At the Bloody Dawn of the Vietnam War

New York Times ^ | November 13, 2015 | By NEIL SHEEHAN

[PROCON]

Vietnam was a righteous war, won by righteous men, and given away by slippery traitors in Congress.

Thank you, you will make my upcoming sleep restful.

[PROCON]

Oops, I forgot to Ping my good FRiend and fellow Nam Vet.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Let’s not forget the treasonous WALTER CRONKITE who singlehandedly pulled defeat from the jaws of victory!

[jttpwalsh]

My wife left me a few years back, and I spent more time, than I should have, drinking my sorrows away, in bars. Since it was in California, I ran into a lot of returning Marines, and Soldiers, who just came back from Afghanistan. They were kids, and I’m in my 50’s... it was chilling to hear their tales that echoed the lessons we should have learned from our involvement in Vietnam. We sent a lot of brave men to be maimed, and killed, with no particular purpose. Sure, defeating communists, and terrorists is a noble goal; the guys weren’t allowed to be victorious. Sad story . . .

[doorgunner69]

You speak far better and more coherently than I, brother.

My thoughts tend too much toward rage, so I tend to stay quiet. You speak well for us.

[Pelham]

Figures. LBJ was filth.

[beelzepug]

The U.S. picked their side when Ho Chi Minh asked us to help rid them of the French after WWII. We wouldn’t.

War in Vietnam never really ended when the Japs were beaten. I had a friend who was there in 1959 or 1960 with a UDT team up the Mekong River, men who wore no insignia and whose presence there would have been denied by the Navy if they were killed or taken prisoner.

Politicians and stupid ROEs kept us from winning. Take a hill, leave it, come back a week later and take it all over again. Senseless squandering of American lives. I’m proud of my service there but I have nothing good to say about how Washington D.C. conducted the war.

This same attitude from D.C. is still sacrificing our troops in the Middle East today.

[Retain Mike]

No problem. Notice it became part of the Congressional Record after it was in the Proceeding and in a book, so it is not some Internet apocryphal story.

[SunkenCiv]

You’re spot on. In the early to mid-1960s Eisenhower stated in interview that US involvement (such as it was) began right after Dien Bien Phu. As a Senator, JFK held or participated in hearings about US involvement in Vietnam, “Lay OS”, etc, keeping up a drumbeat that stopped when he decided to run for President. In his campaign persona, he portrayed Eisenhower as being soft on defense, talked about “brushfire wars”, missile gap, bomber gap, communist takeovers, etc.

[JDoutrider]

Bookmark

[cpdiii]

Robert McNamara and LBJ should have been down at the Vietnam Memorial every night begging on their knees for forgiveness until they day they died. There is not one name on that wall whom is not 100 times more man than LBJ and McNamara were but that is a poor comparison to those men. The names on the wall are the names of men, McNamara and LBJ should not be mentioned in the same line as men.

The names on the wall are those of warriors. McNamara and LBJ were and are a foul and putrid essence even on a good day.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Thanks for link.

Years ago I read an interview with Imelda Marcos, first lady to Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. In 1967 Lyndon Johnson visited the Marcos’ in Manila. She said Johnson unfurled a big map of the Pacific and explained his strategy in Vietnam.

LBJ said U.S. involvement in Vietnam was about tying up Communist resources on one battleground, affording time for the non-communist Asian states—many of them just emerging from colonial rule—to develop stable governments, economies and armed forces that could cope with local communist insurgencies. To this end the war was a success.

The U.S. buildup in Vietnam forced the Soviets, and to a lesser extent the Chinese, to divert money, arms and materiel to Vietnam thus neglecting other armed Marxist movements in the Western Pacific.

This strategy strengthened the rising nations of Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and South Korea. The cost to the Soviets was huge because of their dysfunctional economy.

When Russian personnel began appearing in the conquered South Vietnam the people called them “Americans without dollars.”

[octex]

It wasn’t an unnecessary war, asshole, it was a war we were never allowed to win.
*************************************
I agree with your entire posting!

JFK actually began the thing by inserting so-called military “advisers” and LBJ rapidly ramped it up from there.

I finished my military active duty in ‘62, but several of my childhood and HS friends were drafted and didn’t come back.

[Lumper20]

The NYT is as usual full of it. These journalists did very damn little during that war outside of their Saigon hotels and other major cities in the south and some reported from a number of large US basecamps. Very few US journalists ever went out with US Infantry or Marine units in the bush. I recall the CAV being formed as my father was in UTR at CONARC. UTR (Unit Training and Readiness at Continental Army Command} reported that the 1st Cav was not combat ready for RVN. It was not in 65.I served with men who had four tours in SE Asia by mid 68, and a number had started off with a White Star tour in Laos in the late 50’s to early 60’s. In fact at FT Bragg both Moon Hall and Hardie Hall are named after officers from White Star Mobile Training Teams that were in Laos. In 68-69 I served with a Major who had been in Laos in 60-61, Then was CO of an A team in I Corps in 62-63,From 65-66 he was a Mike Force Company CO and he was our XO in 68-69. Many a dear friend lost his life in that war. The average US Infantryman in Vietnam spent more time in actual combat during a tour in RVN then those in WWII did. In 70-72 I was sent back to college and one Army CPT in my class had been a platoon leader with the Cav in the Ia Drang in 65. John was a mess as he had been stripped and left for dead.

[kearnyirish2]

The US was largely responsible for Dien Bien Phu itself. After WWII France had no interest in fighting the Viet Minh, and we told them we needed them to do so to contain communism. We funded them and armed them to the teeth; if you see French soldiers in Dien Bien Phu they look like US GIs from 1945 (same gear, helmets, etc.). In a grim foreshadowing of the Bay of Pigs a few years later, promised US air support simply never came.

[Hulka]

Bush Senior took the lesson’s of Vietnam to heart. He and Weinberger established the “Weinberger Principles” for waging a war:
-Use Troops When Political Efforts Fail
-Go to War When you Intend to WIN
-Go to War When it is Vital to US National Interests (“Mama Factor”)
-You Win When you have Well-Defined Political-Military Goals and “End-State”
-You Win When You Reassess Size, Composition and Mission
-You Win When You Have the Support of the American People

Sadly, Clinton changed all that and his criteria was (with my comments):
-Is it Important to National Security
-Are Americas Allies Behind the Endeavor (Who cares if it is in the US national security interest!!)
-Is Military Action/Deployment the Only Option and will the Cost of the Mission be Proportionate to the Objective (Putting a price tag on US national security. . .sheesh)
-What “Special Factors” Might be Involved that are Unique to the Circumstances at Hand (what the heck does that mean??)

The Messiah has no standards as he has no clue about anything having to do with US national security. In fact, I suspect he doesn’t really care about US national security.

[Alberta's Child]

You left George W. Bush out of the mix. He's probably the worst of them all. I don't think he had any criteria at all, except:

Islam is a Religion of Peace.

We would have been better off with a retarded baboon in the White House.

[mj1234]

Also-

2 REAL TRAITORS to the U.S.-

JOHN KERRY- Illegally met with the communists- in Paris!
(how ironic)

Ted Kennedy- MET with the RUSSIAN communists!- to plan our loss-

I am sure their were others-

[spintreebob]

We need to learn from history, and from current events. I’m listening to CNN right now. CNN says:

Nobody knew ISIS was capable of this. Nobody thought ISIS would attack in Europe.

The MSM ignores half of the -experts-, the ones who don’t say what they want to hear. Then, after the ignored experts are proven correct, the MSM says “nobody knew”.

But it isn’t just the MSM, a week after Katrina, Bush said “nobody knew Katrina would hit N.O.” Of course, 8 days before Katrina hit N.O. it was over southern FL and the National Weather Service gave a 100% prediction that Katrina would hit New Orleans, breach the levees and flood half the city.

Cheney-Wolfowitz-Kristol did a similar thing in Iraq. They won the first move in what Bush said would be a long, protracted chess game. But the neo-cons had no idea what the second move in the chess game should be. They had no plan for what to do with the Iraqi army. They had no idea how to build a new government in Iraq.

The neo-cons in Iraq were exactly like the McNamara best and brightest who ran the Vietnam war for LBJ.

The problem is not limited to “the other guys”. Look at the Carson, Cruz and Trump campaigns. They seem to have no clue how delegates are selected for the GOP Convention. They allow the media to distract them with polls rather than identify delegates who can win against the Bush delegates.

When they lose, are they going to say “Nobody knew how delegates were selected.”

[EternalVigilance]

Vietnam was a righteous war, won by righteous men, and given away by slippery traitors in Congress.

Bears repeating.