Bring back draft

Well, the longer version in the Britannica as well as other (offline) publications tell indeed a different biography than offered by Asherman.

Ho Chi Minh once said:

"You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it."

He wasn't talking about the protesting either. He was talking about the fact that we were in his country, killing his people and they were there to stay. I don't love Ho Chi Minh, but I also know that the other side is allowed propaganda as well as our side. I have risen to a cause and am smarter today. I do not believe anyone who wants to go to war, especially if his family stands in line to make millions!

With the defeat of the Axis Powers, peace did not reign on earth. Stalin saw his opportunity to fill the vacumn left in the wreck of the Nazi Reich, and he took it. Communist troops occupied most of Eastern Europe by force, and crushed opposition by more democratically inclind nationalists. Stalin encouraged and supported Communist movements in North Korea, China, Vietnam, Greece, Turkey, and a host of other struggling nations. Soviet arms and resources were intended to overthrow democracy and captialism everywhere. Stalin had as grandious vision as Hitler, and an army to back it up. The Soviet Union supported espionage everywhere, and only obtained the ability to produce nuclear weapons by stealing from the United States. Other Soviet military hardware was also carbon copied from American models.

At the end of WWII, we virtually disarmed and expected others to do the same. We were naive, but generous and compassionate to the defeated. Japan was helped to build a new and better nation on a Constitution similar to our own. West Germany was rebuilt in a remarkedly short time with the assistence and aid provided by the United States. Our allies were forgiven their war debts, and they rebuilt their shattered countries largely on their own. We let Chiang's KMT be defeated, though there really wasn't much we could do to stop it anyway.

We lived then in a world where the Soviet Union and International Communism really did pose a clear and direct threat to the freedom of every nation in the world. What could we do? How best could we resist the armed and subversive aggression of the Communists? The answer was outlined in one of the earliest NSC documents (1948).

That strategy was that the Communists, led by the Soviet Union, would be resisted wherever and whenever they attempted to expand their reach. Because the danger that any direct confrontation might escalate into a nuclear war, we would have to remain very careful in how we managed conflict. First, we would engage them mostly through client states rather than head-on. That way we could more easily pull back if the situation looked as if it might spin out of control. Second, we would pit our strongest assets against the Communist's weakest point. That is the free economy would be pitted against the inefficiencies of central planning. We would use our national wealth and productivity to wear the opponents down to defeat. It was a good strategy, though often overlooked by policy makers caught up in the day to day struggle.

We countered the Communist invasion of South Korea, and after a costly little war agreed to an armistice and DMZ along the 38th parallel to negotiate an end to the war. Those "negotiations" continue, though the DPRK has made any final agreement impossible by their negotiation strategy. Our NCA (National Command Authority) saw Vietnam as another Communist probe that had to be resisted. Once you slap the tarbaby, it's hard to get free again. Vietnam, in retrospect, was a natural extention of the Cold War and, at least in theory, it served the useful purpose of slowing the spread of International Communism and aggression. Once we left South Vietnam, a brutal Communist dictatorship was imposed and tens of thousands were killed because they were the Class Enemy. Milliions of refugees were driven from their homes. Vietnam thereafter invaded it's neighbors and they fell one after another under the Communist yoke. Cambodia became the poster-child of Communist Theory with its Killing Fields that slaughtered perhaps a million Class Enemies.

Our hearts were in the right place, were theirs?

Asherman:

Ponitifcating never changes the facts!

We have never disarmed!

We were equally ambitious in our advocacy of capitalism and "democracy" ! We did that by supporting Dictator after Dictator that equally crushed their opponents, and murdered innocents. Our current dictator of choice is Musharraf in Pakistan. One of our past Dictators of choice was Saddam Hussein, of Iraq. We gave him his WOMD's, that's why we "know" he has them. Rumsfirld himself gave them to him. Fact is, we have no proof he still has them. I think that's an important fact to establish.

Stalin Espionage = OSS, and then the CIA

The USA directly poses a theat to a multitude of nations who have their own way of doing things. Telling them they must practice capitalism is like me telling my neighbor he must be a muslum!

I have to break off for now, but history as interpreted by Asherman overlooks many facts about the United States itself, not to mention many totally incorrect statements.

I think A2K should put "truthful facts regulations" in force!!

Anon

Asherman

When have there been stalinistic movements of any importance in Greece and Turkey?

Anon
Yes we went to sleep and disarmed for the period of time after WW2 and the Korean war. We were caught with our pants down. In 1948-1949 I was stationed in Camp Hood Texas. Home of the second Armored Div. At that time all the companies were at cadre strength and the tanks were red lined most of the time. There wasn't one radio that worked. And as for equipment you had what you had. After the war most of the equipment was left where it was very little was brought back to the states. And procurement, what was that. That was the same equipment that the troops in Korea were supplied with at the beginning of the conflict. Is there any wonder we got our fannies kicked at the beginning.

Walter, i don't agree with Asherman's take on Ho Chi Mihn--i find it less easy to disagree on what motivated American policy during the cold war. He has his facts correct in most regards, even if we disagree with his conclusions--i cannot confirm or deny his analysis of Ho Chi Mihn, other than that Ho did indeed both receive his university eduation in France, and participate in the founding of the Communist Party there. I cannot speak to his assertions about class warfare in Vietnam.

The British fought a particularly nasty counter-insurgency war in Greece in 1947-48. The attempt in Turkey did not get off the ground, both because of traditional suspicion of the Russian by the Turk, and because of Islamic distrust of the "atheistic" nature of communism--but that doesn't mean that old Joe didn't try, he did indeed.

AU1929:

One small point ... did we ever give up the atom bomb ??? Did we not still have the capacity to unequivically destroy anything we wanted? Did we not use that fact, and that power to wield and impose our influence and dictates on others?

Did we ever give up the "Holy Bomb", ever ???

Anon

Also, Au is absolutely right on the money about America disarming after the Second World War. Apart from everything i've read historically on the subject, i am reminded of Schwartzkopf's autobiorgraphy which appeared immediately after the Gulf War, where he describes exactly the situation Au describes.

Historically, both the English and the Americans have been suspicious of standing armies, and have almost always cut them drastically after wars. Just last night, in a policy study of Wellington's army which i have been reading, i read of the inflamatory rhetoric which poured out of the Parliament on the subject of the dramatic growth of their army in the period 1794-1813. In the United States, we have traditionally done exactly the same thing. There has been only one significant exception, and that is in the period of the cold war immediately after the invasion of South Korea.

Setanta:

Luckily you didn't see how I spelled your name the first time Typing has never been my forte'.

Asherman got several facts wrong about Ho!

His contention was that Ho was not a WWII war hero, and did not return until 1946. My link proves otherwise.

His contention was that Ho operated from Russia. My link proves he was in China, filtering insurgents back into Vietnam.

Ho also worked with the OSS, in fact, they respected and liked him.

Ho was a consumate nationalist, a 100% tried and true nationalist. His Vietnimh took over the country as soon as World War II was over, a result of Ho being a national WWII hero, and the fact that he built his base during the war itself.

Ho used communism and crafted it to his desires to meet his nationalistic desires.

Ho was no dummy!!

Anon


P.S. Please refer to my post to AU as to disarming.

Anon

anon
We had the bomb. But we weren't about to use. Korean war was fought as all others before it. Mano a Mano.

Well, Anon, with regard to American disarmerment after the Second World War, i think you are missing a point. With virtually no army left, with most of the navy in "mothballs" and with the airforce flight line all but comatose, those atomic weapons served only to discourage an all-out attempt at the invasion of our territory. When the British fought the communist insurgents in Greece, they weren't gonna get any GI's to help them--we didn't have the resources available. When Ho's insurgents began to destabilize the south, we were still struggling to meet the demands of the Korean conflict--as Au has pointed out, we were totally unprepared for conventional ground warfare in 1950.

The point about the reduction in the American military after WWII is not about atomic weapons, which only served as a deterent to a direct attack on the US or NATO. They were useless to counter regional conflicts--and Asherman has pointed out that the Stalinist strategy, mostly just a revision of Lenin's techniques for Bolshevik insurgency, was to work on one nation at a time, to destabilize first one, then another. The "Domino Theory" was discredited by academic historians in the US during the Vietnam war. These same historians badly lied about the American bombing campaign against Germany in the Second World War because they were opposed to the US bombing of North Vietnam. Doing so doesn't change the historical record. Anyone who believes that claptrap about the ineffectiveness of the US bombing campaign need only consult Albert Speer's memoirs. He was Hitler's architect, and early in the war, took over responsibility for war production. The people who claimed our bombing was ineffective were playing with statistics, when they were not actually lieing outright. The "Domino Theory" may seem ridiculous at this distance, but old Joe Stalin thought it would work, and after the invasion of South Korea, those responsible for national security in our country thought so as well.

One of the problems we had in the cold war era was that communism doesn't seem that bad to someone living in a "capitalist" nation who has nothing, had no prospects of ever having anything, and begins to feel he has nothing to lose. The crackpot university professor who created the Sendero Luminoso in Peru demonstrated that it is possible to destabilize a nation without even having a cause to promote. Given the ease with which communist fanatics created insurgencies after the second world war, and the unlikelihood of the US using nukes after the Soviet Union had their own, it's not hard to see that having nukes does not protect either our friends or our interests in such a world. Yes, we had the atomic bomb in 1950--we just didn't have any army which was prepared to respond effectively to the invasion of South Korea.

This is a fascinating dive into the Vietnam War and Ho Chi Minh. Problem is I feel I have derailed this topic and have taken it over.

I'm going to start a new topic for the discussion of VietNam, the history, and the causes leading to the war. Heads up, I'll start it by tomorrow morning.

Anon

Back on subject!

"Bring back the draft?
Rep. Charles Rangel says yes -- the poor, black and brown shouldn't be the only Americans fighting and dying in Iraq."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/01/07/draft/index_np.html

Setanta and all other interested individuals ...

I have started a thread on Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnam war. Some great links and background have been started already!!

Anon

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2710&highlight=

draft not
Rangel has taken a position here that seems difficult to defend, arguing that our all-voluteer military is a bad idea because he's unhappy with the types of people who choose to serve.

Police, fire fighters, and rescue workers likewise draw their volunteer forces from lower- and middle-income households, and likewise put themselves in harm's way. If you agree with Rangel, that we should be forcing people from upper income bracket homes to join the military, would you likewise support forcing them to take jobs in other high-risk careers?

In the past, the US had a draft when it was necessary to ensure manning at needed levels. Today, using voluntary enlistments, the military is fully manned. There is no need for a draft, and Rangel's call for one seems to me the worst kind of class-rhetoric.

Trespassers will -- I think part of what goes into this argument is the realization that none (I think) of those who are planning this war, from members of Congress, to upper level members of the administration, to those in think tanks advising war, are putting their own children in the firing line. There's been a real change in Politi-Speak during my lifetime, from politicians talking about "the American people" as "we" to politicians talking about the American people as "they." I think this new detachment has been noticed by quite a few citizens -- perhaps the very ones who are sympathetic to the idea of a draft, or who are marching in antiwar rallies, or those who simply "don't trust the government." Imagine, though, if Bush or Rumsfeld or Perle said publicly: "I don't like war either. I served in Vietnam, and my youngest kid's on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf right now."

I agree that it was our country, culpable for
failing to disarm - and most likely responsible
for the state of world affairs which we happen
to be in today. By refusing to give up the
position of TOP DOG - all that we have done, is
to allow other idiot 3rd world nations purchase,
or steal (or maybe to get via govt graft and greed)
enough info and material to make their own
atom bombs. So now, they can thumb their noses
at us, nya nya nya you aren't the only kid on
the block with a big bomb anymore. We wanted to
watch everyone else disarm, while WE lied and kept
the upper hand. America is a dirty little country,
we have EARNED that! All those dirty little lies about
the terror of communism, and had america believing
that Russia was our huge, strong enemy & then all
of a sudden - big bad russia disintegrates before our
very eyes, not a word about that er, imbalance in the
perception of russia which americans were "taught"
to have. Just as stupid as McCarthy with his with
little witch hunts. And no doubt as stupid as is Bush
trying to keep our attention off what else he is doing
while teaching americans that every moment we are
in danger from a country full of rock throwing idiots!

it seems obvious to me that Rangel is only trying to make a point, not reinstate the draft.