Skarper | 01 Sep 2019 10:33 p.m. PST |
FYI today is Independence day in Vietnam. Independence having been declared in 1945. |
randy51 | 02 Sep 2019 6:43 a.m. PST |
FYI many of us still have a bitter taste in our mouths from our country's abandonment of the rsvn in 74-75. |
Legion 4 | 02 Sep 2019 9:30 a.m. PST |
|
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 02 Sep 2019 12:41 p.m. PST |
What were the options? What should we have done, and what would have been the results? |
randy51 | 02 Sep 2019 1:46 p.m. PST |
The options are don't fight a war if you're not planning on winning. Our whole strategy of waging a limited war against a group who wasn't bothered by the same restraints was wrong. I know LBJ and his advisors were always worried about a possible Chinese intervention but that wasn't going to happen as the NVA/VC didn't need or want their help. In fact the last thing the north wanted was to see Chinese in their country. I always thought the best tactic would have been to build a fortified zone from the South China Sea all the way west across the dmz (aka modified McNamara line) into and through Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Sooner or later the NVA would have had to concentrate their forces to punch a hole in it and in doing this would have presented our air with super fat targets. ARVN tried a very limited version in 71 (Lam Son 719) without any us ground help but they simply could not cope with the NVA and it was a disaster for the South Vietnamese. Instead we spent years conducting search & destroy operations against an enemy that knew to win they'd have to merely avoid major contact while causing a steady flow of casualties. The stupidity of our tactics over there reminded me of being in a boat with a bunch of holes in the bottom and us bailing the water out in a bucket but never bothering to fix the holes. Ultimately if we had hung on to force a stalemate it would probably end up being another South Korea with the US having a permanent military presence.
|
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 02 Sep 2019 4:25 p.m. PST |
How long would have taken to hang on and force a stalemate and get to a two-state Korea-style solution? What would prevent the North Vietnamese from moving the Ho Chi Minh trail farther and farther west, through Laos and Cambodia? Maybe the answer is Thailand, which did send troops to Vietnam to fight the North Vietnamese, and which would be a formidable adversary fighting close to home. What would happen in Laos and Cambodia as the trail, the fortified zone, and war moved deeper into their countries? Would the Khmer Rouge be taken over by the Vietnamese and the Cambodian genocide be avoided? (The current story in Cambodia is the the Vietnamese actually did control the Khmer Rouge and caused the genocide.) |
oldnorthstate | 02 Sep 2019 5:13 p.m. PST |
There are many possible scenarios that would have dramatically changed the prospects to defeat the VC and NVA. Cutting off the trails through Laos and Cambodia in '67 or '68 but certainly in '69 after the losses the VC and NVA suffered in '68 would have changed the complexion of the war. Never curtailing the bombing of North Vietnam and mining the harbors would have changed things dramatically. Invading the southern 1/3 of North Vietnam at any point would also have forced a different outcome. Finally, if Al Haig had not convinced Nixon to order the South Vietnamese into Laos in '71 they may have been more resilient after we completely removed our ground forces. |
Skarper | 02 Sep 2019 8:06 p.m. PST |
The war aims of the US never hinged on establishing an independent South Vietnam. It was all about the resource rich countries in the region and by 1968 they were 'safe'. Sure, if in some manner they had managed to prop up the hideously corrupt and illegitimate GVN the US could have saved face. Saving face was considered [wisely in my view] not to be worth the cost. Interestingly, I read somewhere that post Tet '68 the North's strategy changed from trying to cause US casualties to attacking material assets, especially aircraft. The war was just too expensive in dollar terms for the trivial gains left to be made. Any control the Vietnamese exerted over the Khmer Rouge was tenuous at best. My understanding is that the relentless bombing by the US in Laos and Cambodia created the surge of support for the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge and thereby led to the genocide. If they are looking for an outside scapegoat to blame for it in Cambodia it is probably only natural. Most of the more aggressive measures often cited to take the war further north would – almost certainly in the eyes of those making the decisions – have led to Chinese entry into the war. Given there was literally nothing material to gain and a great deal to lose they never seriously entertained any of these. While many in the military blame the politicians in charge [and they are guilty as charged] I also blame the generals. They must have known their strategy was flawed, but they kept on with it. Westmoreland got kicked upstairs and never faced any consequences for his failures. |
Dn Jackson | 02 Sep 2019 8:14 p.m. PST |
We could have created a stalemate relatively easily. After the US pulled out the ARVN continued to fight, and hold their own with American air support, until Congress cut off all funding to the South Vietnamese. At that point they were doomed. Had we not done so they would have held on. |
Skarper | 02 Sep 2019 8:30 p.m. PST |
I agree the US let down the people working for them in the South. It was shameful but we have to ask – what material benefit the US could obtain from a stalemate? They didn't need another base in the region. There was nothing much in the way of natural resources to be exploited [there is a small amount of oil but not enough to justify the costs]. If we are playing what ifs then how about the US supporting Ho Chi Minh in 1945? Or even in 1919 before he turned to Moscow for support? |
Legion 4 | 03 Sep 2019 6:58 a.m. PST |
Hindsight is generally 20/20. However the primary reason the US was there was to stop the continuing spread of Communism. Regardless of what resources there may have been in the region. Keeping the Communists from spreading their dogma. And in turn possibly getting any of those resources was secondary. The US even today gets does only a small amount of business with those in that region. Unless you are talking about the PRC. And as we speak that situation is in "discussion". It's classic "Communist" propaganda that the "Capitalist West" is only involved anywhere is about with securing resources. The proof of that falsehood is based on what business & resources did the US/West get from the former French Indochina then and now. Not much from what I see as a US consumer. As I have said the cane, crutches, and walker I go from the VA were made in Vietnam. I'm sure many of the Vietnam Vets at the VA see the irony of that. I know I do and I didn't serve in SE Asia as I didn't graduate high school in '75. Chances are had I been born a few years earlier my name would be on The Wall. In 1919 all the European Powers could see was retaining their oversea colonies and punishing the Central Powers. with #1 being punish Germany. And divide up the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires to suit their own needs. We see today the "errors" that were made in the former Yugoslavia and thru out the Mid East and Africa. President Wilson tried fix some things but the winning allies from Europe wanted to keep what they had and take more. Decisions made by long dead European politicians help cause WWII and still reverberate until today. Supporting Ho in '45 when the OSS sent in teams to set up "rat lines" thru out SE Asia. To assist down Allied aircrews escaping being captured and end up in IJFs' POW Camps. And getting Ho's tiny forces to attack the IJFs in that region was the mission. The OSS agents told Ho they would support him in getting independence after the war. However, the French wanted to maintain their Indochina colonies. So the US supported that effort because they didn't want those colonies to go Communists. Which as we see Vietnam did and still is. I had read that the OSS teams who first went into Indochina. Found Ho dying of malaria. And the OSS medics saved him. Maybe things would have been different if Ho had died then in '44 or '45?
|
Skarper | 03 Sep 2019 10:20 a.m. PST |
We disagree and that's not a problem to me. The US government said and still would say the wars in SE Asia were about stopping communism. But that doesn't make it true. Surely by now nobody takes the US government at its word without some supporting evidence? There is documentary evidence that the main war aim in Vietnam was to keep the Philippines and especially Indonesia open for business and not run by democratically elected governments who would be answerable to their own people. Marcos in the Philippines was firmly in control from 1965 until 1986 and the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia ran from 1967-98. Both were brutal regimes. This means by 68 at the latest the US had achieved its main goals. It's not a coincidence that this was the watershed between escalating the conflict and winding down/Vietnamiztion. You don't have to take my word for it. Do some research and you will find this evidence. You can then take it on its merits. Or you can keep the same opinion. When I read the same lies repeated as if they were true I have to point it out. I live in Vietnam. It's no paradise but people here seem happier than in South Korea [where I also lived for a time]. It's a very poor country but much of that is due to the history of war and colonial exploitation and cannot be attributed to communism alone. The Philippines is slightly poorer, for example. Anyway – I don't want to go on and on about this topic. I accept not everyone will agree with me and they have every right to do so. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. |
oldnorthstate | 03 Sep 2019 11:16 a.m. PST |
The discussion of "should" the Vietnam war have been fought or what the political aims were is very different from a straightforward evaluation of whether the war could have been won militarily. Also, don't underestimate the context of the Cold War…it was fear of Chinese intervention that took the invasion of NVN off the table…and restricted blockading the ports for fear of Russian casualties. |
Legion 4 | 03 Sep 2019 4:04 p.m. PST |
The US government said and still would say the wars in SE Asia were about stopping communism. But that doesn't make it true. Surely by now nobody takes the US government at its word without some supporting evidence? Again we will have to disagree.
You don't have to take my word for it. Do some research and you will find this evidence. You can then take it on its merits. Or you can keep the same opinion. I have done the research, know and talked to those who were there … and again we will have to disagree. than in South Korea [where I also lived for a time]. I did also for 22 months, '84-'85, with a forward deployed Mech Inf Bn of the 2ID. With two tours on the DMZ. Many seemed happy we were there and on the DMZ or just South of it. |
Skarper | 03 Sep 2019 8:22 p.m. PST |
@oldnorthstate – my point is that the US did win its wars in SEA by achieving its core aims. A separate South Vietnam was never a key issue. It would have looked nice, but the cost of propping it up indefinitely was judged not to be worthwhile. @Legion – we can I hope agree to disagree civilly. |
Dn Jackson | 03 Sep 2019 11:24 p.m. PST |
"It was shameful but we have to ask – what material benefit the US could obtain from a stalemate?" Free people able to live how they wish under the government they choose? As happened in the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, India, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, East Germany, Greece, Yugoslavia, etc. Skarper, no offense, but I can only classify your facts as communist propaganda. People given a clear choice between communist dictatorship and democracy/free market capitalism inevitably choose freedom. Just look at Hong Kong. |
Skarper | 04 Sep 2019 2:01 a.m. PST |
Southern Vietnam was never offered a choice between democracy and communist dictatorship any more than people in the Philippines or Indonesia were. Even South Korea was a US supported military dictatorship until 1987. If the US saw any material benefit in democracy they would support it. Invariably they prefer a dictatorship they can control or at least predict. By this I do not mean to imply the US public support this agenda. They are ignorant of it or impotent to do anything about it. As for communist propaganda I could equally label the other view as capitalist propaganda. Everything is propaganda to a degree and nobody is an unbiased commentator. The views I hold are very much not in line with current official doctrine in Vietnam. Nobody has so far claimed what I said is not based on evidence. The sources are the Pentagon Papers (which nobody denies the authenticity of) and other internal US documents now in the public domain. While it is a hassle to locate and read these documents they are often cited in reputable secondary sources, so people can find out for themselves if they want to. |
Legion 4 | 04 Sep 2019 6:46 a.m. PST |
@Legion – we can I hope agree to disagree civilly. Yes I agree and we can agree to disagree. Have a civil adult discussion as we are. |
Dn Jackson | 05 Sep 2019 1:11 a.m. PST |
"Southern Vietnam was never offered a choice between democracy and communist dictatorship any more than people in the Philippines or Indonesia were. Even South Korea was a US supported military dictatorship until 1987." True statement, but you fail to consider the context of the time. The US, and her allies, had to make a choice between supporting dictators friendly to them, or allowing country after country to fall to the communists. "If the US saw any material benefit in democracy they would support it. Invariably they prefer a dictatorship they can control or at least predict. By this I do not mean to imply the US public support this agenda. They are ignorant of it or impotent to do anything about it." Those dictators we supported eventually fell by the wayside and their countries became vibrant democracies. Where we lost; Vietnam, North Korea, China, Cuba, etc, the people still live under brutal dictatorships. "As for communist propaganda I could equally label the other view as capitalist propaganda. Everything is propaganda to a degree and nobody is an unbiased commentator. The views I hold are very much not in line with current official doctrine in Vietnam."
This is not a defense of your position. What you proposed is the standard line for Marxists; that everything is economic and money drives every decision ever made in history. This philosophy has been disproven over and over again. If you can defend this position by pointing to citations, please do. "Nobody has so far claimed what I said is not based on evidence. The sources are the Pentagon Papers (which nobody denies the authenticity of) and other internal US documents now in the public domain. While it is a hassle to locate and read these documents they are often cited in reputable secondary sources, so people can find out for themselves if they want to." Actually, I believe the Pentagon Papers detail that our support of South Vietnam revolved around a desire to contain China, not support capitalist markets in other parts of Asia. If you have a citation that refuts that, please share it with us. |
Skarper | 05 Sep 2019 2:07 a.m. PST |
I agree to an extent that the context of the time needs to be taken into account. The Cold War is a wider topic I don't want to get into now. If you believe the notion that the Soviets were trying to take over the world it can justify a multitude of crimes. Not every US supported dictatorship has become a vibrant democracy (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) and many that did have had a chequered history since. Many remain far more brutal than Vietnam or Cuba are (though they are very far from perfect). China and North Korea I concede to be horrific. As for the propaganda point it is not meant to defend my position but to neutralise your use of the term. It's just name calling unless you are arguing the basic message is somehow incorrect or invented. All governments resort to propaganda and a lot of what gets recycled today is US propaganda from the time. To clarify my thesis such as it is: Containment of China was what got the US into Indochina and this is pretty easy to find in the Pentagon Papers and elsewhere. There was no South Vietnamese state to defend until the US created it. It never enjoyed any significant support from ordinary Vietnamese. The evidence for the goals being to protect capitalist business interests in the wider region is more veiled and circumstantial. I've been reading through the Pentagon Papers files but have not found a smoking gun. Also they only go up to 1967. I think it is possible to infer US intents from their actions but we have to accept that decision making was nebulous – there was no unifying policy adhered to at any time. I personally think it is enough evidence but in history we seldom get definitive proof. As such, I admit I cannot prove this was the avowed goal but it certainly was the result. It is however, I maintain, impossible to take seriously the position that the US were embroiled in SE Asia to allow the local population self determination or to keep them free. That was the public version, the propaganda if you will, but all the evidence runs counter to that. If we imagine a stalemate akin to what happened in Korea, would the GVN have become a vibrant democracy? Perhaps after a very long and brutal struggle. The US had troops in South Korea throughout their period of military rule and did nothing tangible to end it. So we can't seriously imagine the US putting pressure on the GVN to become democratic. I can't think of any case where the US has tried to end a dictatorship that it had been supporting. I don't think post WW2 Japan and West Germany are the same thing. I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm glad we can keep it curteous. |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 05 Sep 2019 12:42 p.m. PST |
It's probably worth noting that the North Vietnamese did not describe their war aims as spreading international Communism. Rather, they always said that they were fighting a war of national liberation, from the French, then from the Japanese, then from the French again, and finally from the Americans. That being said, the North did collective agriculture, and after the war a Soviet-style communism with the state owning all means of production was implemented with predictable results. That started to change in the 1990s, and Vietnam became essentially another capitalist dictatorship, not unlike China since Deng Xiaoping. |
Legion 4 | 05 Sep 2019 3:17 p.m. PST |
Yes but by taking aid from China & Russia and some of their "advise". That could certainly look like to the West the spread of Communism. And as I said, many in the West believed that and still do. But as we know geopolitics has many shades of grey.
That started to change in the 1990s, and Vietnam became essentially another capitalist dictatorship, not unlike China since Deng Xiaoping. Agreed … |