"Containment" Theory and the Anonymous "X" Man Article

Toogood Reports ^ | 25 February 2003 | Nicholas Stix

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[headsonpikes]

Stomach bump.

;^)

[hattend]

BTTT

[aristeides]

I think the VC were motivated by the fact that they were to a large extent fighting for their homeland. People, and animals, will fight much more intensely for their own territory than for other things.

Doesn't guarantee victory, depending on the circumstances. South lost the Civil War. English conquered Ireland (for 900 years or so) and Wales (permanently, at least up to now). Many other counterexamples.

[mrustow]

Bumpbackatcha!

[expatpat]

You are correct, but I didn't claim that being on home ground ensured victory; the issue was relentlessness of the fighters. (Another example for your point is the loss of King Alfred to William the Conqueror in 1066).

[expatpat]

Yes, civil wars are intense, as you point out. However, there's no question that the US took over what started as a civil war, dominated the fighting agianst the VC, and thus changed it from a civil war into a war between the US vs. VC, with the S. Viets merely as camp-followers.

[mrustow]

Westy was a good man, but a lousy general. His two mortal sins were 1. as you noted, taking over the fight from the South Vietnamese, and 2. fighting a conventional war against guerillas.

[B4Ranch]

Containment/Domino Theory's supporters tacitly held to the deeply pessimistic expectation that once a nation fell to the communists, it would stay that way.

The idea of considering that the fallen nations would adopt a new tactic to bring America down has never even been considered.

The Republican Party is adopting Democrats policies of socialism/communisum because the Republican voter has lost the relentless will to fight for their once held absolute belief in freedom. This is due to the NEA, in my opinion. I have worried about public school standards for many years. The change in the policies from Washington was subtle and effective. As I watched GATT/NAFTA being emplaced I knew something worse would be coming.

Sure enough, the Patriot Act was put in place without discussion. The Homeland Security Bill was passed with minimal discussion. The Open Border Policy is solidly afixed. Illegal immigrants are swarming into the United States much faster than their assimilation is possibly attainable.

Diversification policies have taken over the social services and education structures in every State. Our so called friends in Europe are demanding financial enticements to join us in the war against Iraq.

Most Americans are proud of our Presidents actions at the United Nations because they have never sat down and asked themselves "What interest does Mozambique, or any other small dictatorial nation have if we get into a war with Iraq? Why aren't they voting with us to protect freedom in America?" The answer is, IMO, America will not have the hard cash that we loan to other countries each year because this war is going to be very expensive. Not only in human lives but also in American dollars. They are afraid that you and I will revolt when it comes time to pay taxes. The UN will collapse if American taxpayers refuse to support it. Loans, medical care and education will not be available to these people. If there is a massive flood or an serious earthquake who will pay the bill to pull them out of the hole? No, the new World Bank is not free. America does pay most of the expenses by giving it the necessary hard cash to loan to other countries.

American voters are grumbling about the fact that 43 States are demanding more money from their taxpayers but they will not demand that our borders be closed, that illegal alien children be removed from our schools, that medical care be stopped for these criminals, that Social Security payments be stopped for residents in other countries who worked in America illegally 'earning' these benefits.

I almost laughed in a local businessmans face when he complained about the proposed tax increase on his business. Doesn't he realize that when he hires an illegal alien, that this persons family requires more from the community in social services than he can return? I should have said, " We are building four new schools at a cost of $280 million for your employees families. The men and women you laid off last fall are still collecting food stamps because work isn't available for them. Their medical costs, etc. have risen. Can't you balance a budget larger than your own personal one? Did you think these new illgal workers are truly cheaper than the old ones? Put your brain to work just a little more than you have been and you will see what is happening to America and why."

[mrustow]

I used to listen seriously to the argument that you have to have illegals to pick the lettuce, because consumers weren't willing to pay more for lettuce picked by American workers. Then I started seeing all the receipts for the bills taxpayers had to foot, because employers were skirting them, and realized that it wouldn't cost taxpayers any more (and would probably cost them less), if lettuce prices went up, but taxes went down, because we no longer had to pay for social services for illegals.

[VietVet]

I cannot read Robert McNamarra's mind, of course. Even less can I look back in time and tell what he was thinking in 1965 (and being a pyschologist, I think his ability to look back and truely remember what he was thinking then is more limited than he might admit). But if it is true that he did not believe we could win the war in Vietnam as early as 1964 or '65, then he was extraordinarily pesimistic, and dead wrong.

There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you believe you are going to lose, you hold back your reserves, to cut your loses, and guess what, you lose.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the US did not lose the Vietnam War. We quit. That's worse.

VietVet

[VietVet]

"...King Alfred's loss to William the Conqueror in 1066."

King Harold lost to Duke William at Hastings in 1066.

King Alfred beat the Danes in the 10th Century.

VietVet

[VietVet]

I don't think you can say that the ARVN was "reduced to the role of camp followers." For one thing, they continued to do the bulk of the fighting, in small unit actions, and took as many casualties *per year* as we suffered during the whole war. Most of these fights were small garrisons defending local positions, and never made the Western News media, leaving the impression that the Allies, mainly the US, were doing most of the fighting. One of my first missions, in country, was to reinforce the garrison of RF/PF's guarding a bridge across a stream in the Mekong Delta. I was there only for one night; these local militiamen were there night after night, month in month out, year after year.

[GOPJ]

Do you think victims in totalitarian situations develop a powerless stance that makes their response to torture different?

Osama has said the Americans are fearful. I suspect this means that when tortured, Americans want to live -- whereas his totalitarian conditioned victims just want it over with. Is being resigned to the horrors of life a sign of strength or of unbelievable despair? Imbued followers, imbued victims...

The totalitarian ideology imbues its followers with a belief in their own omnipotence, which derives from the apparent omnipotence of their state. (Apparent, that is, until proven otherwise.) The American observers who said that the VC did not value life – Vietnamese or American – were right. The South Vietnamese soldiers, on the other hand, did not want to die.

[AFPhys]

the US did not lose the Vietnam War. We quit. That's worse.

Dead on!

[expatpat]

I'm embarrassed. You are correct -- I meant to say Harold, but was careless. Alfred was also the 'hero' of the burnt-cakes story.

[mrustow]

Do you think victims in totalitarian situations develop a powerless stance that makes their response to torture different?

Osama has said the Americans are fearful. I suspect this means that when tortured, Americans want to live -- whereas his totalitarian conditioned victims just want it over with. Is being resigned to the horrors of life a sign of strength or of unbelievable despair? Imbued followers, imbued victims...

The totalitarian ideology imbues its followers with a belief in their own omnipotence, which derives from the apparent omnipotence of their state. (Apparent, that is, until proven otherwise.) The American observers who said that the VC did not value life – Vietnamese or American – were right. The South Vietnamese soldiers, on the other hand, did not want to die.

Now that you mention it, you may have something there. In Nazi Germany, the Jews weren't slaughtered overnight. They were subjected to a series of degradations and steadily increasing abuse, that softened them up.

[mrustow]

I don't think you can say that the ARVN was "reduced to the role of camp followers." For one thing, they continued to do the bulk of the fighting, in small unit actions, and took as many casualties *per year* as we suffered during the whole war. Most of these fights were small garrisons defending local positions, and never made the Western News media, leaving the impression that the Allies, mainly the US, were doing most of the fighting. One of my first missions, in country, was to reinforce the garrison of RF/PF's guarding a bridge across a stream in the Mekong Delta. I was there only for one night; these local militiamen were there night after night, month in month out, year after year.

Thanks for providing the sort of background I've never seen in conventional, pc sources OR on the 'net.

P.S. What do the abbreviations RF/PF stand for?

[VietVet]

RF = Regional Forces; sort of like our National Guard, or the British Territorial Army.

PF = Popular Forces; local militia. There is hardly any comparable force in the US today. The closest might be the State Defence Forces/State Guards/Military Reserves, or the British Home Army/Home Guards during WWII.

However, during WWII, both the American State Guards and the British Home Army performed mainly non-combat security duties. The RVN "Ruff-Puffs" often had to fight to defend their villages.

VietVet