Viet Nam.. What is your opinion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter distracted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yup, 9/11 is exactly what they needed, and it worked out perfectly for them.
Just to be clear, while it seems completely reasonable to presume that a group of people who spent years declaring that they needed a good opportunity to invade Iraq did, in fact, seize an opportunity when one presented itself, I, personally am not willing to take the accusation further, at least not without a heck of a lot more compelling evidence.

Further, although the ideas were (and are) pretty dumb, like military strategy in a game of Risk in Jr. High, I have some respect for some of the early PNAC participants. For example, I think that Frances Fukiyama is a legitmate intellectual. That is, I think his ideology flows from his ideas, not vice versa. I thought this even before he conlcuded that Iraq was proof positive that his earlier PNAC thinking was utter bunk and that, in hindisight, the thinking was simply Leninism with a fresh coat of paint. Though that (rethinking something in light of reality) certainly reinforced my perception of him.
 
And pigs fly. Tell that with a straight face to the 50,000+ families who lost someone to the “practically defenseless” peoples of Viet Nam; tell it to the Viet Namese who lost family members to the cadre who came into the villages and executed the village leader, the teachers, and anyone else who had or exercised any authority; tell it to the wounded veterans; in fact, tell it to those of us who are veterans and not wounded - but lost friends and relatives.

Practically defenseless people don’t have SAM missle sites, 130 mm cannon, AK47s, RPGs, bangalor torpedoes - want me to continue?

OK, their tank corp was practially worthless; the excuse they had for a tank couldn’t stand up to the Sherman we had.

Practically defenselss? As someone who was at Khe Sanh when it was overrun.
Obviously, it didn’t work out how we expected. I imagine it was the same for the Philistines. I was just acknowledging that the US was one of two major superpowers at the time and Vietnam was no comparison militarily. Nobody would argue that they won because they were militarily superior. They just had a tad bit more to lose or win in the war and this may explain why they won.
 
Just to be clear, while it seems completely reasonable to presume that a group of people who spent years declaring that they needed a good opportunity to invade Iraq did, in fact, seize an opportunity when one presented itself, I, personally am not willing to take the accusation further, at least not without a heck of a lot more compelling evidence.
Neither am I. Although, if the one of these men was informed of an imminent attack such as 9/11 beforehand… Anyway, best not to think of such things.

Also, it goes a lot further than Iraq. These men want to see the US in perpetual war and the approach we have taken since 9/11 may mean just that.
 
I am a Vietnam Veteran (1969).
I believe that we should have gotten out of there,
BUT, not the way that we did!
We should have had a slower more methodical
withdrawal.
The way that the US did it wa all at once and
caused a very great hardship and more deaths
by allowing the North Vietnamese to just
totally overrun the south.
This is a lesson that should be well taken in the
withdrawal from Irar.
 
???

What didn’t we commit? Our footprint was about 5x that of Iraq. We instituted a draft, and sacrified 58,000 American lives (plus 2,000 ‘missing’). As noted, the only thing we did not do was create an atomic holocaust, probably only because we feared atomic retaliation.

This is just a myth from people who cannot seem to bring themselves to accept a huge and costly foreign policy mistake. Undoubtedly, the same myth will eventually propogate for Iraq, though it will be even more absurd in that case. Look at the current situation, even the government we have propped up there has indicated that it cannot accept an open ended US occupation, nor the continued exclussion of US occupying forces from the rule of law.

The entire point of the venture was permanent bases. Look at the architects and their PNAC writings dating back to '93 (PNAC officially formed in '97, but many of the signatories had already been writing about Iraq for years). Iraq was just a convenient opportunity to expand and project US military force in the region (don’t take my word for it, I’m just quoted the folks who thought up the whole disaster). But the darndest thing happened, the people had a will of their own. They wouldn’t accept our preferred puppet Chalabi, and no government that will accept a permanent US occupation can stand.

The irony is that in this miguided venture, the same folks who latch onto the myth of a lack of will in Vietnam and who will undoubtedly reuse the myth to explain their stupidity in Iraq have, in fact, made the myth a reality - in Afghanistan. History, locale, culture, were all aligned for a winnable conflict there, but the powers that be were not interested. They wanted Iraq, and fabricated a connection to 9/11 and stirred fears of mushroom clouds to get it.

Todays news:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080714/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan;_ylt=AvuYJXu8dqG_rd1aOpGJrJOs0NUE

Won’t make much of an impression on the Koolaide crowd like Ridgerunner. After all, what are 9 lives in the all important global struggle for photo ops and the right to feel manly? It isn’t as if THEY will be risking their tiny cojones. But viewed in the context of the latest congressional reporting, internation force reports, etc. it tells us a lot. It tells us that war on the cheap, particularly at the expense of not providing basic security to the populace means losing.

So, for all those shaking their tiny fists in anger and fear about Islamic Extremism, how about a reality check on how we are doing on the enemies who actually attacked us on 9/11? Most were Sauds, which is hardly surprising since they’ve invested $70B in militant extremists and are the primary bankroll for AQ terrorism. Aside from record profits on oil, and the VP flying over to kiss butt, what exactly has changed there?

OBL and his version of AQ relocated to Pakistan, whom we can’t touch because we need them to have access to Iraq. There is also alarming implications that Pakistan is heavily involved in rogue nuclear proliferation.

And the Taliban, whom we ‘defeated’ in Afghanstan have, in the US military’s own estimation, have control over large sections of the country. They are also expanding their territory and are launching larger, coordinated attacks on our troops.

And, of course, we’ve created islamic extremists in Iraq, a place where they weren’t before because the country was under the control of a secular tyrant…

I’m not sure why people are so convinced that loud hyperbole about US history, Nazi sympathizers, and the fate of the Western world will alter the basic facts. We are failing to achieve meaningful strategic goals, and will continue to fail to do so short of a massive changes on a scale the US population is not willing to make. We’re not going to have another draft, and since the chickenhawks are, themselves, gutless wonders who won’t fight the wars they support, no one should be surprised.

The only question is, what poor sap will be the last US soldier to die just because a bunch of gutless self serving chickenhawks lack the capacity to accept responsibility for their own mistakes?
Ahhh. Now that post was a pleasure to read! Well said old chap!
 
Thank all of you for your coments and opinions…
I didn’t say that we were right for being there in the first place, BUT I do believe that once there we
need to handle the situation in the best morale and
ethical way possible----with a lot of Prayer to God for His help and guidance. 🙂

Mike
 
Of course we have lost the moral high ground. It is silly to even pretend otherwise. At best we engaged in a ‘preventive war’, which is still in violation of international law.
SoCalRC,

Thank you for your comments and opinions. I highly value and respect your experience and knowledge which is why I asked. I will continue to study these issues.
 
SoCalRC,
I got the following quote from the movie “The Great Debaters” which is such a powerful picture of faith. James Joyce was quoted “History is a nightmare from which men are trying to awaken.”
Another quote I received from a friend of mine yesterday who quoted Frederich Buechner “The life I touch for good or ill will touch another life, and then in turn another, until who knows where the trembling stops or in what far place my touch will be left.”
SoCalRC, I love your wisdom in your posts that can only come from your faith and the Holy Spirit who is the Lord the Giver of Life. Looking for military solutions to spiritual war is what evil would want us to do because it brings more death into the world and thus moves us away from the Cross that has conquered death through Our Lord. He told us to pray for our enemies. That is where our faith lives. If we want to stop abortion we must stop the causes of suffering and death that we men have created which influence women to be afraid to bring children into the world.
A movie I watched last year based on true events in WWI depicted what could be possible if all who believe in God were to risk losing their lives for their faith by dropping their guns. This movie is entitled Joyeus Noel.
After leaving the ark Noah was told that every human who shed the blood of another would be held accountable.
Freedom in Christ is freedom from fear of being harmed for our faith. He told us that they will persecute us and kill us because they hate Him. He never told us to attack them. Our faith spread through giving up our right to ourselves in Him. He stopped Peter from harming another to protect Him.
Check out 2Macc when a mother is forced to watch her 7 sons be tortured to death for their faith.
Evil loves death and the hardness and fear of those who react to death in that self-protective way.
Thank you SoCalRC for your posts.
 
ezinearticles.com/?The-War-on-Terror-Political-Correctness-Gone-Mad&id=596968

for example, MIG bases could not be struck. The rules generally forbade bombing or strafing of military and industrial targets in and around the enemy’s heartland, encompassing the capital of Hanoi and the port city of Haiphong.
What was the rationale behind this?? I thoiught the whole idea of war was to WIN… & why would the US respect the North Vietnamese who… well, fought to win. :rolleyes: probably would have done anything to win, and from waht i heard, they DID…
These restrictions gave the North Vietnamese substantial military advantage.
no kidding…
Free from American attack and helped by its Soviet and Chinese allies, the enemy was able to construct one of the most formidable anti-aircraft defenses the world has even seen.
and the US didn’t KNOW that would be the result? I am not buying it. :mad:
 
SoCalRC,

Thank you for your comments and opinions. I highly value and respect your experience and knowledge which is why I asked. I will continue to study these issues.
Yes, he has been spot on I think and I am greatfull for, from his personal experiecne perspective, to have applied rationale, reason and our faith to draw sound conclusions with respect to our current amitions in the ME.
 
What was the rationale behind this?? I thoiught the whole idea of war was to WIN… & why would the US respect the North Vietnamese who… well, fought to win. :rolleyes: probably would have done anything to win, and from waht i heard, they DID…

no kidding…

and the US didn’t KNOW that would be the result? I am not buying it. :mad:
All of the above was true.

And if it makes you angry, it should.

Tune in to the Military Channel on television; periodically they interview Air Force and Navy pilots from that era and they express their rage at the restrictions that cost so many lives.

The NVA used to set flak traps around targets because they knew our planes would be back day after day, same time, same target, same flight path. They didn’t even have to aim.

But don’t believe me.

I will post some “memoir” types of books where pilots go into a lot of detail.

I’m convinced that a lot of pilots stayed in the Air Force solely so they could either change the policy when they achieved some rank or they wanted to be able to have the salary grade credentials to be able to speak with as much authority as they could.

For example, these two books were written by the same guy:

amazon.com/Going-Downtown-Against-Hanoi-Washington/dp/0671678620

And if you click on this one, and then scroll down a bit, the Amazon site shows a whole pile of additional books.

amazon.com/Thud-Ridge-Jack-Broughton/dp/B00005WY8K/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216235348&sr=1-6

Thud Ridge is named for the place where so many of the F-105’s were shot down. “Thud” is the nickname for the F-105.]

Most of the planes were F-105D models. A few were two-seater F-105F’s which were used as Wild Weasels.

Broughton was at Thakli Royal Thai Air Force Base. Thakli had two squadrons (18 planes each) of F-105’s and some EB-66’s and some KC-135 tankers during the 1966-67 time period.

The next author, Ed Rasimus, was at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base. You can look up the 388TFW and also Korat RTAFB on the internet and read much more. During the same time period, Korat initially had two squadrons of F-105’s and used F-100F’s as Wild Weasels. Very soon however, they added two more squadrons of F-105D’s and replaced the Huns with F-105F’s.

amazon.com/When-Thunder-Rolled-Ed-Rasimus/dp/0891418547/ref=pd_sim_b_3

A fellow named Roger Tarpley actually made a “home movie” taken from the back seat of Wild Weasel F-105F’s (before they got the electronics installed). The movie was “published” (I think) as “Red River Valley”. But it was edited before being issued to the public to remove the scene that Tarpley recorded of an F-4 actually being hit, nose-on, by a SAM.

I will try to find a reference to the movie.

We were losing more than a plane a day. “Eventually”, a contractor came up with something called a QRC-160 jamming pod and the losses from radar guided missiles and AAA slowed dramatically. Nevertheless, after a while so many F-105’s were lost that they had to be taken out of service … there just weren’t enough left to operate feasibly. And they were replaced by F-4’s.

There used to be something called the “Red River Valley Pilot’s Association” or some such. I’ll try to find it. It refers to the Red River Valley that leads along from Hanoi to Haiphong.
 
When the rules of engagement were learned about by the American people, this help solidify opposition to the war.

Before I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1970, I heard about our troops being limited on what they could do in Vietnam, and that the government had their arms tied behind their backs. We heard things like they couldn’t shoot at the enemy, until they were shot at, then they had to get clearance from HQ, before they could engaged.

As I found out, this was BS.

In all my training, we were never given rules of engagement.

Jim
 
Sorry, I got the name of Tarpley’s film wrong.

The title was “There Is A Way” and the sound track was the song “Red River Valley”.

They named the film “There Is a Way” because the popular expression among the pilots was “No Way” … there was no way any of them were going to live through 100 missions.

I found this while Googling;

keytlaw.com/F-4/OTS.htm

I’ll never forget watching an Air Force made short movie called “There is a Way.” The movie was about men my age and a little older flying combat missions over North Vietnam in F-105 Thunderchief (the “Thud”) fighter bombers out of Korat Royal Thai Air Base, Thailand in 1966. Lt. Karl Richter was featured in the movie because he epitomized the heroic young American warrior of the Vietnam air war. Lt. Richter had survived 100 missions over Route Pack Six, the most dangerous area of all aerial combat of the Vietnam war, and he volunteered to fly another 100 missions.

Lt. Karl Richter was shot down and killed in action on July 28, 1967, after completing his second 100 missions over North Vietnam. There is a statue of Karl Richter at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, on which is inscribed, the following words from the prophet Isaiah: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Here am I. Send me.” Lt. Richter gave his life in the service of his country. Karl Richter’s spirit and sacrifice will live on in the annals of the United States Air Force and American history. The December 1992 issue of Air Force Magazine contains an article about Karl Richter written in its Valor section.

The movie includes footage of a mongrel dog named “Roscoe,” which had a special purpose and place at Korat. Roscoe attended all the early morning briefings given to the aircrews that were to fly into the dangerous Route Pack Six area in North Vietnam. The briefings were held in an auditorium at Fort Apache, the intelligence building on the flight line at Korat.

Roscoe had a reserved seat at the briefings in the front row. Because the Route Pak Six briefings were usually very early in the morning, Roscoe liked to sleep. Sometimes, however, Roscoe woke up. Korat fighter pilots believed that if Roscoe slept through the briefing then nobody would get shot down. If Roscoe woke up during the briefing, the fighter pilots believed that it was a bad sign that somebody was going to be killed or captured that day. For more information about Roscoe, see the histories written by John Anderson, Col. William C. Koch, Jr. USAF (Ret), and several contributors to the Korat AB website.

Roscoe was adopted by all the fighter pilots at Korat. The youngest flying officer was given the additional duty of “Roscoe Control Officer.” His duty was to take care of Roscoe’s needs and transport him around the base and make sure Roscoe was present for the big Route Pak Six mission briefings at Fort Apache.

In the summer of 1972 when I arrived at Korat, Roscoe was still alive and living the life of top dog on base. I saw Roscoe most every day while I was at Korat. He was usually at either the Officers Club or Fort Apache, which was the intelligence building where aircrews planned and briefed combat missions… One day I was waiting outside the Officers Club for the shuttle bus to take me to the flight line and a pickup truck pulled up and stopped in front of me. A bird Colonel got out of the truck, opened the door and Roscoe jumped out and sauntered into the club.

Sunday night at the Officers Club was “cook your own steak night.” The Club always made sure that Roscoe got a steak Sunday night. I frequently ran into Roscoe while on the shuttle bus. When Roscoe wanted to go someplace, he would wait at the bus stop until the shuttle bus arrived. The drivers all knew Roscoe and stopped to pick him up and let him out.

F-4 & Vietnam Air War Links

I found this. It says it has the whole film. The blurb has what looks like Karl Richter’s picture on it.

cgi.ebay.com/Korat-AB-Thailand-388th-TFS-USAF-DVD-see-video-clip_W0QQitemZ130238960382QQcmdZViewItem?IMSfp=TL0807151536r20986

Karl actually successfully ejected on his last mission, but as he descended in his parachute he hit into the rocky karst and was severely injured and died while aboard the rescue chopper. At least that’s what I was told later.
 
Got timed out again.

Sorry, but this really brought back some $%^* memories.

Or as one fellow used to say, “Does this “tick” you off much?”

[That wasn’t what he really said; but I don’t want to get banned.]

It was horrible. Our guys were butchered.

river-rats.org/about_us/history.php

I guess the guys are dying off; the Web site has really been cut back over the years.

This book is very good:

amazon.com/Pak-Six-G-I-Basel/dp/0515090050/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_i

And read more here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-105_Thunderchief

Ed Rasimus wrote five books about his experience:

amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ed%20Rasimus&page=1

Some good reviews here:

amazon.com/review/product/0891418547/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Some people liked this review:

After I read this book, I wrote a letter to the author recommending he expand his last chapter into another book.

As it turns out, Mr Rasimus and I were at the same base at the same time, although I don’t think we ever met. At the time, before the Air Force got ECM pods, F-105 losses were staggering. Sometimes several per day were shot down. At one point the odds of surviving a single mission to the Hanoi area were at best 1 in 4. That means that for every flight of four planes that went into the area, AT LEAST one would be shot down. Sometimes all four were lost, but when you took off in your flight of four, you KNEW that one of you wasn’t coming back.

Mr. Rasimus does an outstanding job of describing the political climate and the matter of fact way that he and his fellow pilots went about doing a dangerous job with unsuitable equipment under ridiculous rules of engagement (e.g., you must never attack a SAM site unless it attacks you first).

Every morning my alarm clock was the boom of the afterburners of the morning strike taking off. We flew against the same targets every day at the same time from the same direction. I don’t know where our biggest enemies were: in North Vietnam, in Moscow, or in the Washington DC mission planning groups.

Anway, this is a great book and a welcome addition to the collection of knowledge of how wars should and should not be fought. I know that writing accurate history is difficult, tedious and fraught with emotion, but I sincerely hope the author accepts my suggestion to add to our sum of knowledge from his first-hand perspective.
 
When the rules of engagement were learned about by the American people, this help solidify opposition to the war.

Before I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1970, I heard about our troops being limited on what they could do in Vietnam, and that the government had their arms tied behind their backs. We heard things like they couldn’t shoot at the enemy, until they were shot at, then they had to get clearance from HQ, before they could engaged.

As I found out, this was BS.
My friend, I am afraid you are in error…or your source of the information was in error.

I was “in-country” from October 1968 to December 1970. I was a Team Leader for the 69th Infantry Det (GSR) and spent my last year on the Cambodian border in the Mekong Delta and my primary mission was serving as an “FO” for two artillery batteries.

We were “routinely” given “rules of engagement”…some were horrendously ridiculous. Most often these rules were given just prior to a “religious holiday”…and the VC reportedly communicated their desire for a “cease-fire” on those dates. What that really meant to us was that we could expect to get “hit”…as the VC never honored their own requests for cease-fires. We were told that we could only return fire if we were in fear of our lives as in self defense, but if the enemy did not fire at us, we could not fire. In fact on occasion we were instructed that we had to have the permission of a Commissioned Officer to engage the enemy. In my particular tactical situation…as a Sergeant I was the ranking man…and the nearest Officer was 5 kliks away in a MACV outpost… It wasn’t BS…it was the truth.

We ended up as we did because we were “micro-managed” to death by bureaucrats in Washington who took briefings in air conditioned hotels and offices on another planet.
In all my training, we were never given rules of engagement.
Rules of engagement are not “standardized” or cut and dried. They are situational in nature and are designed for a particular mission or time and place. I was not given rules of engagement during periods of training in CONUS either. It all was given as needed while in the field in Vietnam.
 
Mr. Masetti, you are correct in your assertion that the Vietnam Veterans associations…of all combat units memberships are diminishing… We are dieing off at an alarming rate.

I went over in October 68, left in December 70’. I will be 58 in a couple of months… Some of my “brothers in arms” have committed suicide…PTSD related, or died of un-natural causes. Many of us, including all of the members of my unit were exposed to Agent Orange, Agent White, and Agent Blue…all voracious herbicides that contained more than just “vegetation killers”. These agents are responsible for many “in-country” Vets getting cancers and having sudden on-sets of Diabetes Mellitus (Type II)…and other maladies.

In addition to the maladies caused by chemical agents, the natural aging process is taking its toll…

By the way…I find your posts regarding this issue very insightful and truthful. I also agree on your “political viewpoints” vis a vis Vietnam.
 
SoCalRC,

Thank you for your comments and opinions. I highly value and respect your experience and knowledge which is why I asked. I will continue to study these issues.
I’m sorry, the comment does seem like I was calling you silly. That was not my intent, I was venting exasperation at the general situation. My sister’s personal theory is that every stupid idea devised by man gets recycled at least once every 50 years. Right or wrong, it is exasperating.

I tried to give a straightforward answer to your question, I’m sorry some of my word choices were so poor.
 
The US did commited everything it had short of Nuclear bombs, including 50,000 Americans.
Actually…far more troops than 50,000. Here are the statistics.:

Vietnam War Casualties

Here is a breakdown for the Vietnam War: Vietnam War (1964–1975) Total servicemembers 8,744,000 Serving in-theater 3,403,000 Battle deaths 47,410 Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789 Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000 Nonmortal woundings 153,303
 
I was “in-country” from October 1968 to December 1970. I was a Team Leader for the 69th Infantry Det (GSR) and spent my last year on the Cambodian border in the Mekong Delta and my primary mission was serving as an “FO” for two artillery batteries.

We were “routinely” given “rules of engagement”…some were horrendously ridiculous.
Having spent two years shoving insides back into body cavities and rolling up bloody ponchos myself, I can say that no one disputes that the operational constraints were ludicrous. However, the problem is that no one stops to think out what could have possibly changed.

Remember, it wasn’t just the VC and us. We were ‘aiding’ a ‘legitimate’ government. Rules about religion weren’t about kissing VC butt, but about avoiding adding straws to the collapse of the government that was our cover for being there. Likewise, rules about direct engagement with China or the Soviets were to keep the illusion that we were helping a friendly nation in a regional conflict, not covertly starting WW-III.

From a battle ground perspective, frustration makes sense. We won battles, and clearly had superior military might. In the 1/9 the KIA ratio was horrific, well over 90%, so no one could saw we weren’t fighting tooth and nail.

But while you can win battles militarily, and more freedom to use military might could mean more battle victories, you do not win wars by military action alone. War always requires a political and diplomatic solution as well. Military might can only, at best, create the opportunity for such solutions.

Consider Vietnam. Would escallating the fight from the VC to China, a nuclear power with the largest standing army on earth have ‘ended’ the war in an assured US victory? Similarly, how would have expediting the collapse of the government in the south created a path to victory? Driving an even stronger popular uprising would have just made even more people shoot at our backs - and it was hard enough to distinguish friend from foe as it was.

Resenting a meat grinder, a unwinnable situation, is understandable. But it is very dangerous to assume that the situation was unwinnable because of wholly arbitrary decisions. The constraints were there because of the realities of the geo political situation. Pretending otherwise just means we will repeat the same mistakes.

Look at Iraq, we have abandoned the Geneva conventions. There are literally no constraints on the treatment of prisoners or the population. Similiarly, we have an adminstration that would welcome regional escallation and even actively pursues it. And looking back, the war has run years long and cost hundred of billions more than anyone ever dreamed, and no meaningful political settlement seems on the horizon.

But, even in trying to ‘take the gloves off’ (as non fighting re-writers of Vietnam history like Bush and Cheney have), we have created a new set of silly operational constraints. We hear promises of following OBL to the gates of hell, but we can’t touch him in the caves of Pakistan. Similarly, we fight the Taliban - we’re actually losing the country to them in Afghanstan now, but we also largely help fund them, because we can’t risk losing access to Saudi oil…

The problem isn’t operational constraints, you’ll always have them. The problem is stupid ones, combined with strategically impossible goals. This lesson gets missed when people blame the symptom instead of looking at the underlying disease.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top