Debunking the Vietnam War - History of Vietnam & Ho Chi Minh

This is the man not only responsible for the care and well-being of our soldiers today, but of the reputation and honor of the soldiers who have come and gone. His was the generation that faced the challenge of Vietnam, a truth which applies to a great many within the administration that claims him. Analyze the words:

"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in; they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market because they were without choices."

People were brought in to the armed services during the Vietnam era because they were drafted, under penalty of prison or estrangement from their country, and were paid a fraction of the going rate in the civilian marketplace because of the basic nature of that forced conscription. As for being without choice, this is correct. If a 19-year-old in that time in America did not want to go to jail, or to Canada, or to Mexico, or if he did not have powerful family connections that guaranteed a safe posting somewhere away from the combat zone, then indeed they were without choices.

"Big categories were exempted - people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married. It varied from time to time, but there were all kinds of exemptions."

This is code. Rumsfeld at this point was sidestepping a bitter truth. There has been for some time now a word floating around the political lexicon: "Chickenhawk." The accepted definition of the word is, "One who tends to advocate, or are fervent supporters of those who advocate, military solutions to political problems, and who have personally declined to take advantage of a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime." Dick Cheney, Andrew Card, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, and Karl Rove all came of age during the Vietnam war. Each and every single one of them found a way to avoid service. Each of these man has, in the last several months, gone out of their way to push hard for military solutions to political problems.

Foremost on this list is George W. Bush, who was eased into a National Guard posting in Texas in 1972, and who by all accounts failed to show up for this duty for some 17 months. When Rumsfeld referred to "all kinds of exemptions," be safe in the knowledge that his understanding of that phrase is as broad as it is shallow.

"And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

There are 58,229 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. Many of those names belong to men who were without the choices afforded to Bush, Cheney, Perle, Card, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Ashcroft and Rove. In all likelihood, there are names on that wall representing men who went, served and died in Vietnam in place of these administration officials. That the man immediately in charge of our armed services stated that these lost soldiers added "no value, no advantage" to the country they served is a profound insult not only to the honored dead, but to those who died so Bush and the members of his administration could hide from duty when it came calling. Indeed, Mr. Rumsfeld, these men are gone, and never to return.

Not my words but those of William Rivers Pitt, from The Stand

goose bumps. Man, too bad this is a all-ages forum.

I will comment. The metaphor is not unlike Baker's "We don't have a dog in that race". Both demonstrate a detachment from the human element to such a degree that I consider it pathological. Humans as resource of the state, quite like dumb animals or widgets.

And I will object. Secretary Rumsfeld was simply commenting on the advantages of a professional (i.e. all-volunteer) military. Felicity of expression is no requirement for heading the DoD.

Fmr Secretary of State Baker was perfectly correct in his comment on Bosnia, btw, as amply proven by subsequent events.

P.S. "we don't have a dog in that fight" was the exact quote.

none the less, rummy has dissed a lot of lives

Helen:

Problem with you is, you know a bunch from an intellectual level, and you definitely know more than any of us as to plan and design.

But I doubt you have ever been on the line!

Anon

Helen

I think perhaps referring to metaphors such as those (or, for another related example, poetic euphemisms for tools and machines designed to rip humans apart) as 'felicitous' is itself a bit too happily felicitous. Understanding another's mind is no clear matter, but language goes a long long way.

Anon - Timber here will vouch for fact that this lack of frontline (or, indeed, any kind of uniformed) experience was disclosed by me up front in a thread he started elsewhere on carpet bombing. Will look up link if you like. BRB

Back with link as promised:
http://boston.abuzz.com/interaction/s.234414/discussion
which actually is very relevant to Anon's thread here and worth submitting in its entirety.

Another take on Rummy's remarks might be that, from a purely professional military view, The Draft was neither Operationally or Fiscally beneficial. Considerable expense was devoted to the registration, intake, processing, inducting, and training of draftees. The product of this investment in some respects hindered the military's mission rather than aided it. Significant combat-and combat support capable resources frequently were effectively burdened by considerations stemming from a relatively larger proportion of inexperienced to experienced combat effectives.

Not only was the draft an Administrative and Public Relations nightmare, the staggering investment was ongoing and of transitory, if any, benefit. A professional soldier spends a working lifetime learning a career, not a job. Inductees, whose initial intake costs the same as would that of a professional soldier, is replaced every few years, at considerable ongoing cost. The return on investment from a professional military is more attractive than from a system of rotating amatures. The Draft did not aid The War Effort. It simply cost more, in too many ways, than it was worth. A rotating system of untrained, inexperienced amatures is poorer investment at the top than at the bottom of the foodchain. in my opinion. Neither will pay.



I infer from Rummy's remarks no disrespect toward those who served honorably. I am of course unhappy with the service records of most folks directing today's military. I think we have bungled our way into the present state of affairs pretty much as we have frequenly bungled our way into wars of late. Pearl Harbor, Korea, Viet Nam ... and now, 9/11, we were up to our haunches in the dog fight before we realized the pack was loose. The Draft didn't pay. I see little prospect for it to do so now. I suspect The Current Administration regards it in similar light. I doubt they have given sufficient consideration to various other matters, related and not. Some of those folks strike me as not very Professional at all, in any sense.



timber

Helen:

Leave it to you to leave me a link that is going to take me a half hour or better to read ... you hussy!!

Anon

timberlandko:i know you will excuse my ignorance but was it not the intent withing the framework of our founding fathers that the USA would not have a standing army of significance? that it was the intent to avoid a professional army for fear that such an army would exert undue influence on the operation of the government? i am not making a statement i am only asking.

Dys!

My fear of a standing professional army, is just that. We need to use it to be "cost effective"! It needs to pay for itself by conquering! Iraq is a good example, very profitable indeed!

How long will true patriotic Americans tolerate this abuse of military might??

Anon

I'd almost forgotten Abuzz could be like that. Thanks Helen. That was a good thread, and for me it was a most entertaining sparring match. I am apalled by the misperceptions folks have regarding military history or current military capability. An All-out use of all available conventional forces, Air, Land, and Sea, without artificial political restriction and micromanagement would have given a very different result. That we used force in South East Asia was unfortunate. That we did not use sufficient force to resolve the matter quickly once we were committed, at much less cost in lives and money, is criminal.



timber

I can't believe we still do tolerate it!

The fortunes of the American Military rise and fall with the tide of the public mood. If no one is actively shooting at us, the military has typically been shoved-to-the-back-of-the-desk. A cadre of trained, experienced, career miilitary has been expected to be the armature on which an effective war-fighting machine could be wound when required. Its not just an American phenomanon; Kipling's "Tommy Atkins" addressed the matter from a British perspective a while back.

The approach has been less than optimally successful, and has not been entirely consistent. Following the Civil War, our forces were allowed to contract, with most capital military investment devoted to The Navy. When we entered WWI, our state of preparedness was atrocious. Our troops were sent into battle ill equipped and badly armed. The following year, we were a recognized global power. By the Nineteen Forties, we had again reached a dismal state of preparedness. At the end of WWII we were one of two Global Super Powers. Conventional Ground Forces received comparartively little of the attention lavished on The Air Force and The Navy during The Cold War. Viet Nam showed the results ... our forces were thrust into a war for which they were not prepared. The Draft was necessary in each case becuse the military as constituted was unequal to the task to which it had been set. Over all, an adequate, prepared, standing, professional military, while more effective than an urgent ad-hoc assemblage, is also far cheaper in every concern.



timber

Iraq hasn't been attacked yet, and may not be - so this alleged "abuse of military might" is purely hypothetical for now. Back to the subject - "micromanagement" as mentioned by Timber was another major problem in the conduct of the Vietnam war:

I remember a family friend - who was captain of the Enterprise at the time - years later still shaking with fury at relating how some low-level clerk in McNamara's office would call him with detailed instructions on aircraft sorties "when he didn't even know the difference between a F-16 and a M-16!!"

Anon - back in about a week; to you and all vets here: THANK YOU!

Helen:

Bummer, I knew you were going to do that!!

Safe passage Helen!!

Anon

timber... you said I would reverse the two adjectives, 'criminal' and 'unfortunate' (NOT meaning disrespect for those who fought). It's like a bar room brawl where people get badly hurt - it is starting at all that is the dumb and criminal move. Given a time machine, which of the two would we go back and erase?