIB) independent of the Marine III MAF in DaNang under a naval command before becoming a DOD unit.
Conclusion. The Vietnam war gave many a time to ponder for a lot of military minds once returning from combat and as time passed. I have ZERO regards for John Kerry who would have been charged for serious felonies, but for the national sentiments surrounding the war. Chuck Hagel, on the other hand, I have great admimation for, except for a few of some of his public comments. I have great respect on his conclusions of the miilitary complex and agree with him.
C’mon Zeke, stop muddying the waters with your damned facts that might cloud our clear agendas!
The military, like any government institution and any large institution is riddled with inefficiency, sweetheart deals, hard and soft corruption etc. The conservative response to inefficiency in the other, allegedly non-constitutional parts of the Federal government is to cut, cut, cut and let the flunkeys figure out how to make the cuts. Okay, these cuts never happen, but righties talk as if they might.
I have insisted for years that a big military goes hand-in-hand with a big federal government. Clearly, we have to make cuts everywhere and given the agenda driven nature of every possible cut, across-the-board 2-2-2 or some version thereof should happen. Unfortunately, we do not have a leader on the left or the right, who has yet to show that they can do this deal from the middle. I do think that Romney might have been able to do that better than Obama, but now we will never know.
But back to the military, do we start shifting our assets toward an eventual conflict with China? The war with Islamic extremists is turning into what I, and may others, feared it might. Once you get rid of Saddam, Mubarak, Khadaffy etc….then where the hell are you? GWB had a dream where all little Arab boys and girls would one day live under democracy. Hmmmm.
** Smiling**
Talk about apples and oranges! John Kerry was and is an anti-American traitor who lied about American atrocities in country and sucked up to the North Vietnamese and American traitors like Jane Fonda. Chuck Hagel served as an enlisted man at the point of the spear, honorably and without ulterior motive. Likening John Kerry to Chuck Hagel is an insult to Senator Hagel.
The suggestion is made that World War II and Dessert Storm should mean more to us than Vietnam. What should World War II and Dessert Storm mean?
Dessert Storm was an abject failure on the order of the Korean war. Yes there was a delightful 100 hour campaign which defeated Iraq’s deployed field army. That is about on the order of MacArthur’s landings at Inchon which led to taking back control of most of South Korea. The US retook Kuwait. What else did the US win in Dessert Storm? Nothing. And the putative US victory in Dessert Storm set in motion forces that led to 9/11 and the Bush II failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And on a much deeper level, the very secular Saddam Hussein was a much more natural US ally in the Middle East than any of our supposed current Middle Eastern friends (bracketing Israel into a category of its own). Recall that the US sided with Iraq in Iraq’s war against Iran. In twenty-five or fifty years when folks can take a real look at documents Dessert Storm might be called “Glaspie’s War” to reflect the failed diplomatic efforts of the then US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. Better diplomacy would have prevented Dessert Storm and Gulf War I from ever happening. And for those who like to get deep in the weeds of history, recall that some blame the Korean war on Secretary of State Dean Acheson giving a speech where he said Korea was not important to the US. The parallel with Korea is striking. The US keeps making the same mistakes over and over.
World War II is always called the Good War. The US defeated the Nazis (something that had to be done). The US defeated the Japanese military (something that maybe needed to be done).
The US LOST control of Eastern Europe to Soviet Communists. It took over fifty years of effort to get Eastern Europe back.
The US then LOST China to the Communists as well because the main part of WWII in Europe so exhausted the US that it lacked the energy or interest to finish matters in China and see to it that the US allies in China had control of the country. The US left a vacuum in China after Japan’s defeat, and the US failed to fill that vacuum.
Where does Vietnam fit in? The US defeat in Vietnam counsels why the US should not have invaded Iraq (the second time) or Afghanistan. It also counsels why recent US forays into Egypt, Libya and Syria are wrong.
We need leaders like Hagal and Kerry. And we need leaders who can appreciate why Gulf War I should be thought of like we understand Korea, as a failure.
Finally, we need leaders who appreciate Winston Churchill’s words: “to jaw jaw is always better than to war war.”
““to jaw jaw is always better than to war war.”
No, not always…
I think Sir Winston had a slightly different take on that overly simplistic statement of his you’ve taken out of context…
I think its a jaw-jawing SCOAMF named “Chamberlain” that proves that rule null and void.
Brilliant observation but for the fact that Sir Winston voiced his preference for Jaw Jaw nearly 20 years after Munich. Seems the passage of time, the lessons of war, and perhaps the wisdom of age convinced Sir Winston of the virtue of negotiated peace. Chamberlain is the usual recourse of the shallow minded who fail to understand the virtue of diplomacy. Chamberlain bought valuable time for an England unable to fight. It is fun to mock Chamberlain, but the time he bought was crucial to England’s ultimate survival. Actual foreign policy realists never want war because war never produces the expected result. Anyone who ever suggests that the US should have entered WWII before 1942 should be asked to identify the ships and Army units that the US should have deployed. There were none to deploy. The US had started to build up for war in 1940. 1943 was likely the first time the US could have deployed meaningful forces and … it did … in North Africa.
The Pacific was always a Navy sideshow.
Sad how that works.
We need to get one thing straight. The U.S. Military did not lose the Vietnam War. It won the war that it fought in. The United States signed a peace treaty at the end of the war and withdrew its military. There were fewer than 1000 US military in Vietnam in early 1975.
Immediately after the end of the war, North Vietnam, in clear violation of its treaty obligations, invaded South Vietnam. When the South Vietnamese government asked the US for assistance, the Democrat controlled congress refused all requests for resources. South Vietnam lost that war to North Vietnam. The Americans responsible for that loss were all Democrats.
The blood of thousands of South Vietnamese, including the untold thousands who died at sea trying to flee the NVA, is on the hands of the Democrat Party.
The US Military is utterly innocent.
Two things stand out about Vietnam: First is that back in 1954 when the French left, Ike Eisenhower and Matt Ridgway knew they had a problem looming. So they inserted a single regiment of Marines into Northeast Thailand. These jarheads had the Ho Chi Minh trail interdicted. The North Vietnamese Army was stymied. And the Viet Cong could not be built into any kind of effective military force.
The communists then turned to widespread assasination. A well-meaning but chemically dependent JFK tried to counter this with some less than astute
methods. At the behest of McNamara and his whiz kids, the interdicting force was withdrawn and THAT was what let the defecation encounter the oscillation.
Point the second: When Creighton Abrams finally replaced the blundering Westmoreland, the only path open was a retreat. And there was a real danger
that we would be routed. Abe did his job masterfully and by late 1973
we actually had a victory in waiting. Unfortunately, nobody—-including me—-recognized this until too late.
The insurgency was deader than a doornail and Ruff Puffs plus White Mice were
more than capable of keeping it from ever coming back. ARVN needed to be
repositioned not for defense but for counterattack. And equipped with armor
and anti-tank weaponry for that purpose. Uncle Sam needed to leave behind some low-profile intelligence and recon assets in country plus enough fighter planes in Thailand to keep the NVA air force at home plus one other item: leave the First Cavalry Division there as a strategic reserve and tripwire in the event the ceasefire/truce was violated.
And oh yes: How would we have paid for this: Take all those oversized support areas which were now being run by contractors under nominal authority of the South Vietnamese government and open them up to the general public. Sales from the POL points, construction supply sites and the PX would have kept the monetary costs to a minimum!
Too bad this chance went unrecognized!