Posted on 01/31/2004 11:41:34 AM PST by William McKinley
THE VIETNAM WAR marked the first time in American history that we waged war not only against a foreign enemy, but against ourselves.
Truth was the first casualty of that internecine fight, which means that now, on the 25th anniversary of our departure from Vietnam, many younger Americans know little about the war other than the grim idiocies passed on by the professors and the press.
Let's refute some of those popular myths. [snip]
Most protesters got involved not because they had lofty feelings about war and peace. They joined in because they were bored, because disobedience was exciting, because the movement provided the next best thing to a dating service and because they wanted a high-minded way to dodge the draft.
In retrospect, the tactics were wonderfully stupid. The Moratorium, which Bill Clinton helped organize in England, was built on the premise that college students could put an end to global conflict merely by standing around in the street and chanting slogans. Instead of inspiring peace, the young scholars goaded communists into waging a broader war on human liberties. The Soviets and their proxy armies concluded that Americans lacked the spirit or will to fight back.
Even worse, anti-war organizations proved to be every bit as delusional as the Pentagon's bean-counters. The boat people proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Vietcong were peddling death and misery -- and yet, left-wing commentators refused to acknowledge the fact. Many still do. Only communism could have turned the Vietnamese people into paupers. Here in America, Vietnamese immigrants have demonstrated their entrepreneurial and economic genius.
Although Ronald Reagan and subsequent presidents have lavished Vietnam vets with praise, we can never give them what they deserve, which is their youth.
We lost nearly 60,000 Americans in a war plagued by shabby planning on one side and a narcissistic anti-war movement on the other. Young people were instructed to fight, but not given the means to win. And when they stumbled home from the hell of jungle warfare, they had to endure taunts from a protest movement that viewed its cowardice as a form of nobility.
This sorry legacy does, however, permit us to formulate a pithy summary of the "lessons of Vietnam." First, if you enter a war, declare war and build popular support. Second, fight to win. Third, honor those who serve. And fourth, remember: A strong military is necessary not just to fight wars, but to prevent them. No sane outfit will mess with a superpower that not only has the means to fight, but the will to punish aggressors.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
*shrug*
Kennedy's assassination of Diem was THE disastrous turning point in the war, THE major instance of our failure to fight the war as if we intended to win it.
The real 'value' of Worldviews......?
(What is 'total-war'....?)
(What is a true 'cultural-revolution'?)
(Outcome-resolutions-absolute!)
Civilizations die!
:-(
In his most recent syndicated piece, Victor Davis Hansen writes:
"Our efforts in Iraq to remove a genocidal murderer and inaugurate democracy are not a "quagmire," but one of the brightest moments in recent American history — and we need not be ashamed to say that, again and again and again."
Amen.
Then, despite all those who undermined, and undermine today, our fight againt evil and to save our civilization...as a function of how that country changes today, this is how we will have in fact won the Vietnam War.
Hey, I was going to bone up on my Vietnam history, considering how I think that it is likely to be rehashed ad nauseum throughout the campaign.
Do you have any recommendations?
(PBS television series)
Shalom ev Jesus Christ.
(Romans 4:5)
(Romans 10:17)
Reviewer: Scott Carpenter (see more about me) from Irvine, CA United StatesLooks like a short read, and my library carries it, so I'll check it out the next time I go, thanks. I doubt I'll find it as praiseworthy as you, because I tend to find books that have "a real bias against American involvement and the American establishment" tend to not be my cup of tea.This book has many merits: It is comprehensive, it attempts to explain Vietnamese history, and it is full of on the spot interviews and remembrances. This remains the basic history text of record on American involvement in Vietnam. There is a breadth of perspective here that is lacking in many accounts of this most up-close and personal of wars.
Despite these advantages, the book has some real limitations. The writing is pedestrian, the characterizations (if one can say that about history) tend to be thin, and Karnow fails to convey a sense of wholeness in many chapters. The book at times feels more like a collection of dispatches from a reporter in the field (which Karnow was in Vietnam) rather than the work of a historian who has integrated fact and theory based on deep understanding and research. As comprehensive as the book tries to be, Karow's reach may have exeeded his grasp with his project.
The book also suffers from a real bias against American involvement and the American establishment, Republican and Democratic. When "Uncle Ho" commits murders in the thousands the book makes one feel like this is a natural outpouring of exuburant nationalism rather than good old fashioned absolutism. But when the admittedly corrupt and inept Diem regime or confused ARVN or American soldiers commit atrocities, the condemnation is acid and biting. Communists are presented as "golden," or "tough," while Southerners or Amercians are usually charactured as "greedy," or "arrogant."
There is also an irony in the book's approach. Karnow should be complemented for attempting to fit American involvement in Vietnam into the wider context of Vietnam's history. However, Vietnam's history is presented mostly through lense of Western or Colonial contact. There is little sense of Vietnam as a nation, and its people, religion and history are merely players on the stage of American Imperialism. In suggesting that the policy of containment as expressed in the Vietnam war was a misjudgment of Vietnamese Nationalism (which is now common wisdom), Karnow ironically describes that nation as through an American TV camera, rather than a Vietnamese watercolor.
Now, almost 20 years after it was written, the Vietnam: A History still has valuable perspective and information. But be forewarned: This is still a myopic document of American liberal self-analysis.
In many respects the US involvement was a continuation of the failed French attempt to reconquer their former Indo-China colony consisting of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Although definitely Communist, Ho Chi Minh was seen by Vietnamese as a nationalist. In Vietnamese history, when a line of kings had become corrupt or extinct, a new line of kings had arisen from the commoners. Ho Chi Minh was seen as another example of this historical pattern, and he was supported because he would free Vietnam of colonial influences.
We had no reason to enter the battle.
Before the Vietnamese War, the French had lost North Vietnam and the US had lost a war in Laos.
It was a battle between the Frenchified Catholic minority and the nationalist Buddhist majority. We were bound to lose.
The United States was an imperialist aggressor.
This is true. Subsequent events have shown that the Indo-Chinese wars were largely wars of national liberation. Since Thailand had not been colonized, the liberation movements never took hold in Thailand.
Vietnam War protests set off an age of youthful idealism.
I think the idealism was legitimate. Youth do not realize how difficult ideals are to attain.
I used to think old people were hypocrits.
I now realize that hypocrisy is a useful social concept.
It allows a society to maintain high ideals, while not unnecessarily castigating those who fall short.
We're finally giving Vietnam veterans their due.
Veterans never get their dues. They are cannon-fodder, after all.
From 'Bible-Providence' to 'Evolutionist-Karma'.
(Romans 10:17)
This book has many merits: It is comprehensive, it attempts to explain Vietnamese history, and it is full of on the spot interviews and remembrances. This remains the basic history text of record on American involvement in Vietnam. There is a breadth of perspective here that is lacking in many accounts of this most up-close and personal of wars.
Yep.
Write Mr. Snow an e-mail and tell him you just read his column. Make sure you point this out to him. If he is half the journalist I think he is, he will mull your comments over and file them away in his memory banks.
The next time he has the opportunity to write about the Viet Nam war he will address this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.