G
gilliam
Guest
AUSTIN BAY writes on the collapse of Al Qaeda’s “Iraqi Tet” fantasy. He’s got a bit more background on his blog, too.hat tip
- Status
R
Richardols
Guest
A problem with the parallel - Charlie lost the Tet Offensive in '68, but ended up winning the war. Not a happy thought for today’s situation.
G
gilliam
Guest
Yes he did, thanks to Walter Cronkite. But I think the US population has learned from that experience, at least most of us have
R
Richardols
Guest
Your opinion, fine. I attribute it to the excellent and frankly, brilliant strategy employed by North Vietnam. It is difficult to think of any other conflict in which such a weak party prevailed over such strong opponent by so adroitly exploiting the domestic schisms within the latter.
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
The United States voluntarily withdrew from Viet Nam, it was not driven out. We did not lose the Viet Nam war. The Communists just claimed a victory at our withdrawal, just as the insurgents plan on doing if the U.S. ever withdraws from Iraq without setting up a stable Iraqi government.
Similar in Iraq, the United States in Viet Nam reduced all major combat to small unit actions, the U.S. won every single major combat battle during the Viet Nam War. President George Bush was absolutely correct when he stated that all major combat had ceased in Iraq; major combat had been effectively reduced to small unit actions. And now small unit actions has been reduced to inividual initiatives among the insurgents.
Just as General Colin Powell stated to the American people prior to invading Afghanistan and Iraq, a ground war will be long and messy. The American people were all for a ground war, and now the American progressive liberal left is doing the same anti-American propaganda to Iraq as it did to Viet Nam.
Jane Fonda is now writing a book and apologizing for her sedetious behaviour in Viet Nam. Its up to the American disabled Viet Nam veterans to forgive her.
R
Richardols
Guest
Kevin Walker:
Sure. The President just said, “well, we’ve spent enough time there. Nothing is making us leave. We’re just letting our boys come home.”
Sure. They said, “Hey, look there. The Americans, under no pressure, have decided to go home. Let’s see them off at the airport, and then tell everyone that we won the war.”
The quotation is that “the U.S. won the battles, but lost the war.”
G
gilliam
Guest
Mao did it in China
The Barbarians did in Rome
David did in the Old Testament
There is actually, a lot of precidence.
I think we understand the tactics now and we re not falling for them again.
What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal,* 3 August 1995*]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam’s army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.
Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
“We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.
Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
Q: How could the Americans have won the war?
A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland’s requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.
Q: Anything else?
A: Train South Vietnam’s generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.
D
dirtydog
Guest
gilliam said:
- We underestimated the NVA and the Vietcong - and especially their will to fight.
- Our leadership were full of themselves and their MBAs - they applied industrial processes and measurements such as “body count” to warfighting, and created a huge bureaucracy that micromanaged and dictated movements down to the company and perhaps even the platoon level from Washington. Thus, by the time word came down to “take that hill” - either the enemy were gone, or they were so entrenched that we took heavier losses than we would have with more power to make decisions locally.
- Even some regiment and battalion level commanders forgot the value of leading from the front and the effect their presence or lack thereof could have on morale. Many tried to lead from helicopters while their troops hacked through the jungle below.
- Unit rotation schedules led to most officers switching units every 6 months. By the time the troops knew how to best work with their officers, the officers left, and they had no transitional period to get the new guys up to speed.
d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Well to borrow from one of my favorite The Who songs of that era, “Won’t get fooled again!” I am not surprised that the insurgents believed we’d not be in this for the long haul. They’ve seen a pattern, and not just Vietnam but we left with the job not finished in Gulf War I. There was the unfortunate Somalia episode. I don’t think our successful quelling of an uprising in Grenada did much to improve our image.
But what they didn’t consider is the people have benefit of hindsight. You know the saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. We’re not falling for it this time
LIsa N
But what they didn’t consider is the people have benefit of hindsight. You know the saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. We’re not falling for it this time
LIsa N
G
gilliam
Guest
I hope this guy is not right:
The mistake was that America had lost all confidence in itself. America no longer saw itself as a source of good and freedom in this world; instead, America began to adhere to the far-leftist philosophy that America and its evil capitalist system were the roots of all world evils. Unfortunately, America has never recovered from this lapse of concern. Throughout the 1970’s and even the 1980’s, most Americans were centered on appeasement, particularly when pertaining to the evil system of communism
*Today, America has itself unwilling to learn from its errors of the past. As America fights the War on Terror and looks to promote good in the world, many Americans will not stand with the soldiers fighting this cause. That is the result of Vietnam; gone are the days of moderate debate and intelligent discussion. Those days have given way to name-calling and vitriolic partisan hatred. Yet again, this is the by-product of Vietnam, an era where protests turned bloody and the moral code that had dictated American life and policy for several centuries was called into question. *
opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/sgray_20050411.html
The mistake was that America had lost all confidence in itself. America no longer saw itself as a source of good and freedom in this world; instead, America began to adhere to the far-leftist philosophy that America and its evil capitalist system were the roots of all world evils. Unfortunately, America has never recovered from this lapse of concern. Throughout the 1970’s and even the 1980’s, most Americans were centered on appeasement, particularly when pertaining to the evil system of communism
*Today, America has itself unwilling to learn from its errors of the past. As America fights the War on Terror and looks to promote good in the world, many Americans will not stand with the soldiers fighting this cause. That is the result of Vietnam; gone are the days of moderate debate and intelligent discussion. Those days have given way to name-calling and vitriolic partisan hatred. Yet again, this is the by-product of Vietnam, an era where protests turned bloody and the moral code that had dictated American life and policy for several centuries was called into question. *
opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/sgray_20050411.html
D
delcor
Guest
Oh, please! Vietnam was about fighting communism – in the form of native North Vietnamese who knew how to live off the land, proved more difficult to slaughter when they were able to hide in rice patties and travel as tigers did down the rivers without being detected for long periods of time. They were natives protecting their land, for the most part. They hated us because we were bombing the living guts out of them. Did the U.S. win battles? Yes, almost all of them, at quite a heavy cost. Did we win that war? No. That’s common knowledge.
What I sense you’re really worried about is just how much President Bush’s “War on Terror” (which translates to a general war on Arabs) shadows the Vietnam war on Communism. You hope the article is wrong because you sense that Bush is going about it the wrong way.
G
gilliam
Guest
No, it isn’t. If it were, we would be ransacking Iraq and setting up another Levant, similar to the Crusades. Money would be going out of Iraq to the US instead of money going from the US to Iraq. We are spending billions to rebuild Iraq (including rebuilding what Saddam destroyed). No matter how much propaganda you read.
What is happening in Iraq now is that foreigners from other Arab nations are in Iraq to fight the infidel Americans and the infidel Shiites.
As a Sunni, you should know that.
By the way, we captured some more Syrians fighting in Iraq yesterday.
While the Iraqi insurgents Come Looking For Deals To Enter Politics Midlevel leaders of the insurgency in Iraq are attempting to give themselves up in return for deals that would allow them to join the political system, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.
R
Richardols
Guest
Lisa N:
Depends on the intervention, I’d think. People came out on the streets against the war in Vietnam because they considered it wrong. And they’ll do it again if necessary.
Sure, the left-wing was the first to mobilize back then, but in the following few years, even conservatives wanted us out of there. Remember that Johnson couldn’t run in 1968 because of opposition to the war.
If the only ones against him were the left-wingers, he would have disregarded them. But, so much of America (rightly IMO) opposed our continued involvement in SE Asia that he couldn’t be elected if he ran.
You are presuming that there will be no more protests about U.S. military interventions in the future.
Depends on the intervention, I’d think. People came out on the streets against the war in Vietnam because they considered it wrong. And they’ll do it again if necessary.
Sure, the left-wing was the first to mobilize back then, but in the following few years, even conservatives wanted us out of there. Remember that Johnson couldn’t run in 1968 because of opposition to the war.
If the only ones against him were the left-wingers, he would have disregarded them. But, so much of America (rightly IMO) opposed our continued involvement in SE Asia that he couldn’t be elected if he ran.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Baloney. I didn’t say that at all. I said we would not be so easily fooled by loud voices as we were in the past.
But again, I don’t think we will be so easily fooled. I grew up in that era, the daughter of bleeding heart Democrat activists. They thought they were right. They weren’t. But in those days it was much easier to use propaganda than now. There are many more sources of information these days. We don’t have to take what CBS news says as gospel. They’ve been wrong before! As I said, won’t get fooled again, not that there will never be a reason to protest a particular government action.
Of course I remember. It was my coming of age and politics were VERY important. Again, we believed what we were told about Vietnam. On hindsight we realize we were VERY wrong about a lot of our beliefs at the time. Won’t get fooled again
Lisa N
R
Richardols
Guest
Lisa N:
I don’t understand your use of the term, “fooled.” Americans of the left and right both came to oppose the war. Were they all fooled, and by whom?
I agree, probably so. But, Bush sure pulled a neat feat of propaganda in getting support for his invasion. It still works, if on a more limited basis.
Sure, there were some misconceptions. Even McNamara eventually acknowledged that we were wrong to have gone into Vietnam.
G
gilliam
Guest
since we are talking about Vietnam…
Cambodia’s Killing FieldsWhen the Khmer Rouge victoriously entered Phnom Penh 30 years ago, many people greeted the rebels with a cautious optimism, weary from five years of civil war that had torn apart their lives and killed hundreds of thousands of Cambodians. All of the city dwellers were sent to live and work in the countryside, joining the peasantry in one of the most radical revolutions in history.
During the nearly four years following that day - April 17, 1975 - Cambodia was radically transformed. Economic production and consumption were collectivized, as Pol Pot and his circle mobilized the entire population to launch a “super great leap forward.” The labor demanded was backbreaking, monotonous, and unceasing.
Everyday freedoms were abolished. Buddhism and other forms of religious worship were banned. Money, markets, and media disappeared. Travel, public gatherings, and communication were restricted. Contact with the outside world vanished. And the state set out to control what people ate and did each day, whom they married, how they spoke, what they thought, and who would live and die. “To keep you is no gain,” the Khmer Rouge warned, “To destroy you is no loss.”
In the end, more than 1.7 million of Cambodia’s 8 million inhabitants perished from disease, starvation, overwork, or outright execution in a notorious genocide.
…
The vision thing: Pol Pot and his fellow ideologues believed that the “science” of Marxism-Leninism had provided them with the tools to eliminate capitalist and imperialist oppression. The “all-knowing” Party would catapult Cambodia toward communist utopia. Like that of other genocidal ideologues, the Khmer Rouge path to this future was strewn with the bodies of those who did not fit this vision.
Today, in an era of new fanaticisms, the Khmer Rouge remind us that vision needs to be tempered with humility and toleration of the sort that inspired people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and, perhaps now in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
• The enemy within: For the Khmer Rouge, grandiose and unrealistic visions led to failures, failures suggested subversion, perceived subversion fueled paranoia, and paranoia sparked purges and the “purification” of the masses.
After Pol Pot’s clique ordered the eradication of “hidden enemies burrowing from within,” terror and death became commonplace. Sometimes suspected enemies were executed in public; often they simply vanished. “Be quiet,” people whispered; “bodies disappear.”
In our age of terrorist fear, as suspect Arabs and Muslims vanish, are tortured, or held without trial, the Khmer Rouge period cautions us about the dangers of political paranoia. The enemy within, too often, turns out to be ourselves as - driven by fear - we violate the rights of others.
…
Now, as we learn more about Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and sites of rendition, the violent practices of the Khmer Rouge warn us that the information extracted through torture is highly unreliable and that those who turn down this dark path start to resemble the evil they are pursuing.
Cambodia’s Killing FieldsWhen the Khmer Rouge victoriously entered Phnom Penh 30 years ago, many people greeted the rebels with a cautious optimism, weary from five years of civil war that had torn apart their lives and killed hundreds of thousands of Cambodians. All of the city dwellers were sent to live and work in the countryside, joining the peasantry in one of the most radical revolutions in history.
During the nearly four years following that day - April 17, 1975 - Cambodia was radically transformed. Economic production and consumption were collectivized, as Pol Pot and his circle mobilized the entire population to launch a “super great leap forward.” The labor demanded was backbreaking, monotonous, and unceasing.
Everyday freedoms were abolished. Buddhism and other forms of religious worship were banned. Money, markets, and media disappeared. Travel, public gatherings, and communication were restricted. Contact with the outside world vanished. And the state set out to control what people ate and did each day, whom they married, how they spoke, what they thought, and who would live and die. “To keep you is no gain,” the Khmer Rouge warned, “To destroy you is no loss.”
In the end, more than 1.7 million of Cambodia’s 8 million inhabitants perished from disease, starvation, overwork, or outright execution in a notorious genocide.
…
The vision thing: Pol Pot and his fellow ideologues believed that the “science” of Marxism-Leninism had provided them with the tools to eliminate capitalist and imperialist oppression. The “all-knowing” Party would catapult Cambodia toward communist utopia. Like that of other genocidal ideologues, the Khmer Rouge path to this future was strewn with the bodies of those who did not fit this vision.
Today, in an era of new fanaticisms, the Khmer Rouge remind us that vision needs to be tempered with humility and toleration of the sort that inspired people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and, perhaps now in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
• The enemy within: For the Khmer Rouge, grandiose and unrealistic visions led to failures, failures suggested subversion, perceived subversion fueled paranoia, and paranoia sparked purges and the “purification” of the masses.
After Pol Pot’s clique ordered the eradication of “hidden enemies burrowing from within,” terror and death became commonplace. Sometimes suspected enemies were executed in public; often they simply vanished. “Be quiet,” people whispered; “bodies disappear.”
In our age of terrorist fear, as suspect Arabs and Muslims vanish, are tortured, or held without trial, the Khmer Rouge period cautions us about the dangers of political paranoia. The enemy within, too often, turns out to be ourselves as - driven by fear - we violate the rights of others.
…
Now, as we learn more about Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and sites of rendition, the violent practices of the Khmer Rouge warn us that the information extracted through torture is highly unreliable and that those who turn down this dark path start to resemble the evil they are pursuing.
R
Richardols
Guest
I’m with you 100% on this, Gilliam. That our government could have thought that torture was in any way acceptable verifies your caution against paranoia and us as our own enemies.
In the Air Force during the Vietnam War, I, a linguist, interrogated hundreds of POWs, “Returnees,” and refugees. My unit at no time, in no way, ever used torture or even coertion against those we had to deal with. Something that, in light of the abuses of this war, I’m tremendously proud of.
BTW, we got the intelligence information we sought.
W
wabrams
Guest
Lisa N:
What do you mean by that?
G
gilliam
Guest
I will alway caution against paranoia
.
The US seldom appoves of torture of any kind. A number of guys in the 1st CAV are learning that lesson now.
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
After the South Vietnamese Army failed to defend South Vietnam from Communism, which the U.S. Army kept at bay for over ten years. The President withdrew after the ARVN lost the Viet Nam police action.
They (the North Vietnamese) said, hey look, thank God the Americans are handing over the country to the ARVN, now we have a chance of winning. When the Americans voluntarily withdraw, we will use our famous Communist Propaganda and declare we chased out the Americans.
In reality: “The U.S. won the battles, and the ARVN lost the war.”
- Status