Saturday, August 25, 2007
Lack of Vision at the L.A. Times
Although the author, Andrew J. Bacevich, is a Vietnam Vet and a history professor at Boston University, he's wrong, wrong, wrong about what he calls Vietnam's Real Lessons in today's L.A. Times--they're more like false lessons for the real dumb. Let's just take a few examples with my comments following in red:
The president views the abandonment of our Southeast Asian allies as a disgrace, deploring the fate suffered by the "boat people" and the victims of the Khmer Rouge.
So views any person with a heart and the brain cells to remember what happened 1973-1979. Does Bacevich see it differently? Here's the straight dope on Vietnam history vis a vis Iraq from Max Boot in today's Wall Street Journal Online.
In unconventional wars, body counts don't really count. In the Vietnam War, superior American firepower enabled U.S. forces to prevail in most tactical engagements. We killed plenty of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. But killing didn't produce victory -- the exertions of U.S. troops all too frequently proved to be counterproductive.
Killing the enemy always matters. Even though the war evolved in major ways, we won the Viet Nam War by killing the enemy at enormous rates and winning every major tactical engagement. We destroyed the Viet Cong in 1968 and the rest of the war was waged by North Viet Nam Regulars (the NVA) whom we slaughtered as well. When the last American ground troops left in Spring, 1973, we really had achieved a peace with honor; and, as long as we provided air cover and war material, South Viet Nam was safe from Northern aggression. Then the overwhelmingly Democratic congress, elected in the wake of the Watergate scandal, pulled the plug on air cover and war material and the South went down in an NVA blitzkrieg in 1975. That was the disgraceful abandonment.
Wars like Vietnam and Iraq aren't won militarily; at best, they are settled politically.
Is this guy serious? All wars are either won or lost militarily. It is only when a military power cannot or, more likely, will not prevail, then there has to be a political settlement, which more often than not leads to renewed conflict after a rest and rearmament period. That's why there are so many 'second' wars--failure to win an overwhelming military victory and settling for the political 'solution'.
In the Republic of Vietnam, created by the United States after the partition of French Indochina, such institutions did not exist. Despite an enormous U.S. investment in nation-building, they never did. In the end, South Vietnam proved to be a fiction.
I refute this nonsense with two words--South Korea. The only difference between South Korea and South Viet Nam is that we didn't disgracefully abandon South Korea. Oh, and the suffering of the South Vietnamese, that's a difference. They were more like the North Koreans in their level of suffering after 1975.
From Dwight D. Eisenhower through Richard M. Nixon, a parade of presidents convinced themselves that defending South Vietnam qualified as a vital U.S. interest. For the free world, a communist takeover of that country would imply an unacceptable defeat.
Notice that he names the two Republican Presidents who had little to do with committing massive numbers of American troops to Viet Nam and leaves out the two Democrats who did. Sometimes, to stop the spread of an evil ideology, you have to draw a line--here and no further. Defeating Communism, which is indeed an evil ideology, was of vital U.S. interest and good for the free world. Part of our decades long fight to end Communism was trying to prevent the Communist takeover of South Viet Nam. Would someone tell Professor Bacevich that we won the Cold War by actively opposing Communism and drawing lines (even though the battle of South Korea was a draw and the battle of Viet Nam a legislated loss)? I'm not sure he knows it.
Yet when South Vietnam did fall, the strategic effect proved to be limited. The falling dominoes never did pose a threat to our shores for one simple reason: The communists of North Vietnam were less interested in promoting world revolution than in unifying their country under socialist rule.
No responsible person said we were fighting in Viet Nam to prevent Communism from coming to America. We were fighting in South Viet Nam to prevent Communism from coming to South Viet Nam.
We deluded ourselves into thinking that we were defending freedom against totalitarianism.
Is this guy insane? We were fighting in South Viet Nam to prevent Communism from coming to South Viet Nam, a corrupt, inept but non-totalitarian government. That is precisely defending freedom against totalitarianism. He's the one deluded.
And here's his big humanitarian finish: Once the Americans departed, the Vietnamese began getting their act together. Although not a utopia, Vietnam has become a stable and increasingly prosperous nation. It is a responsible member of the international community. In Hanoi, the communists remain in power.
I have to admit I have no idea what he means by 'getting their act together'. Certainly just after our ground forces left the North began planning an offensive to take South Viet Nam. Is that what he means? Getting their conquering act together? After they conquered South Viet Nam, they murdered thousands of Vietnamese, placed hundreds of thousands of others in what we call concentration camps (they called them re-education camps), drove hundreds of thousands to desperate flight (which killed unknown hundreds of thousands), and they lowered the standard of living for all Vietnamese so that they are a real poor and inconsequential member of the international community, and will remain so as long as the Maoist Communist remain in power. I don't call that getting your act together unless your act is the spreading of misery and death; then I guess it is. Not a utopia, he admits--man, his compassion for the suffering of the Vietnamese must be limitless.
Here are some of the books this guy has published: The Long War: A New History of US National Security Policy since World War II (2007); American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U. S. Diplomacy (2002); The Imperial Tense: Problems and Prospects of American Empire (2003), and The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (2005). Imperial, Empire, seduced by war. Kind of a one note samba, no?
He seems like a nice enough guy but you really have to be a professor to be this dumb.
The president views the abandonment of our Southeast Asian allies as a disgrace, deploring the fate suffered by the "boat people" and the victims of the Khmer Rouge.
So views any person with a heart and the brain cells to remember what happened 1973-1979. Does Bacevich see it differently? Here's the straight dope on Vietnam history vis a vis Iraq from Max Boot in today's Wall Street Journal Online.
In unconventional wars, body counts don't really count. In the Vietnam War, superior American firepower enabled U.S. forces to prevail in most tactical engagements. We killed plenty of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. But killing didn't produce victory -- the exertions of U.S. troops all too frequently proved to be counterproductive.
Killing the enemy always matters. Even though the war evolved in major ways, we won the Viet Nam War by killing the enemy at enormous rates and winning every major tactical engagement. We destroyed the Viet Cong in 1968 and the rest of the war was waged by North Viet Nam Regulars (the NVA) whom we slaughtered as well. When the last American ground troops left in Spring, 1973, we really had achieved a peace with honor; and, as long as we provided air cover and war material, South Viet Nam was safe from Northern aggression. Then the overwhelmingly Democratic congress, elected in the wake of the Watergate scandal, pulled the plug on air cover and war material and the South went down in an NVA blitzkrieg in 1975. That was the disgraceful abandonment.
Wars like Vietnam and Iraq aren't won militarily; at best, they are settled politically.
Is this guy serious? All wars are either won or lost militarily. It is only when a military power cannot or, more likely, will not prevail, then there has to be a political settlement, which more often than not leads to renewed conflict after a rest and rearmament period. That's why there are so many 'second' wars--failure to win an overwhelming military victory and settling for the political 'solution'.
In the Republic of Vietnam, created by the United States after the partition of French Indochina, such institutions did not exist. Despite an enormous U.S. investment in nation-building, they never did. In the end, South Vietnam proved to be a fiction.
I refute this nonsense with two words--South Korea. The only difference between South Korea and South Viet Nam is that we didn't disgracefully abandon South Korea. Oh, and the suffering of the South Vietnamese, that's a difference. They were more like the North Koreans in their level of suffering after 1975.
From Dwight D. Eisenhower through Richard M. Nixon, a parade of presidents convinced themselves that defending South Vietnam qualified as a vital U.S. interest. For the free world, a communist takeover of that country would imply an unacceptable defeat.
Notice that he names the two Republican Presidents who had little to do with committing massive numbers of American troops to Viet Nam and leaves out the two Democrats who did. Sometimes, to stop the spread of an evil ideology, you have to draw a line--here and no further. Defeating Communism, which is indeed an evil ideology, was of vital U.S. interest and good for the free world. Part of our decades long fight to end Communism was trying to prevent the Communist takeover of South Viet Nam. Would someone tell Professor Bacevich that we won the Cold War by actively opposing Communism and drawing lines (even though the battle of South Korea was a draw and the battle of Viet Nam a legislated loss)? I'm not sure he knows it.
Yet when South Vietnam did fall, the strategic effect proved to be limited. The falling dominoes never did pose a threat to our shores for one simple reason: The communists of North Vietnam were less interested in promoting world revolution than in unifying their country under socialist rule.
No responsible person said we were fighting in Viet Nam to prevent Communism from coming to America. We were fighting in South Viet Nam to prevent Communism from coming to South Viet Nam.
We deluded ourselves into thinking that we were defending freedom against totalitarianism.
Is this guy insane? We were fighting in South Viet Nam to prevent Communism from coming to South Viet Nam, a corrupt, inept but non-totalitarian government. That is precisely defending freedom against totalitarianism. He's the one deluded.
And here's his big humanitarian finish: Once the Americans departed, the Vietnamese began getting their act together. Although not a utopia, Vietnam has become a stable and increasingly prosperous nation. It is a responsible member of the international community. In Hanoi, the communists remain in power.
I have to admit I have no idea what he means by 'getting their act together'. Certainly just after our ground forces left the North began planning an offensive to take South Viet Nam. Is that what he means? Getting their conquering act together? After they conquered South Viet Nam, they murdered thousands of Vietnamese, placed hundreds of thousands of others in what we call concentration camps (they called them re-education camps), drove hundreds of thousands to desperate flight (which killed unknown hundreds of thousands), and they lowered the standard of living for all Vietnamese so that they are a real poor and inconsequential member of the international community, and will remain so as long as the Maoist Communist remain in power. I don't call that getting your act together unless your act is the spreading of misery and death; then I guess it is. Not a utopia, he admits--man, his compassion for the suffering of the Vietnamese must be limitless.
Here are some of the books this guy has published: The Long War: A New History of US National Security Policy since World War II (2007); American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U. S. Diplomacy (2002); The Imperial Tense: Problems and Prospects of American Empire (2003), and The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (2005). Imperial, Empire, seduced by war. Kind of a one note samba, no?
He seems like a nice enough guy but you really have to be a professor to be this dumb.
Labels: False History
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 1:49 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Where to start?
Peace with honor in 73? I mean, I'm too young to remember, but the secret war in Cambodia, the helicoptering of people off the roof? The Mai Lai massacre? Millions dead in what essentially was a colonial pursuit! That was peace with honor? Wow.
It is only when a military power cannot or, more likely, will not prevail, then there has to be a political settlement. This flies in the face of what people on both sides of the political divide have been saying which is that there is not military solution in Iraq, only a political one.
And after every conflict, there must be a political settlement. The millitary can win the war, but lasting peace can only be acheived through political reconciliation. This is so rudimentary, I feel almost foolish for writing it to someone as learned as yourself.
Sometimes, to stop the spread of an evil ideology, you have to draw a line--here and no further. Defeating Communism, which is indeed an evil ideology, was of vital U.S. interest and good for the free world.
This entire line of reasoning has been soundly defeated. The idea that if Vietnam goes, then Thailand goes, then Malaysia goes, then Indonesia goes was the battle cry of the hawks like yourself. It didn't really work out that way, did it? I don't really want to argue that communisim is or isn't evil. Clearly, absolute power leads to evil in both communist and capitalists regimes. Does Pinocet's violence prove that free-markets are evil? Clearly not. It is the men who run the systems, not the systems themselves that are evil.
No responsible person said we were fighting in Viet Nam to prevent Communism from coming to America.
This makes me laugh. I agree 100%. It was only the war mongers who claimed that if we let Viet Nam go to the Russians it would start a chain reaction that would lead to the Russians winning the cold war and the world falling to communism. No responsible people indeed: just you and your entire party!
I have to admit I have no idea what he means by 'getting their act together
Do some research on Vietnam and the economy. It is one of the fasting growing in the world, and is doing well even compared to the others in the region. Keep in mind that the country was ravaged by war and was far less developed than others to start with. But now they are being pointed to as a model for development by many leading economists. 8% GDP growth (growing even during the last recession) 16% industrial production growth.
And all done with central planning and devoid of true democratic institutions. I'm not saying that is good, but this rubbish we have been fed that it is impossible... well, look at China, or the UAE, or India, or any other number of countries that are doing well despite a their reliance on the "evils" of communism.
End note: I generally focused on the negatives here, but some of your points were well made. The comparison of South Korea to South Vietnam was particularly instructive, although tactically, dividing Vietnam in halves was much harder due to geography, don't forget.
Peace with honor in 73? I mean, I'm too young to remember, but the secret war in Cambodia, the helicoptering of people off the roof? The Mai Lai massacre? Millions dead in what essentially was a colonial pursuit! That was peace with honor? Wow.
It is only when a military power cannot or, more likely, will not prevail, then there has to be a political settlement. This flies in the face of what people on both sides of the political divide have been saying which is that there is not military solution in Iraq, only a political one.
And after every conflict, there must be a political settlement. The millitary can win the war, but lasting peace can only be acheived through political reconciliation. This is so rudimentary, I feel almost foolish for writing it to someone as learned as yourself.
Sometimes, to stop the spread of an evil ideology, you have to draw a line--here and no further. Defeating Communism, which is indeed an evil ideology, was of vital U.S. interest and good for the free world.
This entire line of reasoning has been soundly defeated. The idea that if Vietnam goes, then Thailand goes, then Malaysia goes, then Indonesia goes was the battle cry of the hawks like yourself. It didn't really work out that way, did it? I don't really want to argue that communisim is or isn't evil. Clearly, absolute power leads to evil in both communist and capitalists regimes. Does Pinocet's violence prove that free-markets are evil? Clearly not. It is the men who run the systems, not the systems themselves that are evil.
No responsible person said we were fighting in Viet Nam to prevent Communism from coming to America.
This makes me laugh. I agree 100%. It was only the war mongers who claimed that if we let Viet Nam go to the Russians it would start a chain reaction that would lead to the Russians winning the cold war and the world falling to communism. No responsible people indeed: just you and your entire party!
I have to admit I have no idea what he means by 'getting their act together
Do some research on Vietnam and the economy. It is one of the fasting growing in the world, and is doing well even compared to the others in the region. Keep in mind that the country was ravaged by war and was far less developed than others to start with. But now they are being pointed to as a model for development by many leading economists. 8% GDP growth (growing even during the last recession) 16% industrial production growth.
And all done with central planning and devoid of true democratic institutions. I'm not saying that is good, but this rubbish we have been fed that it is impossible... well, look at China, or the UAE, or India, or any other number of countries that are doing well despite a their reliance on the "evils" of communism.
End note: I generally focused on the negatives here, but some of your points were well made. The comparison of South Korea to South Vietnam was particularly instructive, although tactically, dividing Vietnam in halves was much harder due to geography, don't forget.
First paragraph: we invaded Cambodia in 1970, what secret?; helicopter off the roof was '75 as NVA tanks were rolling into Saigon; Mei Lai was in '68; the French had attempted to re colonize. They lost. We were attempting to make the north live by the first peace accords and prevent another communist take over of a country partitioned post WWII. Second paragraph: They are wrong. We could ramp up and be in every nook and cranny of Iraq if only there was the political will. That we seem to lack the will to win overwhelmingly is causing guys to say take the political solution. I'm OK with Iraqization of the war as long as we stay supportive vis a vis South Korea.
Third paragraph: The only need for political solutions are when there is no military win. WWI was not an overwhelming win; we never reached Germany's borders. It started again >20 years later. Are you saying after we reduced Germany to brick rubble and Japan to ash, we had to have political reconciliation? Bull. They were defeated entirely, occupied and we never completely left. German and Japanese politics didn't seem to enter into it. Do you disagree?
The need for political reconciliation after an overwhelming defeat is minimal at best.
4th: NO! only Laos, and Cambodia went. Malaysia was rescued from a Comminist take over by a strong British effort and Thailand and Indonesia were iffy. Pinochet killed what 3,000? Compare that to the USSR's and China's 100 million? Don't give me this it's just as bad on the right crap. It's not.
Next. Arguing that we needed to defeat Communism or as Democratic President Truman said, at least contain it, meant that we had to stop its spread. Uncle Ho was attempting to spread Communism and Kennedy and Johnson (both Democrats, you recall) stopped it until the '73-'75 betrayal by much different Democrats. I'm never going to regret my party's carrying on the sound Democratic policy of containing Communism and then going it one better and actually defeating Communism (at least in the USSR). It's not over yet.
Finally. I know China and Viet Nam are doing better now but is that because they have abandoned the primary collectivist beliefs and embraced in some ways capitalism? I believe it is but I do need to do the research. Thanks for the comment. It was exactly what I asked for.
Post a Comment
Third paragraph: The only need for political solutions are when there is no military win. WWI was not an overwhelming win; we never reached Germany's borders. It started again >20 years later. Are you saying after we reduced Germany to brick rubble and Japan to ash, we had to have political reconciliation? Bull. They were defeated entirely, occupied and we never completely left. German and Japanese politics didn't seem to enter into it. Do you disagree?
The need for political reconciliation after an overwhelming defeat is minimal at best.
4th: NO! only Laos, and Cambodia went. Malaysia was rescued from a Comminist take over by a strong British effort and Thailand and Indonesia were iffy. Pinochet killed what 3,000? Compare that to the USSR's and China's 100 million? Don't give me this it's just as bad on the right crap. It's not.
Next. Arguing that we needed to defeat Communism or as Democratic President Truman said, at least contain it, meant that we had to stop its spread. Uncle Ho was attempting to spread Communism and Kennedy and Johnson (both Democrats, you recall) stopped it until the '73-'75 betrayal by much different Democrats. I'm never going to regret my party's carrying on the sound Democratic policy of containing Communism and then going it one better and actually defeating Communism (at least in the USSR). It's not over yet.
Finally. I know China and Viet Nam are doing better now but is that because they have abandoned the primary collectivist beliefs and embraced in some ways capitalism? I believe it is but I do need to do the research. Thanks for the comment. It was exactly what I asked for.
<< Home
