Gringo Says:
July 6th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
As I have previously mentioned, I was a Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam War. The genocide in Cambodia convinced me of the error of my ways.
If fighting to prevent the horror of Communism from being imposed on a people is called “Imperialism,” so be it. I grew up with too many refugees from the Iron Curtain and from Hitler to adopt a sanguine view of those ideologies.

Hmmmm, well Gringo you are not the only Vietnam era Conscientious Objector I’ve come across who observed the horror of the Fall of Vietnam and came away changed and repentant. Most of the Left continues steadfast in denial. And now within living memory of the Holocaust, and in the face of another grave evil, a second peace movement has emerged. On occasion I wonder if the only reason we were able to maintain unity and achieve victory during WWII is because the Old Left needed FDR to defeat Hitler and thus save Stalin after the collapse of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. But perhaps I am too jaded by my own days on the Left. Today Gringo, you give me hope.

Jim G Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Recall that in Vietnam, we first had Diem. He was certainly home-grown, but as an elite, cosmopolitan Catholic in a rural Buddhist world, he couldn’t keep his grip.

Heck, military history Mark Moyar argues that Diem probably would have achieved early victory in the South if had not been for JFK’s wrong-head agrarian reform policies dictated to Diem in exchange for US aid. Further, “Moyar contends that South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, who has been incessantly depicted as an obtuse, tyrannical reactionary by some historians, was in reality a very wise and effective leader”. According to Moyar it was New York Times war correspondents David Halberstam (a red diaper baby from the Upper Westside of Manhattan I think) and former U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge (and Old Line liberal Republican rival to JFK) who destroy our early victory in Vietnam. Some argue that elite American WASP anti-Catholicism played a role in undermine Diem. In any case it seems likely that Lodge arranged Diem’s assassination.

You might want to read:
Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965, by Mark Moyar

When I was young, I totally agreed with all the anti-war sentiment. Mac, Kissenger, LBJ, Nixon — all war pigs! (ah, more 60′s nostalgia!) But in my old age, I am having second thoughts. The average southerner in Vietnam was probably not in favor of a takeover by the VC and the northerners.

But as in Iraq, the locals didn’t like Americans running the place either. In the end, they decided that they liked a US-dominated military government less than an NVN-dominated military government. But yes, once the USA cut and run, there were very savage, bloody consequences. And our press chose to mostly ignore them, so as to let our American college youth and liberal activists “heal”, after all their anti-war angst.

The jury will be out for a while on this, but it might be the case that the USA successfully applied in Iraq some of the lessons it learned in Nam. The biggest lesson, IMHO, is that you need to allow indigenous political figures to rise who aren’t perceived as American patsies. And to do that, you’re going to have to tolerate figures who actually AREN’T American patsies. Our forces are going to have to quietly support rising leaders who make speeches about kicking the American invaders out. You have to relinquish control of the political process, hoping that with a few nudges and unholy deals, you can promoted a “less worse” alternative.

Recall that in Vietnam, we first had Diem. He was certainly home-grown, but as an elite, cosmopolitan Catholic in a rural Buddhist world, he couldn’t keep his grip. I’m not going to get into the question of whether JFK and co. were responsible for his assignation, but after Diem, the leaders were almost all military guys. I.e., “our guys”; loyal US supporters. Ky, Thieu, etc — they were easy to work with, but not leaders who could win the “hearts and minds” of the people.

(Can’t forget that ironically humorous cartoon with Nixon next to a Vietnam map singing “this land was made for Thieu and me”.)

Also, from what I’ve read, Americans did a terrible job of recognizing and relating to the Buddhist social network. Had we recognized the Buddhists as the potential source of an indigenous anti-VC movement, perhaps things might have gone differently. In Iraq, we were able to co-opt the Sunni tribes who at first were anti-US, but whose anti-foreigner sentiments were deftly turned against the Saudis, Jordanians, etc. in the al-Qaeda factions. Ditto with the local Shia factions that don’t want to be dominated by Persians.

The saddest of words — what might have been. I.e., had we figured out how to exploit anti-northern sentiment without putting down such a big American footprint. Had we allowed the Buddhists to put a viable political structure together. Had we tolerated their nominal shows of anti-western independence in return for their cooperation in driving out the VC and NVN forces . . . .

Today, we DON’T hear much about Iraq. I would not suggest that the USA try another preemptive invasion in the name of democracy and weapons of mass destruction anytime soon. BUT, much as I hate to say it — Bush’s people (esp. the US military) DID eventually get the hang of the political roadmap in Iraq.

We’re now leaving behind a very imperfect nation, not exactly a place most Americans would be comfortable with (no strong tradition of individual rights, women’s equality, etc.). But admittedly, Iraq is a whole lot better today; and perhaps ‘the new Iraq’ will remain viable (if we and they can keep Iran’s spreading tentacles in check).

So, give McNamara credit for seeing that his approach was not working. It’s ironic that 35 years later, Mr. Bush (in spite of himself) may have shown in Iraq that there is an approach that possibly could have worked, back in what is still fashionably known as the ‘war that America could never have won’.

There were a few things that really cemented my idea that the left was crazy. One of them was Vietnam. I grew up (born in 1975) hearing all this stuff about “Nixon’s War”, how horrid it was, etc. Then, in school, I slowly learned how horrid what happened there was (and now know some of that was lies too and the true horror was hidden as it was institutional, but the epiphany had already occurred so that was just more dung to pile on the heap) – OK, nice reinforcement there. Yet other things *really* didn’t jive – how could the troop buildup, deaths/casualties, all the bad stuff not only escalate but peak under Johnson term yet be Nixon’s fault? Further as I studies tactics and strategy I couldn’t help but notice how … badly Johnson and McNamara prosecuted the war. In short I noted they took a kernel of truth and warped it to such an extent that it was intelligible. On top of that you *only* got that real truth if you noted something that didn’t add up and went back to the original sources (which, at the time, was hard to do).

It was one of three things that really cemented my views on the hard left and the soft liberals. The others were expecting something *really* bad from Watergate and being .. underwhelmed (it was so bad in fact that it wasn’t until High school that we were even told what it was – which by that point the scandals coming out of Washington were MUCH worse – we had been told Nixon tried to shut the country down and take over everything and, well, he recorded campaign strategy meetings and tried to cover it up) and the other was watching C-span and noting how different the live broadcast was from the reporting the next day. Indeed, I distinctly recall during the “Republicans shutting down the govt” of the mid 90′s watching Kennedy give a speech for the Democratic party refusing to give anything at all and the republicans had to do all they wanted or face their wrath. The next day was “republicans refuse to negotiate”. Turns out – yep that was true and the R’s faced the wrath and *still* to this day have many who are more recently conservative rant about that shutdown.

Much of what we see today is mild compared to then, they didn’t even have Fox News let alone blogs – they are largely confused today because what they are doing is simple/small compared to then. Sadly instead of this making more people seek truth it just made then become nihilistic. The two political parties have followed suit as no one that truly cares and truly tries is believed and taking a stand usually results in a myriad of attacks. I had thought Palin may be one that rises above it (as to a large extent Reagan did) but am disappointed by her resignation. I suppose the hunt is still on and hopefully we will find the person for the voting revolution before a bloody one is our only choice.