Posted on 02/25/2003 9:18:04 AM PST by mrustow
Toogood Reports [Tuesday, February 25, 2003; 12:01 a.m. EST]
URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/
For over forty years, America pursued the foreign policy, first developed in an anonymously penned, 1947 article by George Kennan (as "X," in what was probably the most important article ever published in the journal Foreign Affairs), of the "containment" of Soviet communism. One of the factors that made containment workable was the very bifurcation of the world that the policy addressed. A world without an Iron Curtain, is a world without containment.
Containment Theory was heavily influenced by World War II, in which Nazi Germany toppled one European country after another.
Soon after Containment Theory was adopted by the Truman Administration, one of its implications – the "Domino Theory" – took on a life of its own. According to the Domino Theory, a political variation on the ancient "slippery slope" argument, if a government was toppled by communism, it would in turn topple neighboring governments, leading eventually to communist world domination.
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.
At the time, socialists, communists, and most conservatives believed in the "Domino Theory." The socialists and communists believed in it, because they believed in the Marxist theory of history, according to which socialism was inevitable. Many anti-communists (including conservatives) believed in it, because they thought that liberal democracy, with its division of powers, was ill-equipped to fight a system that imposed total unity through total oppression. Some parties sought to help the dominoes fall, others to keep them upright.
Some observers, particularly those with little sense of history, now find it easy to sneer at Domino Theory. At the time, however, the theory offered great explanatory power, few people disagreed with it, and few thinkers offered credible alternative theories. And as we shall see, the theory still has great explanatory power.
In 1995, former secretary of defense Robert McNamara announced in his memoir, In Retrospect, that he had secretly known, during the Johnson Administration, that we could not win in Vietnam, and needed to pull out. On February 28, 1968, McNamara resigned from the Defense Department, to run the World Bank. Since he had said nothing, and done nothing to make such observations public in 1968, or at any other time during the war, and 41,000 American boys died after he resigned from Defense, many people who heard or read McNamara's 1995 statement considered him a mass murderer.
In a 1995 talk at Harvard, McNamara granted that long after Vietnam was lost, many old geopolitical hands never stopped believing the war had been worth all the cost in blood and treasure, to slow down communist imperialism.
"Now, where is such high cost justified? [Kennedy/Johnson secretary of state] Dean Rusk, who was a dear friend of mine, an outstanding patriot, a servant of our country in war and peace, until he died... believed the answer to the QUESTION were the costs justified, he goes, 'Yes.' And I believe that many geo-politicians living today, including Walt Rostow, for example, who was President Johnson's National Security Advisor, and including that extraordinary Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yoo, I believe many of these geo-politicians would agree with Dean Rusk today, say the costs were justified.
"And the reason they would say that is that they conclude that without U.S. intervention in Vietnam, the communists ... both Soviet and Chinese, would have spread farther through South and East Asia, and would have taken control of Laos and Cambodia and Thailand and Malaysia, Indonesia, and perhaps even India. And some would go further and say that in that case the USSR would have been led to take greater risks attempting to extend its influence crossing into Western Europe and they might even have tried in the Middle East to take control of the oil producing nations. Now, I don't share those judgments....
"But, having said that, I want to stress that the danger of communist aggression during the four decades after World War II, during 1950's, 60's, 70's and 80's was very real and very substantial."
So, McNamara disbelieved Rusk, Rostow, Yoo & Co. ... and having said that, he believed them. How about that, for covering your butt?
In retrospect, McNamara felt that we never had a chance in Vietnam, because although he believed in the Domino Theory at the beginning of U.S. intervention, he didn't believe the South Vietnamese were capable of defending themselves, and both conditions needed to be fulfilled, in order for American intervention to make any sense.
About the same time as McNamara, the father of Containment/Domino Theory, George Kennan, also developed a case of acute 20/20 hindsight regarding Containment/Domino Theory, but as with McNamara, there is no evidence of Kennan ever having displayed foresight during the 1960s.
Observations as to the impossibility of our succeeding in South Vietnam may sound so obvious today to young people and tenured academics, as to beg the question as to why we ever considered intervening there. The answer is that there was nothing obvious about the observations at the time, or at least no clear policy conclusions that could be drawn from them. Americans (and not just Americans) who observed the world, tended to jump back and forth between two mutually contradictory positions: 1. We were living in an "American Century" as Time magazine publisher Henry Luce had put it in a famous, widely circulated 1941 editorial: "It now becomes our time to be the powerhouse from which the ideals spread throughout the world," and 2. That communism was an ineluctable force that could perhaps be withstood, but not toppled.
Communism seemed to many people unbeatable, though one did not express such pessimism publicly. I recall as an 11-year old in 1969 or so, and remarking to a classmate after school that we couldn't beat the Soviets, because they had such perfect unity. Well, words to that effect.
Rather than talk about the South Vietnamese Army's lack of heart, Americans expressed awe of the Viet Cong guerrillas operating in South Vietnam, who never quit. People tended to interpret the VC's relentless will to fight as being based on their absolute belief in communism. I think, however, that the VC were simply stone killers who believed in nothing in particular, but that totalitarianism – any brand will do – encourages those in power to be conscienceless stone-killers. 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.
The American pessimism was not new: Between the world wars, fascists, Nazis, and communists all informed the world that free societies had no chance at beating dictatorships; the latter had unity of purpose and resoluteness, while the former were crippled by the indecisive discussion societies (legislatures) that ran them. (The most famous such critic was fascist (but not Nazi) German political theorist Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), the Mephistopheles of the Modern State, who did his bit to help topple the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), the "republic without republicans," with a series of brilliant pamphlets and books, including Political Romanticism, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, Political Theology and The Concept of the Political.)
And so, I believe that it was possible to recognize the apparent contradiction between belief in the Domino Theory, and a lack of faith in a nation's will to beat the communists, and yet still opt for war. The alternative was to fold in the face of the communist juggernaut.
America and Britain triumphed over the Axis powers in World War II, but only with the help of the most genocidal dictatorship of the 20th century, the Soviet Union. The notion that a free society is always at a disadvantage in confronting a dictatorship persisted through the Cold War confrontation with communism, and retains its vigor today, in Islam's war against the West.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Nicholas at adddda@earthlink.net .
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.
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."
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.
Dead on!
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.
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?
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.