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

Helen said... That's true, but 'hypothetical' describes any proposed or debated policy option, so it's not helpful, and if used as a dismissal, it's irresponsible. As in the case of Viet Nam and the notion I make above to timber, BEFORE is precisely the time to be yelling and throwing tomatoes and fighting hard for our respective viewpoints and for the prevention of all that IS horrible in war, for the us side and the them side when war is in the offing.

(blatham expecting color co-ordinated mortar shells now)

And, regarding a supposition (where it might be made) that the military leadership have their situational analysis 'i's dotted and 't's crossed... from Joan Didion's essay at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15984 (which gains blatham's dependable 4R rating - Read it, Read it, Read it, Read it)

Rummy's comment was arrogant and exactly what I would expect out of this administration. It is exactly why I find the admistration so pathetic!

PDiddie:

When I read what Rumsfeld said, I was outraged! He must be the clumsiest, most arrogant jerk in an administration so full of arrogant people. Do you suppose he is angry about something? Perhaps the number of Vietnam Veterans that are against a pre-emptive strike against Iraq? The families of those that lost loved ones in Vietnam must be very upset. This is a case of extreme callousness.

I read Joan Didion, Blatham...I agree a MUST READ! Another one? "War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning", by Chris Hedges. It is powerful.

anon,
I have finally caught up with you all. There is a lot of information here already and I hope more will follow. Very good links folks, thanks.
I spent a year in-country and will have some comments about that if you want.
I have to re-read a few things to put it all together in my mind, but at first glance it appears that there are two separate times in Ho's fight for national independence that we (USA) missed a perfect opportunity to guide his efforts in a direction that would benefit both the future of Vietnam and the USA's involvement in SE Asia - the meeting he had with Pres. Wilson and the US's disassociation with him prior to and subsequent to the end of WWII.

Rummy is the "ChickenHawk"

Danon:

I read about the missed opportunities, but have forgotten where I read it. I came away thinking that if our government was not so concerned with "LOSING CHINA", we would have had a completely different Ho Chi Minh...we let him down when he wanted to throw off the yoke of the French.

Then we lost China anyway!

Vietnamnurse,
How perceptive and right you are, Ho helped us in our fight against the Japanese during WWII, granted he was still a communist, it was to his advantage to do so. I have spent several years in Asia and have come to admire the intelligence and aforethought they have in dealing with almost any issue. However, that thought process is different from what we think of and being different is looked upon as not quite right by the average caucasian. That perception has led to many errors on our part.

(Link to full text, below...those of you with more knowledge than me will please comment...)

Since the late 1940's, the conventional wisdom had been that the U.S. drifted into the war in Vietnam following the French colonial period, and that American Presidents were given bad information by their advisors and thus made mistakes in policy that led to deeper and deeper involvement. (Daniel) Ellsberg discovered that this view was incorrect.

Contrary to this version of events pushed by the government, the U.S. didn't "drift" into anything. The closest advisers to five presidents (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) told their bosses the truth from the outset, that there was no way the U.S. could win a victory against post-colonialist Vietnamese nationalism; the best that could be hoped for was endless stalemate. Despite the warnings, those Presidents not only embraced the war but kept expanding it. Millions died as a result.

The key to carrying on that insane, immoral war was that the decisions always were made in secret by the President, away from scrutiny by the Congress, the press, and certainly by the American people.

In other words, both Republican and Democratic Presidents and their closest advisers lied for decades to the citizenry, to the press, to the Congress -- the result of which was untold misery for both U.S. military troops and Vietnamese civilians.

The common wisdom is that "you can't keep secrets in Washington," and that someone always deliberately leaks or inadvertently blabs. But, says Ellsberg, who was privy to some of the most top-secret material for years, "the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy...Secrets that would be of the greatest importance to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the Executive Branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."

Daniel Ellsberg's "Secrets"

Thanks, PDiddie,

You've touched a glaring point that I had read earlier in one of the many links given. That is the presence of Gen O'Daniel at the beginning stages of the Navarre Plan ( the plan that led to the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu ). There isn't a general officer alive that will present himself in that situation without troop support. Yep, we were there, probably since well prior to WWII.

Of interest to military historians - We Army pilots used to fly low through the Mang Yang Pass - half way between An Ke and Pleiku in the Central Highlands (coincidently, the region Ho Chi Minh was born in) There spread out along and over the hills are the graves of the Frenchmen who were killed there. They are buried standing up and facing France. Too many to count. We all got a good laugh out of that - but humor in a war zone isn't like humor back home.

Thanks, PDiddie,

You've touched a glaring point that I had read earlier in one of the many links given. That is the presence of Gen O'Daniel at the beginning stages of the Navarre Plan ( the plan that led to the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu ). There isn't a general officer alive that will present himself in that situation without troop support. Yep, we were there, probably since well prior to WWII.

Of interest to military historians - We Army pilots used to fly low through the Mang Yang Pass - half way between An Ke and Pleiku in the Central Highlands (coincidently, the region Ho Chi Minh was born in) There spread out along and over the hills are the graves of the Frenchmen who were killed there. They are buried standing up and facing France. Too many to count. We all got a good laugh out of that - but humor in a war zone isn't like humor back home.

Somebody get that record....Youngsters are asking, what the hell is he talking about?

danon

Interesting anecdote. I understand that our Canadian soldiers were buried sitting on an outhouse seat with a Stag magazine in hand.

blatham, Make that "Playboy."

I always like Penthouse better than either Stag or Playboy...

(you may now return to your regularly scheduled topic)

Danon:

Haven't got time to be gracious. Just checking in while I'm working on-site at a clients. Color me major happy to see you!!!

Anon

danon, Especially for the troops fighting on the ground. c.i.

blatham -- Good one!! Makes for a short laugh, but the Canadians I met were good soldiers, all of them. I've nothing but respect for your troops.

c.i. -- You'd think so, but that happens after the wire's been assaulted. We didn't have many of those, mostly mortar attacks - usually between 1 AM and 3 AM. Just harassment fire.