Posted on 05/11/2015 4:42:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last month marked the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, a moment vividly encapsulated by the frenzied scene of South Vietnamese desperately trying to reach the last helicopter on the roof of the American embassy. April was also the 150th anniversary of the surrender at Appomattox, when Robert E. Lee capitulated to Ulysses S. Grant, bringing the bloodiest fighting of the Civil War to an end.
The two episodes seemingly have little to do with each other. But each, in its way, illustrates one of the bleakly recurring themes of US military history: When America's armed forces prematurely abandon the field, the results are usually heartbreaking for the people they leave behind.
The Vietnam experience makes the point with aching sorrow. By 1972, the US war against the North Vietnamese communists was being won on the ground; it was lost in Congress and at the Paris peace talks under the political pressure of the antiwar movement. The United States pulled its fighting troops from Vietnam in 1973, then refused to provide its South Vietnamese allies with the economic and military aid they needed to resist Hanoi's onslaught. As disaster loomed, President Ford implored Congress not to turn a blind eye to the "vast human tragedy" about to engulf "our friends in Vietnam and Cambodia."
But hostile lawmakers refused to heed Ford's pleas, and 40 years ago this spring the communists swept to power. What ensued was horrific. "Millions of people lost their lives and tens of millions lost any chance at freedom," Robert F. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia, recalled in a recent essay. In Cambodia, the fanatical Khmer Rouge slaughtered an estimated 1.7 million men, women, and children. In neighboring South Vietnam, there were hundreds of thousands of additional victims — frantic "boat people" trying to escape by sea, inmates tortured in re-education camps, innumerable others summarily executed or "disappeared."
To the shock of at least some former antiwar activists, more people died in the first two years of Indochina's communist peace than had lost their lives in the 13 years of America's war. Even now Vietnam remains a communist dictatorship, one of the least free places on earth.
When US forces settle in for a long peace after fighting a difficult war — as in (West) Germany and Japan following World War II, or South Korea since the 1950s — their presence has generally nurtured stability, prosperity, and democratic freedoms. When they retreat precipitately — as in Lebanon or Iraq — renewed cruelty and violence predictably fill the vacuum.
And it isn't only overseas that the pattern has been manifested.
In a striking new book, After Appomattox, historian Gregory Downs chronicles the years of military occupation that followed Lee's surrender to Grant in 1865 — a military occupation that was indispensable to the uprooting of slavery and the political empowerment of freed slaves. In the face of Southern white supremacist hostility, it was only the continuing presence of federal troops in the South that could break up remaining pockets of rebellion, establish the right of blacks to vote and seek election, void discriminatory laws, and unilaterally remove disloyal or racist sheriffs and judges from office.
But there were far too few troops to do the job properly. With the end of battlefield fighting, pressure to "bring the boys home" was intense. By the end of 1866, fewer than 25,000 troops remained in the South — down from nearly 1 million at the time Lee surrendered. Meanwhile, a violent white insurgency was spreading, led by a Democratic Party terror group called the Ku Klux Klan. These insurgents "spread across the South," Downs writes, "assassinating Republican leaders and intimidating black voters."
Where the US military held sway, Reconstruction legislatures made remarkable gains — funding schools and hospitals, reforming property and marriage laws, making possible the election to office of more than 1,500 black candidates. But those gains were swept away as it became clear that Washington would not deploy the troops necessary to crush the Klan terror. Public support for continuing the occupation evaporated. By the late 1870s, the troops were effectively gone. Southern Democrats moved ruthlessly to roll back the astonishing progress in black civil rights; in its place they imposed poll taxes, literacy tests, and racial segregation. "Without the fear of federal [military] power," recounts Downs, "a new and bleak era of Jim Crow was dawning."
Military occupation and the prolonged exercise of war powers go against the American grain. The urge to "declare peace and get out" is only too understandable. This season of anniversaries is a reminder that yielding to that urge can come at a terrible price, above all to those who remain after the US military is gone.
We fought WW2 with total mobilization, we fought with every weapon we had and we fought with the objective of Unconditional Surrender. We did not fight LIKE that in Vietnam. We carpet bombed the enemy cities in WW2.We did not fight LIKE that in Vietnam. There were no sanctuaries for the enemy in WW2. We did not fight LIKE that in Vietnam. Laos and Cambodia were sanctuaries for the enemy.
Do you understand now? Of course Marines fought hard. Marines always have and always will. Who says differently?
If we continue to fight wars like we did in Vietnam and Korea and Iraq and Afganistan, handcuffing our troops with restrictive rules of engagement we will end up with the same result....the loss of the bravest Americans without winning. If we fight like we did in WW2.... WE WILL WIN.
FIGHT LIKE WW2, WIN LIKE WW2.
FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.
A voice of sanity and reason on FR. Who knew?
Rules of Engagement exist to provide a dividing line between what we kill and what we don't: one of the hardest things for a leader to do is get his young people to actually kill people. The next hardest thing is to get them to stop.
The part I would agree with is that our White House under both Johnson and Nixon tried to micromanage targets in the North and that just played into the enemy's hands. The other unmentioned part is that both presidents allowed the traitors who were communicating with the enemy and directing demonstrations and other activities against our prosecution of the war to just continue with what they were doing. Our government was hapless against these activities and never bothered to correct the view the American People were getting from the "news" agencies and the "antiwar" leaders.
Your slogan says "fight like Nam". You'd better hope that we always "fight like Nam"! We fought under conditions you can't imagine and for sustained periods the WWII folks didn't have to deal with and we kicked butt. The very last thing on earth a VC or NVA unit wanted to do was get stuck in a corner with a Marine company on its tail.
Your slogan goes right along with the Leftist propaganda that somehow the enemy defeated us. They didn't.
It's not as catchy, but your slogan should be "Support like WWII, win like WWII - Support like Nam, finish like Nam".
If you walk around Sai Gon you can sometimes pick out the Americans. If you see a round-eyed fellow stop to help someone who has slid down on a scooter or who is struggling under a top heavy load, that person is surely an American. I have learned in Viet Nam that only Americans do that. That is one reason the Vietnamese love Americans. The older ones remember American soldiers like that. Even Some who were villagers back then remember Americans helping them out in inconsequential ways even though they were in an "unfriendly" village. I hear that all the time.
If you have any tie to VN, if you are a VN vet or have a VN wife or VN friends or just want to go somewhere really interesting and cheap (other than the plane fare), you should use that as an excuse to take your next vacation in Viet Nam. It is truly good for an American ego, especially for an older man. Get away from the big city, though. Big cities are big cities the world over.
Just by the way Tippi and the Manicure
Don’t transfer your rightful anger at the Democrats to the Vietnamese. They are the most pro American people of any large population- 80+ million. Whatever his reasons, nefarious or not, Clinton did one good thing on his own during his administration- he opened up to Viet Nam and began the steady pressure for freedom in that country that continued through the end of the GW Bush administration. Viet Nam strives to be America’s best friend in Asia and has for 25 years.
I have a friend here who was 14 when she left in ‘75. Her last memory of Viet Nam was climbing a cargo net to board a freighter in the Sai Gon River with her 3 month old cousin on her back after seeing a 15 year old cousin crushed between the wharf and the side of the ship.
We set ourselves up for a loss in VN because the war was from the beginning micromanaged from Washington as all our wars are now. WWII was fought with broad directives from Washington but the conduct of the war was left to the commanders on the ground. Korea started out that way but ended up stifled as the first of our micromanaged wars. We never had a chance to win in Vn because we had bureaucrats in DC trying to hold the soldiers’ rifles from ten thousand miles away.
In Korea at the time we set the battlefront approximately where the DMZ is today, the Chinese were exhausted. Our generals knew that and asked for a final push to clear the peninsula. The Chinese were finished as an effective force on the field but their strength in DC had become formidable. The government was still full of Communists, in the State Department especially.
Some of the posters are selling this "we should have carpet-bombed the whole country" garbage which is another idiotic idea. Vietnam needed our help against the combined efforts of the Viet Cong terrorists, the North Vietnamese Army, and all the supplies, weaponry and advisors the Soviets, Chinese and the Warsaw Pact could provide. We fought hard and well for those many years and I am proud of my fellow Marines who fought there with me. Vietnam is a good country and I cherish their people and particularly the Vietnamese who came here to be citizens.
There are two relatively recent immigrant groups that have been very beneficial to America in spite of the welfare overload, the Cubans and the Vietnamese. I have long believed that we should have taken all the Viet refugees who made it to anywhere else on the boats. I have always thought the wet-foot,dry-foot policy with the Cuban refugees has deprived the country of some potential entrepreneurial ability and wealth by sending back so many. Both groups have largely shunned the welfare blanket and built businesses and added to the culture and the economy. An earlier era group we shunned for far too long was the Jews escaping from Europe in the thirties.American efforts in Viet Nam are respected even by old Communists there. I have talked to some and they say things like they know the Americans were not there to rule the country as were the Chinese and the French and the Japanese. They never expected the Americans to stay. Vietnamese are practical people, even the Communists.
Our plans were to evacuate every single Vietnamese who ever helped us, approximately 2 million people and as I heard, ships were being sent from the States to make this happen.
Very shortly, those plans were abandoned by the Ford administration and only something like 20,000 were rescued and many brought to the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton to begin resettlement.
I was deeply ashamed that we abandoned our allies and it was something I never forgot. It told me that the government I had believed in so deeply was a whole lot less honorable than I thought.
The Vietnamese-Americans have been a real success story for our country.
It was interesting going back there. The only evidence I could find that anything had changed were the more deserted roads (and less dust) now that American military vehicles were gone, no gunfire at all, and a few guys running around with red stars on their pith helmets. (Funny story: a bit earlier, I was an arms control inspector in the Soviet Union and during one of my arrivals in the late 80s at Sheryemetovo Airport in Moscow, I ran head on into a Vietnamese officer in full uniform, hard hat and all. I froze solid and just stared at him and he gave a look like "what the heck is wrong with you?". He was way too young to have been at the opposite end during the fighting..)
It was a little bit like coming home to me, to go back to a country that was such a big part of my younger life.
I would go there and stay there if I could talk my wife into it. I know two Americans there who are permanent. Both are interesting stories. One has been there since '84.
I had that "coming home" feeling big time - it was a physical visceral feeling in my gut when I saw the lights of Sài Gòn from the 747 window the first time back. Tân Sơn Nhất has changed. It is a modern airport now with no-nonsense clerks and officials who just want to get you the hell through there.
What ....where the rules of engagement for Hiroshima. Nagasaki?
So, what unit were you with in the Marine Corps? What MOS, what rank?
I'm starting to doubt you, buddy.
I’ll help you.....You don’t have to ask Truman... I’ll give you the answer....you drop a nuke and there are no rules of engagement.
Oh what did I do in the Marines.....Puzzle Palace.
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.