Did we win in Viet Nam?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:48:07 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

(snip)

We wouldn't have been better off if we recognized Ho and Pol Pot and
the others.

Er, Ed, you *did* recognise Pol Pot.

Not only did US intervention in neighbouring Vietnam set up the situation
for him to seize power, and not only did the US drop 539,129 tons secretly
on his country between 1969 and 1973, giving him a steady supply of
recruits, but I believe the US channelled substantial military and food aid
to his awful regime after the Vietnam withdrawal.

Not the best example to choose!

John

This dialog has gotten so obtuse that I have lost lock but your statements
really grabbed me as one responsible for more than a few of that bom tonnage in
72-73. For one thing it was no secret and there was no attempt to keep it all
a secret in the 70s. At one point a BUFF inadvertantly dropped a load of bombs
on the village of Neak Long after the radar navigator screwed up that was all
over the press.

Relative to us supporting Pol Pot, I'd really like to see a reference on that.
After the VN ceasefire In Jan 73 IIRC, we concentrated on containing the Khmer
Rouge. One main mission was killing trucks and boats and the other was
protecting riverboat convoys up the Mekong the Phnom Penh that was under seige
by the Khmer Rouge.

There seem to be a lot of "facts" and speculation floating around here that are
simply not true. But given the tendency of this group not to give credibility
to witness of actual events, I guess that is to be expected. I probably just
imagined all those missions to Cambodia.





Not only did US intervention in neighbouring Vietnam set up the situation
for him to seize power, and not only did the US drop 539,129 tons secretly
on his country between 1969 and 1973, giving him a steady supply of
recruits, but I believe the US channelled substantial military and food aid
to his awful regime after the Vietnam withdrawal.

Not the best example to choose!

John

From: stevem859

Like many other
wars we have fought, we prevailed over the Soviet Union
because we had the resources and resolve to do so. If it collapsed under its
own weight, it is because it was unable to compete with the West in
practically
any area you care to mention. you haven't figured out by now that was a
conscious strategy on the part of the West, not something that happened by
chance.

Interesting to read the comments in the thread about how communism in general
and the USSR in particular were going to collapse of their own weight anyway,
so the US didn't need to bother.

It's worth recalling though, that during that era, only the right wing loonies
believed communism was a failure; it was capitalism that was morally wrong and
doomed to fail. And the arms race was considered absolutely wrongheaded,
extremely dangerous, and entirely the fault of the US of A.
Remember, for example, Paul Warnke, President Carter's arm's negotiator with
the USSR, who said that Americans were naturally "chauvinistic," and in his
famous 1975 essay, "Apes on a Treadmill," in "Foreign Policy," called for
global downsizing of American power and an end to efforts to match Soviet
armaments (formalized in the original version of SALT I). His thesis was that
moderation breeds moderation and that voluntary actions by the US to limit arms
spending would produced similar voluntary reductions by the Soviets. It's
worth recalling that the American nuclear stockpile peaked in 1965 and steadily
declined thereafter, while the Soviet nuclear stockpile continued to climb,
surpassing America's in 1976 and peaking in 1986.
During his senate confirmation hearings, when grilled by Scoop Jackson, Warnke
stated he was against the B-1, against the Trident submarine and Trident II
missle, against the submarine launched cruise missle, against AWACs programs,
against MIRV, against developing the XM-1 tank and for reductions in
procurement of the M-60, for reductions of US tactical nukes in Europe from
7,000 to 1,000, for unilateral withdrawal of 30,000 US troops from NATO, and on
and on. He was still confirmed by the Senate 58-40.
Remember Cyrus Vance, Carter's secretary of state, who avered it was "futile
[to] oppose Soviet or Cuban involvement in Africa," and made it clear that
America should accept a reduced role in the world in the face of communism's
growing influence. "The fact is," he said, "that we can no more stop [the
advance of communism] than Canute could still the waters."
Recall Pres. Jimmy Carter's Notre Dame speech in 1977 in which he stated the US
was "now free of that inordinate fear of communism....we fought fire with fire,
never thinking that fire is better fought with water. This approach failed,
with Vietnam the best example of its intellectual and moral poverty...."
Even George Kennan advocated unilateral disarmament by the US and a return to
isolationism, stating that, "I can see very little merit in orgainizing
ourselves to defend from the Russians."
Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University, said in 1982, "The Soviet Union is not
now nor will it be during the next decade in the throes of a true system
crisis, for it boasts enormous unused reserves of political and social
stability that suffice to endure the deepest difficulties, while John Kenneth
Galbraith intoned, "The Russian system succeeds because, in contrast to the
Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower."
It was capitalism and in particular the USA, that was corrupt, incompetent and
war-mongering.
Andrei Gromyko (remember him?) said "Socialism is the most dynamic and
influential force in the world. On three continents, from the Republic of Cuba
to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the new society of the peoples of
Socialist states thrives and is being successfully constructed. The
inexhaustible resources of these countries, imposing in their economic
achievements, the power of their offensive might is placed at the service of
peace and only peace."
This "peace" was implemented via the Breshnev Doctrine, which saw
Soviet-supported armed interventions everywhere from Angola to Afghanistan.
Remember how Alexander Solzhenitsyn was treated as a pariah after his Harvard
commencement address in 1978, when he spoke of "communism's well-planned world
strategy." He excoriated US failure of nerve in Vietnam. "Members of the US
antiwar movement became accomoplices in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in
the genocide and the suffering today imposed on 30 million people. Do these
convinced pacifists now hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand
their responsibility today? The American intelligentsia lost its nerve and as
a consequence the danger has come much closer to the United States."
The New York Times, reporting the speech, described Solzhenitsyn as a "zealot"
and James Reston called his speech "the wanderings of a mind split apart."
We came very, very close to losing the Cold War through sheer lack of nerve.
We were wimping out big time--with the exception of a handful of resistors,
chief among them Scoop Jackson and George Meany, two men largely forgotten
today, but truly Horatios at the gate.
Then came Ronald Reagan, in cogent provocateur Ann Coulter's phrase a "March
hare right-winger," and the rest, as they say, is history.


Chris Mark

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:28:34 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

You cite the 58,000 names on the Wall. The NVN lost (depending upon
your source) between one and three million. Since you like to only
use one source pick whichever one you want. That sort of loss ratio
doesn't imply a great victory.

Ed,, from http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

"The Hanoi government revealed on April 4 [1995] that the true civilian
casualties of
the Vietnam War were 2,000,000 in the north, and 2,000,000 in the south.
Military
casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war.
These
figures were deliberately falsified during the war by the North Vietnamese
Communists
to avoid demoralizing the population. "

A chart on the same page shows 1.1 million NVA/VC dead versus about
276,000 US/ARVN
and allied itroops in combat. So, we've got 3.1 million North Vietnamese
killed
during the war, vs. 2.24 million south Vietnamese. The majority of SVN
civilian
deaths would have been due to allied firepower, especially US. So
assuming
reasonably accurate numbers, the US and its allies killed somewhere
between 2 and 4
million civilians, plus the 1.1 million combatants. Were you claiming the
deaths of
civilians, those of both our allies and our enemies, represented a great
triumph of
american arms, Ed? Killing civilians in a war is easy, as was repeatedly
demonstrated in the 20th Century (and every other one, for that matter).

"Especially US", eh? OK, let's look at that and assume you mean that the US
only accounted for 50% of those 2 to 4 million civilian casualties you want
to chalk up. If we take a nice round figure of major US war participation as
being six years (not unrealistic, given truces, bombing halts, and the
like), you get 2190 days. Using that 50% figure, you would have to be
racking up between almost five hundred and one thousand civilian deaths per
*day*, depending upon whether you use the low or high ranges for your
"data". Color me skeptical, but that sounds way too high-- one-point-five My
Lai massacres every day at a *minimum*. Did you just grab these figures from
the air, or is your analysis that points to "especially US" responsibility
just completely out of whack?

Brooks

snip

"SteveM8597" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

Our objective was to prevent the spread of communism in SEA. The Domino
theory is evidence of that. I believe we accomplished that.

I agree, but we did it by spending them into national bankruptcy. That in
itself ought to tell us that the Domino Theory was invalid from its inception.
We didn't have to enter armed conflict to contain communism, we had merely to
force them to expend their limited resources in a futile effort to keep up with
how we spent ours.

.....NVN was never able to fully bring SVN into its mold of government. As
was the strategy for NVN, we made the cost of future incursions by the USSR
too high. I am not sure
what the alternate history would have been had we not intervened and all any
of
us can do is speculate. SVN lost their civil war in spite of our support or
maybe lack of it, but we accomplished the larger objective. The USSR never
had
much of a presence after the war and later abandoned VN. Therefore I cannot
agree we "lost" the war. It was a conflict in which there were no clear
winners though no one will ever convnce me that our 58,000 KIAs died in vain
any more than our casualties in Irag.


IAC, I think we can agree on one thing. Cost and difficulty notwithstanding,
our armed forces in largest part performed magnificently and, in point of
fact,
won just about every battle in which they were engaged. Unfortunately,
because
of political constraints, they were not permitted to win the war.

George Z.


We can most certainbly agree on that

Steve

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:04:18 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

Yep. It seems to boil down to a difference of opinion as to what constitutes
"US combat troops". The sources I used referred to the remaining US ground
components as advisors to the S. Vietnamese forces, not as forces involved in
combat as units with unique assigned missions. If you don't want to accept
that
definition, and it looks like you don't, go argue with them. I merely
reported
what they said. Neither of us were there on the ground, so we're each
entitled
to our own opinions.

George, I WAS on the ground at Bien Hoa in April of '73 for a week as
Supervisor of Flying for our F-4 COMBAT units that were refueling and
rearming there. I was surrounded by a couple of hundred AF mainainers,
AF Security Police, Marine aviation company, US Army Brigade of
defenders of the base.

I was rocketed while there and our runway was closed and an A-37,
fully loaded with CBU and Mk-82s cooked off in one of the shelters. I
was most definitely a "US combat troop". I was most definitely in
"ground combat" and I was most definitely "in-country.

I swear, Ed, you go out of your way to twist the meaning of what I say. OK,
then, you were a grunt out there in the paddies looking for the VC every day as
well as night, or trying to find the entrances to their tunnels, or trying to
set up booby traps and ambushes for their troops to encounter, or doing all of
the other things I think of when I think of what Army and Marine grunts doing
their things. Have it your way. I'm tired of you trying to get me to define
what is is.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote
"SteveM8597" wrote in message

(Snip)

Our objective was to prevent the spread of communism in SEA. The
Domino
theory is evidence of that. I believe we accomplished that.

I agree, but we did it by spending them into national bankruptcy. That in
itself ought to tell us that the Domino Theory was invalid from its
inception.
We didn't have to enter armed conflict to contain communism, we had merely
to
force them to expend their limited resources in a futile effort to keep up
with
how we spent ours.

Unchecked expansion and access to more natural resources might have had a
beneficial effect on their economy. Dragging out the (probably) inevitable
collapse for a few more years/decades.

I say *might*. We can't know what the outcome would have been had different
choices been made.

Pete

Maybe I mis-remember, but I thought that our objective was to insure the ongoing
vitality of an anti-communist government in the southern part of Viet Nam which
would, by its existence, prevent the spread of the communist form of government
elsewhere in SEA.

George Z.


Interesting, sounds like a political statement, but I don't remember
seeing it anywhere before - could you provide a name, or document where
that statement originated as a U.S. objective - I would be interested in
some background on its creation.

Dave

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:16:08 -0400, Dave Holford wrote:
Maybe I mis-remember, but I thought that our objective was to insure the ongoing
vitality of an anti-communist government in the southern part of Viet Nam which
would, by its existence, prevent the spread of the communist form of government
elsewhere in SEA.

Interesting, sounds like a political statement, but I don't remember
seeing it anywhere before - could you provide a name, or document where
that statement originated as a U.S. objective - I would be interested in
some background on its creation.

How about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:16:08 -0400, Dave Holford

Maybe I mis-remember, but I thought that our objective was to insure the ongoing
vitality of an anti-communist government in the southern part of Viet Nam which
would, by its existence, prevent the spread of the communist form of government
elsewhere in SEA.

Interesting, sounds like a political statement, but I don't remember
seeing it anywhere before - could you provide a name, or document where
that statement originated as a U.S. objective - I would be interested in
some background on its creation.

How about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)




OK, this is what I found at wikipedia:

Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia being written collaboratively
by contributors from around the world. The site is a wiki, which means
that anyone can edit articles, simply by clicking on the edit link that
appears at the top of each page.

Wikipedia is an online open-content encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary
association of individuals and groups who are developing a common
resource of human knowledge. Its structure allows any individual with an
Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter the content
found here. Therefore, please be advised that nothing found here has
necessarily been reviewed by professionals who are knowledgeable in the
particular areas of expertise necessary to provide you with complete,
accurate or reliable information about any subject in Wikipedia.

------------------------------------------

In other words 'a collection of opinions by individuals which may or may
not be accurate or reliable and may be freely edited by any other
individual who holds a differing opinion'. Not exactly what I had in
mind a a source of information.

Dave