Skip to comments.A Winnable War. The argument against the orthodox history of Vietnam. [Book review]
Posted on 01/06/2007 8:21:30 AM PST by aculeus
click here to read article
Bookmark (no pun intended)
This is not a limited war and until the US government acknowledges that fact - and attacks Iran and Syria - this war will play out like Viet Nam.
When the fight began, the US President was clear: if you are on the side of crazed mullahs of Islam, you are the enemy and you will be attacked.
After Iran and Syria are disposed of, it's time to send the illegitimate b_st_rds of the Saud line back to the sand they came from.
There can be no sanctuaries for these tyrants.
This is only "revisionist" history because in the case of Vietnam the revisionist historians got in there first.
When The New York Times published the stolen Pentagon Papers, as a very large supplement to the paper, they were a cause celebre but evidently hardly anyone actually read them. All they knew was that the proved that Nixon and the Pentagon were guilty of all sorts of crimes, and that was good enough for them. If they bought the paperback version, it was to set out as a coffee table book to prove they were with it.
I read the whole thing. The only big surprise was the fact that John F. Kennedy ordered the assassination of Ngo Dhin Diem, which did indeed, unsurprisingly, cause the war effort to collapse and never really recover. From that point on the South Vietnamese were not much help, and we had to send in our own troops to fight in their place. Really, really dumb, as well as plain plum evil, assassinating your ally because he was a Catholic and unpopular in the leftist press.
There's one new detail here that I hadn't seen before. Joseph Mendenhall of the State Department, and Roger Hilsman. I remember Hilsman. A real loser. So, these were the Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame of that era. And Kennedy, who was an incompetent president, fresh off the Bay of Pigs, was dumb enough to listen to them.
Then, of course, Nixon was finally left to pick up the pieces, which he did very well until the liars in the press nailed him and left our allies in Southeast Asia to the tender mercies of Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh.
Never forget that in the last days of Vietnam hillary clinton was right in there, helping with the nailing, while her husband-to-be was over in London dodging the draft, organizing peace marches, and betraying his country. And John F'n Kerry was in Paris, helping to advice the North Vietnamese how to win the struggle.
Hubby was also visiting Moscow or Prague or some other communist country (the MSM buried the tale so successfully that even us news buffs don't remember exactly), our only future President to ever behave so despicably while the country was at war.
The murder of Diem has always been proof enough for me that the Kennedys are thugs - and have been for over 100 years.
that is the truth
*Bumpmark* -- sounds like an important book.
"...Hubby was also visiting Moscow or Prague or some other communist country..."
Prague. I can't remember my source, but that's the one. He was at some "event" with a female Czech ex-communist (not that they are ever "ex-" communists in fact) who was several years older than him. He pandered to her so bad it was nauseating. I wonder what happened on his trip.
Yes, some of the details are in Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's extremely important book on Clinton.
Bill clinton managed to make a tourist visit right across the Soviet Union, at a time when all westerners were kept out. There is some speculation that at the time he was already some sort of KGB agent.
He became a Rhodes Scholar courtest of Senator Proxmire. Although he was only a college-age kid, he had important political and mob connections even back then.
"...hardly anyone actually read them."
I did too. One thing that struck me was that DoD did *not* seem to think Kennedy had made his mind up on troop pullouts, contrary to received wisdom. He appeared to be keeping his options open.
I will buy this book, but it will not be received well in the MSM. The Vietnam war is one of their touchstones of faith, and the party line is not to be trifled with. I saw Frances FitzGerald and, I believe, Dan Rather (?) on a Vietnam panel on Book TV the other day and it was the same old drivel.
The sad part is that when history is distorted the way the history of the Vietnam war has been, future generations have no reference point from which to make decisions.
I have an older cousin who was also a Special Forces officer and probably a contemporary of your Dad's. He sees it the same way. He told me once that Johnson's announcement of major ground forces into South Vietnam made them all realize that it was lost.
Not only was Viet Nam winnable, we won it. Twice, at least. HaNoi was preparing to sue for peace after losing so badly in Tet '68 and again after the Christmas Bombing in '72, but Washington had other ideas.
Mark Moyar is a superlative scholar and historian, and also a very nice and unassuming fellow, especially considering his awesome academic credentials. It's a shame there aren't about 500 more of him...
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.