January 31, 2007
Revisionism
Anent a recent discussion here, I recommend a piece by Seth Gitell in the NY Sun, New Thesis on Vietnam Aimed at 2008 Election. He writes:
A new thesis about the end of the Vietnam war is making the rounds in the context of the debate over Iraq. It holds that President Nixon and Henry Kissinger — not the Democratic Congress and public opinion — were chiefly culpable in America's betrayal of South Vietnam...
I think the "new thesis" is hokum, as does Gitell. Here's a small something to mull on...
...A contrast of two military offensives conducted by the People's Army of North Vietnam highlights their error. In the first offensive, in March 1972, North Vietnam hurled 14 conventional divisions, including 1,200 tanks, into South Vietnam. Nixon authorized American B-52 Stratofortresses into action to help the South Vietnamese army, the primary ground force in Vietnam at the time, fend off the invasion. The enemy sustained more than 100,000 casualties. The offensive failed. In the second offensive, three years later, North Vietnam launched the Ho Chi Minh campaign. Columns of enemy armor, unimpeded by American airpower, sped south, ultimately taking Saigon. At the end of the war, enemy missiles were pulled by tractor-trailer trucks out of the jungle, just miles from Saigon. Messrs. Rose and Perlstein fail to account for how these two similar campaigns ended with tragically different results.
Between 1972 and 1975, America's Congress passed a series of pieces of legislation that strangled the Republic of South Vietnam of resources and blocked any hope of an American air campaign. While Mr. Rose himself acknowledges that "in June 1973, Congress ordered all American military operations in Indochina to cease by the end of the summer, and in November it passed the War Powers Act," he soft-peddles the ramifications of these moves — as well as neglecting other legislative restrictions on helping South Vietnam....
Actually, I think the appearance of this "new thesis" at this moment is evidence for my thesis, that a lot of the craziness on the Left right now derives from guilt, guilt at having flushed tens-of-millions of people down the communist toilet. And it is starting to surface now because they are proposing to do something similar to tens-of-millions of Moslems.
What particularly galls me is that the leftists don't think about the consequences. Do I know this for sure? Of course not, but still, I know some of these types, I'm "embedded" in Blue State America, and I have a hunch bordering on a certainty that this is so. I feel very confident that none of the "anti-war" protesters of the 60's worried about what would happen to the South Vietnamese. And I feel a similar confidence that none of the "anti-war" crowd today is worrying either. (If I'm wrong, show me the evidence!)
If you could be a fly on the wall at one of their meetings, I bet you would not hear anyone fretting about what might happen to the Kurds if the Ba'athists got their hands on them. (Nor would you hear the least bit of rejoicing that Iraqi Kurdistan is now enjoying peace and prosperity.) Or how many more Sh'ites would end up in mass graves if al Qaeda or the Sunnis were back in power. Nor would you hear them wanting the Iraqis to be able to continue to elect their leaders. In fact, what you would hear would be all about Bush, and Cheney, and how bad America is. Nothing would indicate that the ordinary Iraqi was human to them...
Also a bitter thing to me is that those North Vietnamese invasions of South Vietnam mentioned in the article—"14 conventional divisions, including 1,200 tanks..."—I don't recall that those massive attacks garnered any criticism from our "pacifists." That kind of war is just fine for the fake-pacifist, because it's anti-American, which is their real religion...
Posted by John Weidner at January 31, 2007 08:23 AMIf you want some proof that your hunch re what the Left doesn't "think" about, go over to TalkLeft.com
Posted by: jimmakappj at January 31, 2007 04:15 PMI am one of the useful idiots who walked down Penn. Ave with a Viet Cong flag, moratorium day Nov, '69. We all bought the line that Ho was in fact a nationalist first, commie second and that the Saigon regime was so bad that commies were fine by comparison. Among my many leftie friends I am the only one I know of who has taken a second look at what was really going on(and I very much regret being so gullible, especially remembering the distraught Green Beret whom we passed on our way to the Mall, and me an Army brat). So I just wonder if there is much guilt around over betraying our allies.
Posted by: Garush at January 31, 2007 04:20 PMThe only responsibility Nixon has for letting down the South Vietnamese people is getting himself into Watergate. He ran as a peace candidate in 68 but clearly wasn't about to let the South fall - as you point out. Watergate damaged Presidential power and we still suffer from it today and that goes back to Nixon, but just when it was recovering Clinton damaged the presidency again, albeit to a lesser degree - with his stupid actions and subsequent denial of them. Congress are the ones responsible for the betrayal of the South Vietnamese and it will be Congress who desert the Iraqis if they can get away with it. I ran into an old friend here in Australia the other day who works for the Australian Defense establishment. He said one thing about the war to me as an American.."Just don't leave them in the lurch." Exactly......
Posted by: yankeewombat at January 31, 2007 07:25 PMThe American people are responsible for leaving South Vietnamese high and dry, but the Gulf of Tonkin is LBJ's to explain.
Posted by: Charles Edward Frith at February 1, 2007 03:20 AMSomeone thought they could buy Vietnam on the cheap, since France was selling for a loss. It ended up costing much more than expected, and the American people balked & demanded it sold off.
The people who "don't think about the consequences" are the ones who got us into that war. Not the "liberals" who got us out.
On the same note, I vocally opposed the Iraqi invasion, because I thought it would end up as it has, and I predicted much worse to come (i.e., Iranian intervention, ethnic cleansing, Turkish attacks on Kurdistan, all-out proxy war between Iran & Saudi, destruction of Israel, skyrocketing oil prices.) So, I accuse you of being the one who doesn't think about consequences. I wasn't willing to pay for what Iraq would cost, but you bought it without even looking at the pricetag.
Posted by: Absent Observer at February 1, 2007 12:03 PMAbsent Observer,
Can you please tell us who "got us into that war"? Why do I get the feeling you are going to say someone other than Kennedy or Johnson?
Also, out of curiosity, can you provide any links to your predictions (comments, posting, etc.) about the war that were made before the invasion? Please do not bother linking to comments opposing the war (I'm sure you were against it) - I'm only interested in seeing specific predictions as to how it would turn out.
Posted by: Mike Plaiss at February 1, 2007 01:10 PMOn the same note, I vocally opposed the Iraqi invasion, because I thought it would end up as it has, and I predicted much worse to come (i.e., Iranian intervention, ethnic cleansing, Turkish attacks on Kurdistan, all-out proxy war between Iran & Saudi, destruction of Israel, skyrocketing oil prices.) So, I accuse you of being the one who doesn't think about consequences. I wasn't willing to pay for what Iraq would cost, but you bought it without even looking at the pricetag.
While you are linking to the evidence Mike Plaiss requests, can you also point to what policies you wanted us to follow?
The reason I ask is because we know Saddam's WMD programs were simply dormant; we know sanctions were crumbling; and we know Iran and Iraq were going to follow the India/Pakistan trail. Do you believe a nuclear Iraq facing down a nuclear Iran would be a better situation than we're in today?
Or did you have some other policy you favored?
Absent,
Actually, I "bought" the Iraq Campaign because I thought it would accomplish specific goals. You can read my list of reasons here. (They assume that Iraq is not a "war," but rather one front in the Global War against Islamic Terrorism.)
I think most of those goals have been accomplished, or are well on the way to accomplishment. And that the price we have paid for them is low, in terms of a planet-spanning conflict. (And very low, compared with past wars.) Knowing what I do now, I would still support the invasion of Iraq.
Wars are won by those who are willing to fight. Holding back until you have the perfect opportunity for an safe and easy win is catastrophic folly. In fact it is the kind thinking that got us into this war. And frequently in war some small fight over some worthless scrap of ground will escalate, as each side throws more and more troops into the battle, and the stakes grow ever higher. That's the way wars go, there's no use whining about it. And when it happens you've got to fight. And pay the butcher's bill, and WIN.
And it doesn't matter if you are in a fight because somebody read the map upside down. War is like that. ALWAYS. And it is stupid to snivel about it.
...the sound of crickets chirping...
Posted by: Ethan Hahn at February 3, 2007 03:57 AMCrickets, yeah. Why am I a little surprised every time?
I myself could never walk away if my veracity was challenged. I have to defend myself, or make apologies. Sort of like the old days when a gentleman had to respond to a challenge.
Poltroons they are.
Posted by: John Weidner at February 3, 2007 05:57 AM
