School uniforms are a plus too.
> We didn't lose, we gave up.
Much worse than that!
We actually WON. Won bigtime. And then we left. The South Vietnamese defeated a major invasion with minimal help from our forces as we were leaving. Once we were gone, they defeated a second major invasion with NO help from our forces.
And then, the most leftist American Congress we've ever had (elected in reaction to Watergate) unilaterally abrogated all of our treaties with the South and totally cut off all resupply of arms, of munitions, of tank and jet fuel, of every basic thing an army and air force needs. It was treachery, plain and simple. Treachery of the vilest kind. What the Democrats in Congress did in '74-'75 was the single most shameful moment for America in my lifetime.
And while this was going on that last year, with an enfeebled Pres. Ford protesting but having zero effect on Congress, the USSR and China, smelling blood, rearmed North Vietnam to the teeth.
When the last invasion came, some South Vietnamese generals turned off their radios because they just could not emotionally bear to hear the pleas any more from their frontline officers begging for bullets, for shells, for tank fuel, for anything to help their forces fight. The generals had nothing to send them.
Thanks to the American Democratic Party, all that the South Vietnamese soldiers had to fight with that day were spitwads.
And how many of us back then even heard the truth of what was happening at that time? Not me. And I read virtually ALL the international news in our city paper and watched the evening news and read TIME cover to cover every week and naively thought myself "informed". HA!!!! Was I ever deluded.
The MSM - much more powerful then than now - did an outstanding job of covering for their darlings in Congress. All we heard was, "See? What'd we tell you? We lost. WE LOST! What have we been predicting all along? Boy, they sure fell fast like a house of cards, didn't they? We have no idea why. Our best guess is that the people of South Vietnam really wanted this liberation from the North to happen after all."
This still angers me no end to this day.
"This still angers me no end to this day."
Thanks for the post. Woodward-Bernstein caused the defeat of Vietnam (with help from Dean and Felt - if he's telling the truth?).
It makes me mad too - sepecially when I hear the stories from Vietnamese friends of what went on after the fall.
And I'll be pissed off if we abandon Afghanistan or Iraq like the MSM and the Liberals would like.
School uniforms are a plus too.
The problem was that America decided she was going to defeat the enemy in the field, while the enemy, fighting in the fields was only one part of there strategy, while both sides were fighting a war of attrition the political cadres were getting out there in South Vietnam recruiting the next crop of VC fighters, setting up logistics, gaining local intelligence.
It wasn't always like this USMC initiated a very good Counter Insurgency Operation, copied by the Australian forces out there, of basing the Marines in small units amongst the people, getting to know the locals, building up local intelligence, winning the peoples trust.
General Westmoreland changed the strategy to large scale search and destroy operations.
His rational was America was not in the mood for a long projected war and with modern technology it would be quicker to meet the VC/NVA in the field and annihilate them, a war of attrition which America would win.
South Vietnam and the ARVN was left to its own devices, instead of getting ready to fight and take over, it was allowed to play politics while its junior officers involved them self's in corruption and the black market.
It wasn’t until Nixon started his process of Vietnamisation that you started to look at the ARVN, and started to build the Army that was able to resist the Norths invasion.
But it was too late.
In Iraq we are not making the same mistake, the training of the Iraq Army the building of of a Civilian infrastructure is number one priority as it should of been in South Vietnam.
The best soldiers to defeat a local insurgency is local soldiers.
I totally agree with your analysis. Congress allowed S. Vietnam to fall in 75, well after we were out, just as you stated. I spent several tours there in the mid-late 60s. The "Tet 68 Defeat" myth continues to annoy me to no end.
I believe the complete list is:
1) Congressional Dimocrats '74-'75
2) Congressional Dimocrats '73-'74
3) Congressional Dimocrats '75-'76
4) Congressional Dimocrats '82-'83
5) Congressional Dimocrats '81-'82
6) Congressional Dimocrats '91-'92
7) Congressional Dimocrats '67-'68
8) Congressional Dimocrats '79-'80
9) Backstreet Boys-All Years
10) Congressional Dimocrats '88-'89
11) Congressional Dimocrats '71-'72
Etc...
I attended the "Vietnam and the Iraq War" presentation given at the University of Chicago Law School by Professor Geoffrey Stone 20 January 2005. As a veteran of the Vietnam War from August of 1969 to January of 1971, serving as an infantry squad leader in a mechanized infantry company, and with another unit as a tank commander on an M48A3 tank; I was keenly interested in the form that the lecture might take. After a cursory reading of Professor Stone's curriculum vitae, I suspected that Professor Stone's take on the South East Asian conflict might indicate a general disapproval of the United States war effort. My suspicions were proven correct. The lecture was an attempt to paint the American war effort in Vietnam as misguided at best and an imperialistic effort to establish SE Asian capitalistic hegemony at worst. The antiwar left was portrayed as being noble and idealistic rather than populated by a hard core that actively hoped and worked for a US defeat, the US government as destructive of basic civil liberties in its attempt to monitor their activities, and the North Vietnamese and Vietcong as nationalists who wished to preserve their unique culture against an imperialistic onslaught. He described the South Vietnamese government in terms that were heedless of the South Vietnamese government’s struggle to survive a relentlessly ruthless Communist assault while he stated the South Vietnamese government was engaged in an unwarranted assault on human rights. He neglected to mention ANY of the numerous genocidal atrocities of the Vietcong (VC) and North Vietnamese Army (NVA). He described the Tet Offensive as a surprise for the United States in which 1100 American soldiers died and 2300 ARVN soldiers, and not much more about it.
I challenged Professor Stone on the following. The reason that the United States opposed nationwide elections that were to be held in accordance with the 1954 Geneva accords was due to the murder and intimidation campaigns carried out by Ho Chi Minh. This fact is in Professor R. J. Runnel's book Death by Government, in which he cites a low estimate of 15,000 and a high figure of 500,000 people in the “murder by quota” campaign directed by the North Vietnamese Communist Party Politburo that would have made the election a corrupt mockery. This campaign stipulated that 5% of the people living in each village and hamlet had to be liquidated, preferably those identified as members of the "ruling class." All told says Runnel, between 1953 and 1956 it is likely that the Communists killed 195,000 to 865,000 North Vietnamese. These were non combatant men, women, and children, and hardly represent evidence of the moral high ground claimed by many in the antiwar movement. In 1956, high Communist official Nguyen Manh Tuong admitted that "while destroying the landowning class, we condemned numberless old people and children to a horrible death." The same genocidal pattern became the Communists’ standard operating procedure in the South too. This was unequivocally demonstrated by the Hue Massacre, which the press did a great deal to downplay in its reporting of the Tet Offensive of 1968.
I pointed out that the National Liberation Front was the creation of the North Vietnamese Third Party Congress of September 1960, completely directed from North Vietnam. I pointed out that the Tet Offensive of 1968 was a disastrous military defeat for the North Vietnamese and that the VC were almost wiped out by the fighting, and that it took the NVA until 1971 to reestablish a presence using North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. I pointed out how the North Vietnam military senior commanders repeatedly said that they counted on the U.S. antiwar movement to give them the confidence to persevere in the face of their staggering battlefield personnel losses and defeats. I pointed out the antiwar movement prevented the feckless President Lyndon Johnson from granting General Westmoreland's request to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail or end his policies of publicly announced gradualist escalation. The North Vietnamese knew cutting this trail would severely damage their ability to prosecute the war. Since the North Vietnamese could continue to use the Ho Chi Minh Trail lifeline, the war was needlessly prolonged for the U.S. and contributed significantly to the collapse of South Vietnam. The casualties sustained by the NVA and VC were horrendous, (1.5 million dead) and accorded well with Gen. Ngyuen Giap’s publicly professed disdain for the lives of individuals sacrificed for the greater cause of Communist victory. They were as thoroughly beaten as a military force can be given the absence of an invasion and occupation of their nation. The Soviets and Chinese recognized this, and they put pressure on their North Vietnamese allies to accept this reality and settle up at the Paris peace talks. Hanoi's party newspaper Nhan Dan angrily denounced the Chinese and Soviets for "throwing a life bouy to a drowning pirate" and for being "mired on the dark and muddy road of unprincipled compromise."
To this day the anti-war movement as a whole refuses to acknowledge its part in the deaths of millions in Laos and Cambodia and in the subsequent exodus from South East Asia as people fled Communism, nor the imprisonment of thousands in Communist re-education camps and gulags.
When he tried to say that United States should have known it could not put down a local popular insurgency, I pointed out that the final victorious North Vietnamese offensive was a multidivisional, combined arms effort lavishly equipped with Soviet and Chinese supplied tanks, self-propelled artillery, and aircraft. I pointed out to him that it was the type of blitzkrieg that Panzer General Heinz Guederian would have easily recognized. I said how I didn't recall seeing any barefoot, pajama-clad guerrillas jumping out of those tanks in the newsreel footage that showed them crashing through the gates of the presidential palace in Saigon. This spectacle was prompted by the pusillanimous withdrawal of Congressional support for the South Vietnamese government in the wake of the Watergate scandal, which particularly undermined this aspect of President Nixon’s foreign policy. It should be noted that a similar Communist offensive in the spring of 1972 was smashed, largely by US air power; with relatively few US ground troops in place. At the Paris Accords in 1973, the Soviet Union had agreed to reduce aid in offensive arms to North Vietnam in exchange for trade concessions from the US, effectively ending North Vietnams hopes for a military victory in the south. With the return of cold war hostilities in the wake of the Yom Kippur war after Congress revoked the Soviet's MFN trading status, the Reds poured money and offensive military equipment into North Vietnam. South Vietnam would still be a viable nation today were it not for this nation's refusal to live up to it's treaty obligations to the South Vietnamese.
There were legions of half-truths and omissions that this professor spoke to in his extremely biased lecture. When I asked him why he left out so much that was favorable to the American effort in Vietnam, he airily dismissed my argument as being just another perspective, but tellingly he did not disagree with the essential truth of what I said.
Professor Stone struck me as just another liberal masquerading as an enlightened academic.
He was totally unable to relate how the situation in Iraq is comparable to the situation in Vietnam, so I volunteered a comparison for him. A seditious near traitorous core of anti-war protesters is trying to undermine U.S. efforts there with half-truths, lies, and distortions. I said that in that respect, the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam are very similar. A significant difference is that thus far the current anti-war movement has not succeeded in manifesting contempt for the American military on the part of the general U.S. public as it did in the Vietnam era.
When I was in Vietnam, I recall many discussions with my fellow soldiers about the course of the war in Vietnam and their feelings about it. Many, if not most felt that "We Gotta Get Outta this Place," to cite a popular song of the time by Eric Burden and the Animals, but for the most part they felt we should do it by fighting the war in a manner calculated to win it. I do not recall anyone ever saying that they felt the North Vietnamese could possibly defeat us on the battlefield, but to a man they were mystified by the U.S. Government’s refusal to fight in a manner that would assure military victory. Even though there was much resentment for the antiwar movement, and some (resentment) toward career professional soldiers, I never saw anyone who did not do his basic duty and many did FAR MORE THAN THAT as a soldier. Nineteen of my friends have their names on the Vietnam War Memorial Wall in Washington DC. They deserve to have the full truth told about the effort for which they gave their young lives. The U.S. public is not well served by half-truths and lies by omission about such a significant period in our history, particularly with their relevance toward our present fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Liberals don't ever mention boat people and millions dead thanks to Pol Pot. You'd think that happened in another universe.
When you confront modern Leftists with that set of facts, they attack you immediately and call you a liar. They can't deal with the reality of what really went down in that place, at that time. They don't like having the follow-on killings and reeducation camps in Vietnam, and rise of the Khymer Rouge and the Cambodian democide/genocide next door as a "Domino Effect", rubbed in their noses, either.