May 1, 2005
AMERICA SURVIVED THEM, EVEN IF THE SOUTH DIDN'T:
The War We Could Have Won (STEPHEN J. MORRIS, 5/01/05, NY Times)
The most popular explanation among historians and journalists is that the defeat was a result of American policy makers' cold-war-driven misunderstanding of North Vietnam's leaders as dangerous Communists. In truth, they argue, we were fighting a nationalist movement with great popular support. In this view, "our side," South Vietnam, was a creation of foreigners and led by a corrupt urban elite with no popular roots. Hence it could never prevail, not even with a half-million American troops, making the war "unwinnable."This simple explanation is repudiated by powerful historical evidence, both old and new. Its proponents mistakenly base their conclusions on the situation in Vietnam during the 1950's and early 1960's and ignore the changing course of the war (notably, the increasing success of President Richard Nixon's Vietnamization strategy) and the evolution of South Vietnamese society (in particular the introduction of agrarian reforms).
For all the claims of popular support for the Vietcong insurgency, far more South Vietnamese peasants fought on the side of Saigon than on the side of Hanoi. The Vietcong were basically defeated by the beginning of 1972, which is why the North Vietnamese launched a huge conventional offensive at the end of March that year. During the Easter Offensive of 1972 - at the time the biggest campaign of the war - the South Vietnamese Army was able to hold onto every one of the 44 provincial capitals except Quang Tri, which it regained a few months later. The South Vietnamese relied on American air support during that offensive.
If the United States had provided that level of support in 1975, when South Vietnam collapsed in the face of another North Vietnamese offensive, the outcome might have been at least the same as in 1972. But intense lobbying of Congress by the antiwar movement, especially in the context of the Watergate scandal, helped to drive cutbacks of American aid in 1974. Combined with the impact of the world oil crisis and inflation of 1973-74, the results were devastating for the south. As the triumphant North Vietnamese commander, Gen. Van Tien Dung, wrote later, President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam was forced to fight "a poor man's war."
Even Hanoi's main patron, the Soviet Union, was convinced that a North Vietnamese military victory was highly unlikely. Evidence from Soviet Communist Party archives suggests that, until 1974, Soviet military intelligence analysts and diplomats never believed that the North Vietnamese would be victorious on the battlefield. Only political and diplomatic efforts could succeed. Moscow thought that the South Vietnamese government was strong enough to defend itself with a continuation of American logistical support. The former Soviet chargé d'affaires in Hanoi during the 1970's told me in Moscow in late 1993 that if one looked at the balance of forces, one could not predict that the South would be defeated. Until 1975, Moscow was not only impressed by American military power and political will, it also clearly had no desire to go to war with the United States over Vietnam. But after 1975, Soviet fear of the United States dissipated.
As the war was needlessly entered into by JFK so was it needlessly lost by Ted Kennedy. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 1, 2005 9:59 AM
It was interesting listening to Bob Edwards' show on XM this week on the topic of Vietnam's fall. The gist of it was that U.S. claims that there would be a bloodbath if the South fell turned out to be far-fretched, while at the same time the segment made no mention of the political imprisonments and the waves of boat people that followed the North's victory (Cambodia might as well have been on the other side of the planet as far as this discussion was concerned).
There was no introspection on whether or not it might have been better for Vietnam if the South had survived, which goes a long way towards explaining much of the ambivalence, or outight hostility 30 years down the line to the success of the new Iraqi government by so many of the Vietnam War's opponents.
Posted by: John at May 1, 2005 12:35 PMI thought OJ put it pretty well a little while ago when he said the Democratic Congress "kneecapped" them.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 1, 2005 12:43 PMFour months after the Democrats cut off aid to Cambodia and Vietnam in January 1975, both regimes fell to the Communist armies. Within three years the Communist victors had slaughtered two-and-a-half million peasants in the Indochinese peninsulaToo bad Edwards didn't have him on his XM show--those numbers sound like a bloodbath in my book. Posted by: Ed Driscoll at May 1, 2005 2:14 PM
There were 'bloodbaths' in the South after the war; however, they were muted in comparison to Cambodia, and were never going to be reported in the West. Talk to some SV immigrants, and you will hear the stories. Things were quite difficult for those in the South until the Chinese decided to invade (1979). Then Vietnam began to 'move on'.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 1, 2005 2:15 PMWell, if your goal was a free and independent South Vietnam, or a free and independent unified Vietnam -- the first was what we purported to be fighting about -- then there was no prospect of getting that with our help.
There were over 50 million Vietnamese in the north, about 17 million in the South.
The antinational faction represented around 2% (judging by how many fled the North).
The only way the United States could possibly have influenced the development of a free, independent and nationalist Vietnam was to have dumped the 2% (the Catholics) and embraced the 98%.
We didn't.
You could have changed that equation by killing almost everybody, but that would have been the only way.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 1, 2005 3:04 PMWe created a free and independent South. Then Kennedy and the Democrats cut them off at the knees.
Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 3:08 PMThe mistakes that led to Vietnam were made by Wilson at Versailles, not by JFK in the early 60s. Our idiotic and racist decision to support the continuation of the sclerotic empires of Old Europe so long as they weren't enslaving White people led to boatloads of bad policy for which we suffer till the present day.
An America that opposed French hegemony in Indochina, Japanese hegemony in Korea and British hegemony in India would have been in an infinitely stronger position in the Cold War world than it was. And we could have avoided the morasses that were Korea and Vietnam. We would have been continuing our traditional role of supporting anti-imperialists from Kossuth to Ypsilianti to Bolivar.
Posted by: bart at May 1, 2005 3:48 PMI was in Vietnam, you know. We had popular support among the masses, I mean natives, I mean local residents, untill we didn't have it anymore. the same goes for Cambodia, which is a place I have vivid memories of. When I become President, I will retrace my steps there, wityh my band of brothers!
Posted by: JFK at May 1, 2005 3:48 PMHarry:
All those fleeing boat people weren't part of the antinational faction?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 1, 2005 4:18 PMAs I said, JFK had little flexibility, and was stuck with a poor hand. The Soviets, having thrown off their retrograde monarchy, were in a position to posture as the defender of freedom throughout the world, especially when we abdicated the title after fighting Aguinaldo and supporting Huerta. Our failure to back Rhee, Ho, Gandhi and countless others when that backing could have turned them into ducklings following America's mommy duck has led to much of our current problems with the Third World. We are seen as the continuation of the Old Empires not as the cleanest break from them.
When the Dullest Brothers toppled Arbenz and Mossadegh, while backing Battista and Trujillo matters were not made better.
Posted by: bart at May 1, 2005 5:03 PMLittle flexibility? What did any of those places matter to us?
Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 5:11 PMoj,
Vietnam was considered to have strategic minerals at the time, particularly oil. I hope I do not need to explain the importance of Korea vis-a-vis Japan, back then, let alone how important Korea is to us today.
The real choices were earlier. Becoming the fathers of Indian independence from Perfidious Albion could have avoided a half-century of Indian poverty and gotten them to be where they are compared to us in 1950 rather than just now. The natural alliance between our two nations would even be more obvious than it is. They would not have suffered 50 years of Fabian claptrap, courtesy of Nehru and his progeny.
I think cutting our deal with Mossadegh might have avoided the Ayatollah, and that wouldn't have been so terrible, would it? Needless to say, cutting deals with small-timers like Arbenz would have been child's play. Sure United Fruit might have taken it where the sun doesn't shine but so what?
Posted by: bart at May 1, 2005 5:29 PMNone of them mattered strategically. What were they going to do with the oil but sell it to us. Meanwhile, the Soviets couldn't hold together what we let them have, the further they'd extended the faster they'd have fallen, especially with no enemy to demonize.
Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 5:33 PMNeither Kennedy nor his advisers nor the American people who wanted a tough guy after the wimpy and corrupt Dullest Brothers believed that. We were concerned about Vietnam for much the same reason we gave the Afrikaners a free pass for so long, the strategic resources could not be allowed to fall into the hands of the Soviets.
In retrospect, that may have been an incorrect view, but at the time, it was a rational one to hold given the success of Soviet expansion at the time. It didn't help matters that De Gaulle was trying to play both ends against the middle and the Vatican was backing Socialists in Latin America.
Posted by: bart at May 1, 2005 5:57 PMNo one cared about Vietnam it was just JFK and company trying to be tough guys. Ike had wisely ignored the Soviets, knowing them to be no threat.
Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 6:21 PMThe corrupt,venal and disgusting Eisenhower didn't care how many Poles, Hungarians, Germans, Vietnamese or Koreans had to be killed by the Commies so long as his paymasters on Wall Street and in Texas got their money. His was a Presidency almost as disgraceful as Old Bush's or Carter's, and far worse than Clinton's.
Posted by: bart at May 1, 2005 6:37 PMEisenhower, unlike his predecessor and successors, understood how weak the Soviets were and how little sense the Cold War made. Unfortunately JFK and RFK were juveniles handed a big armory, resulting in predictably bad results.
Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 6:51 PMBart:
I'm intrigued: whom do you consider NOT corrupt, venal, and in league with the Saudis?
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 1, 2005 11:12 PMWatching OJ and bart debate this topic makes me think that my supply of drink me is exhausted and the last draught is wearing off.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 2, 2005 1:30 AMJim,
I agree with James Riady who said that 'America is just like Indonesia, all the politicians are for sale.'
A former lobbyist for Anaconda Copper once said,'Give me a case of Scotch and a case of Rye, a blonde and a brunette, and I can whip any reformer.'
The Saudis throw money around DC. There are lots of people, whether elected officials or mid-level clowns at State who willingly catch it. You'll be amazed at how many nondescript backbenchers and hacks are on the Saudi payroll. The Saudis however are not unique in this regard. Certainly, the PRC understands how the game is played, hence the impeachment focus on nonsense like fat interns and stained dresses rather than on how much classified stuff ended up in the hands of the PLA.
This is not either a foreign or a recent phenomenon. When Nelson Rockefeller was governor of NY State, every single GOP county chair and State legislator was either employed by or retained by a Rockefeller controlled entity.
Whom we elect is merely a reflection of ourselves. People are scum, so we elect scum. People are corrupt, so we elect corrupt officials. Power is seductive and many previously decent folks go on to DC or Albany or Trenton or, probably, Pierre, and become merely additional swine with their snouts in the trough. Such is the nature of existence.
Thus, my interest in reducing the size of government. It is a necessary evil in the narrow realms of protecting us from other polises and protecting us from each other's predations. But beyond that it's scope should be severely limited.
America is not unique, and as Americans are more honorable than most people around the world, our politicos are generally more honorable than others. America is not France or Israel(both of which are at least as corrupt as Jersey City or New Orleans), much less Argentina or Nigeria. But Americans are not honorable by any serious definition of the term so our politicians are not honorable by any serious definition of the term.
Posted by: bart at May 2, 2005 9:33 AMbart:
You're limiting it to politicians, but the Sa'uds own you too. In exchange for cheap oil they get to do whatever they want.
Posted by: oj at May 2, 2005 9:37 AMOJ,
Assuming you are correct in your claim that 'Eisenhower understood how weak the Soviets were, and how little sense the Cold War made,' a few questions jump out.
1. Why did we encourage revolts in the Eastern Bloc in Poland, East Germany and, especially, Hungary, promise those folks aid and then renege?
2. Why did we betray the French, Brits, and Israelis over Suez? French and British Conservatives to this day when pressed over their lack of enthusiasm for supporting American action around the globe will instantaneously respond with 'Suez.' DeGaulle himself saw the betrayal at Suez as being a justification for setting France as a third force between the US and the USSR. Khrushchev claimed in his book that his threat of military intervention forced the US to tell its allies to back down.
3. Why was the US so concerned over Soviet penetration of Mossadegh, or perceived pro-Communist insurrection in much of Latin America? If the Soviets were already over-extended wouldn't such extreme adventurism merely bankrupt the place?
You can't have it both ways. You cannot claim that Eisenhower wasn't concerned about Soviet power and at the same time justify forcing Britain, France and Israel into a humiliating surrender at Suez. You cannot claim that he thought the Cold War was a waste and then explain away letting thousands of Hungarians, Poles and Germans get butchered by the Soviets. You cannot claim that he was unconcerned about Soviet adventurism and then explain away our support for every thuggish regime in the world that painted itself 'anti-communist.'
Posted by: bart at May 2, 2005 9:46 AMCheap oil? I drive a 2002 Saturn with a 5-speed stick and get over 35 MPG in Bergen County, NJ. I'm not some typical American bonehead driving a Hummer getting 6 gallons/mile. And I assure you I do nothing by choice that benefits the Saudis, and if I could choose would do anything in my power to eliminate their hold in the US.
Posted by: bart at May 2, 2005 9:49 AMYou drive and slurp down their cheap gas--thus, by your account, funding terrorism against yourself.
Posted by: oj at May 2, 2005 10:17 AMGotta drive, so I limit my driving to what I need to do. There's no choice involved.
Posted by: bart at May 2, 2005 11:30 AMNo you don't. You choose to fund terror.
Posted by: oj at May 2, 2005 11:57 AMIf they succeeded it was good for us, if not no problem
Because Suez didn't matter and the Euros needed smacking down so they didn't cause a wider and pointless war.
He fought via proxies because it wasn't important enough for us to fight ourselves.
You're citing consistencies as inconsistencies.
Posted by: oj at May 2, 2005 11:59 AMThe Brits and the French thought Suez mattered and they were NATO allies, not in need of being smacked down. When you make a practice of smacking down allies, don't be surprised when you find out you don't have any. Napoleon learned that lesson in 1814. If the Soviets were militarily incapable of winning the wider war, why not fight one? Ever hear of Clausewitz? Bismarck?
Why did we even need the proxies if the outcome was never in doubt? And why did we back so many truly horrible proxies like Somoza, Batista and Duvalier? Couldn't we have picked and chosen among proxies, deciding which to support and which to jettison because they were so horrible, using the fact that we jettisoned a Duvalier or a Verwoerd as evidence of our essential good will?
And again, why did so many Eastern Europeans have to die in reliance on American propaganda and promises which turned out to be unfulfilled?
You're contradicting yourself.
Posted by: bart at May 2, 2005 12:17 PMThey were dead weight and you couldn't risk them getting us in a third idiotic war.
We picked those proxies because we liked them.
They had to die because they wouldn't fight for themselves.
We're talking about Ike, not what I would have done. I'd have nuked Russia.
If we would have won the war easily, as you insist and as you claim Ike believed, why not? War is diplomacy by other means.
What was to like about incompetent, thuggish criminals like Stroessner, Somoza, Duvalier, the Shah, Verwoerd, etc?
The Poles, Germans and Hungarians fought like hell and thousands died in battle. Had we merely parachuted in burp guns, it could have made a big difference at minimal cost. Also, encouraging them to revolt on the basis that we would support them, and then not supporting them when they did revolt was a criminal fraud of the worst kind. People died because Eisenhower and the Dullest Brothers encouraged them to. I can think of no action by any American President that was as truly disgraceful.
Didn't fight? Go to the Hungarian Club in New Brunswick and say that one and see if you make it out alive or end up as the day's 'Special Goulash.'
Posted by: bart at May 3, 2005 9:09 AMIke didn't like war.
They were thugs we could deal with.
Note the Hungarian Club is in NJ, not Hungary?
Posted by: oj at May 3, 2005 9:30 AM