[OT] The New Revisionism - Vietnam and the Cold War (was: Re: FOOBs Baby Boomer pat-on-the-back week)

Well, this was just begging to be dissected, half-truth by
half-truth, lie by lie, so here goes . . .:


On 5 Apr 2008 17:07:30 GMT, Dann <detox665@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 04 Apr 2008, peterson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said the following in
news:1a630983-5618-445d-a78e-d5c80ec5f0d4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Look, these buttondown Alex-P-Keaton briefcase bourgouisie brown
shirts, too young to have any real knowledge of the war but just chock
full of rightwing revisionist horse*** are on a level with the people
who come along 20 or 30 or 50 years after the end of WWII and declare
Hiroshima to have been a war crime. You weren't there, kid. You don't
know the realities of the situation and you're just spouting some PC
crap you were fed, and it's easier to be a True Believer than to
engage your mind and puzzle it all out.

<snip>

You say that Nixon "engaged the enemy." In what? A freakin' daisy
chain? Because, in the end, Saigon fell, the "re-education camps"
happened, the boat people fled and ... well, the only difference was
that a lot of people -- Vietnamese and American -- died because the
dumb sonofabitch didn't have the balls to back down.

Nixon was a failure. He killed kids for no reason. Look at the end
product -- if he was such a genius, such a statesman, what happened in
Vietnam that wouldn't have happened if we'd have disengaged three or
four or six years earlier?

Unfortunately, I don't know of a TV archetype for a doddering old fart
whose mind set was established based on opinions that are 40 years out of
date. I'll attempt to avoid an oblique Godwin as well.

Perhaps....just perhaps....a little more history has flowed past since
Vietnam to give us all a little more perspective. Perhaps a little bit
of scholarship has been produced on the subject as well.

Perhaps the perspective that Vietnam was not a waste is informed by
something more than "PC crap"*.

Consider for a moment....

- We were engaged in a [cold] war against expansionist communism. A war
not of our choosing.

Reality Check: Even at this point it was obvious communism was not
some monolithic behemoth; in 1969 there was the Sino-Soviet War,
leading to a million respective soldiers on their shared border for
decades; Nixon knew what he was doing when the went to China.

Reality Check: Vietnam's movement was not so much communist as much
as nationalist.


- The communists had stated their desire to spread communism across the
planet. They had followed up on those statements by running their tanks
across eastern Europe and supporting no small number of "revolutionary"
movements in other countries.

Reality Check: No ammount of suppossed "desire" can alter reality;
even at this point communism was falling apart, this was no longer so
much "spreading" as "keeping what's left" . . .

Reality Check: Revolutionary movements are almost always by
definition leftist, the poor rebelling against the entrenched upper
classes. In the Cold War the only credible source of necessary
funding was the Soviet Union, which could ill-afford to look the other
way.



- Vietnam was but one battlefield in that war.

Reality Check: This was a civil war, pure and simple. Considering
the north was trying to reunify with the rebelious south, Ho Chi Minh
could rightly be called Vietnam's Abraham Lincoln.


- Military historians have generally agreed that Tet was a 'last gasp'***
effort by the NVA. Any ground they may have gained in a those few days
was recovered in the weeks and months that followed. Unfortunately, we
live in a country where problems are solved within the timeframe of a
half/one hour TV time segment.

More on this later . . .


- At least one NVA senior officer has publicly said that Tet was a 'last
gasp' effort. He has also stated that North Vietnam's strategy from that
point forward was to offer resistance long enough for the American anti-
war movement to undermine public support for our engagement in that
conflict.

Reality Check: Democracies/Republics do indeed suffer from "war
fatigue." This keeps clearly visible wars from dragging on too long,
not without very clear justification.


- While we were engaged in that conflict, the death camps, the re-
education camps, and a host of other horrors didn't exist. While we were
there, the innocent civilians that would eventually die in such places
still had hope. Isn't the "moral" position to save lives that are in
peril?

Reality Check: No ammount of speculation on "death camps" or
"re-education camps" (ironically, we call our own prisons
"rehabilitation centers"), can change the fact of the millions who had
died, and who were dying from the war. The prospect of millions more
dying, millions more "lives that were in peril," is tempred by the
fact the war ended, and they did not.


- South Vietnam lasted for over 3 years against communist funded/backed
North Vietnam. Perhaps they desired freedom more than some suggest was
the case.

Reality Check: The fact SV lasted *just* three years against North
Vietnam shows they did not have their hearts in it, and deep down were
ready to embrace their nothern brothers again.

Reality Check: Saying the South Vietnamese, with their corrupt puppet
government, "desired freedom" by fighting the very people who *gave*
them freedom is beyond laughable.


- While we were engaged in that conflict, the communists were similarly
focused on that region and had fewer resources to spend in other parts of
the world.

Reality Check: "The communists," not being a monolithic group,
actually found great success in Africa, where empoverished populations
welcomed the people promissing a proletariat paradise, for better or
worse.


- Following our withdrawal from Vietnam, the communists increased their
activities across the globe to inspire tragedies in Central/South America
as well as Afghanistan.

Reality Check: Most tragedies in Latin America at this time could be
owed to right-wing terror, just a few samples here:

Guatemala: Continuing the work started by the United Fruit
Company/CIA-sponsored coup of the 50s, Guatemala's right-wing death
sqads would account for over 100,000 dead.

El Salvador: Arena-party backed right-wing death squads enjoyed a
specially harsh reign of terror in the 70s, culminating in the
assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero.

Nicaragua: The "Contras" practiced what bordered on genicidal warfare
against indigenous populations in attempts to bring down the
Sandinista government. The Sandinistas eventually stepped down, not
because of the Contras, but public demands for elections; elecitons
they allowed, elections they lost, elections they followed through on,
allowing right-of-center Violeta Chamorro to become President.

Chile: Democratically elected Salvador Allende was assassinated in a
coup led by right-wing General Agusto Pinochet, two years from when
his term would have ended anyway. The following decade was another
right-wing reign of terror, where any leftist ideology was cause for
punishment, if not execution.

Argentina: The military junta that ruled in the 70s got particularly
cruel, as many Argentinians (mostly of leftist ideology) became "Los
Desaparecidos," (The Disappeared Ones). Throughout the 90s and into
the 21st Century, mass graves holding the missing were, and continue
to be, found and excavated. Many of the Desaparecidos had children,
who were offered without question as orphans to couples.


- Their destabilization of Afghanistan ultimately opened the door for the
Taliban, and we all know where that preceded.


Reality Check: Whatever the results, the Soviet Union invaded
Afghanistan at the request of Kabul's Marxist government, this was
going to happen one way or the other, certainly no matter what
happened in Vietnam. Interestingly, the eventual escalation, failure
against determined guerillas, and collapse of the central government
due to public outrage are some of the reasons Afghanistan is called
the "Soviet Vietnam" . . .



Perhaps getting involved in Vietnam was the worst option available. I
genuinely don't know. History suggests the Soviet were not interested in
diplomacy when they could succeed by force of arms. History also
suggests that they were interested in establishing a global communist
empire.


Reality Check: The Soviet Union had lost most interest in Vietnam by
the 70s.


What I do know, is that once a conflict has begun, the very worst option
is to leave before it is finished. Leaving Vietnam after Tet would have
been equivalent to leaving WWII after the Battle of the Bulge had we
exercised that option.


Reality Check: As said before, this was Vietnam's war; the best
option for the US was to leave before it started, though Tet would
have worked too.

Reality Check: Obsessing over past success (Battle of the Bulge)
tends to be a huge sign of inadequacy.



Which is why we are still in Germany, Bosnia, Japan, and South Korea**
and why we should remain in the Middle East.


Reality Check: Germany had seized to be in danger of internal
rebellion as of the mid-fifites with the "German Economic Miracle."
It had seized to be in danger of "Sovie Invasion" as of 1991, when the
Soviet Union seized to exist. To say even one US soldier should
remain to protect a nation that conquered Europe on numerous
occassions is patently ridiculous; Germany's Leopard tank is
considered by many superior to the Abrams, among other modern German
weapons.

Reality Check: Japan had seized to be in danger of internal rebellio
as of hte mid-fifties. Japan's SDF is considered one of the (if not
the) most powerful militaries in Asia, more than capable of handling
any threat from across the Sea of Japan. There is no reason to have
even one US soldier in Japan.

Reality Check: South Korea's military is more than capable of
handling thier only credible threat, a nation that can barely feed its
own people, fires defective missiles, and can't make a credible
nuclear weapon (it was a dud). As of 2000, the north had actually
been quite open to reopening trade with the south (lots of cheap labor
available), if not outright reunification, anytyhing to ease its
economic woes. There is no reason to have even one US soldier in
South Korea.



*Given that PC=Politically Correct and that PC is typically identified
with politically "liberal" positions, I'm not sure how "PC" it is to
think that Vietnam was not a waste of lives and treasure.

**and other countries

***In a country dominated by Hollywood entertainment, the phrase 'last
gasp' has come to imply the expending of the final resources and will in
an attempt to achieve a miracle victory. In reality, a 'last gasp' of a
military campaign involves the signficiant, but not permanant, depletion
of resources to achieve a significant objective with the intent of
creating more favorable dynamics in the conflict. It does not mark
defeat, just the limit to one side's ability to press for complete
victory.

To use a bad analogy, a big pull on the rope in a game of tug of war may
be a 'last gasp'. Yet it may still take some time and considerable
effort for the other side to pull you into the mud.


Reality Check: The Battle of Saratoga was the "last gast" of the
Continental Army. This did not change the rightousness of their cause
(or, eventually, North Vietnam's), just a change in strategy. It
included only fighting British regulars head-to-head when heavily
backed by the now-fully-supporting French, and using hit-and-run
tactics (a-la Lexington and Concorde) whenever possible. The latter
was pushed to the limit by one Frances "Swamp Fox" Marion; his tactics
could be considered the beginning of modern guerrilla warfare.


This is a damn rhetorical exercise for you. But those were some of my
closest friends in the mud and blood. Half of my best friends joined
the Marines after high school and shipped out, because they believed
in this country. Don't you dare try to play the goddam theorist -- the
names on that wall are real, and they belong to Nixon and LBJ.

Apparently "waving the bloody shirt" isn't a thoroughly unacceptable
activity. I'm still unclear on the rules, though.

As I've indicated before, it was my priviledge to serve with Vietnam
veterans while in the Corps. It is my priviledge to associate with them
as a member of a veterans organization.

We have had more than a few conversations on the subject. I've heard a
range of opinions that included the possibility of gratitude to the war
protesters for ending things.

Mostly there is the belief that South Vietnam could have been saved; that
our military was capable of at least completing _that_ mission....if they
had enjoyed the support of our nation. Mostly they would like to be
appreciated for their service.

There is also quite a bit of regret over the fate of South Vietnam.
Abandoning millions to their eventual fate left a bad taste in their
mouths.


Reaity Check: A trip to Vietnam would likely enlighten these
veterans. Seeing that Vietnam has not only succeeded, but thrived
since the US military left could make them realize leaving may not
have been such a bad thing.

obComics: BD's trip to Vietnam in the 90s to deal with his mid-life
cirsis, helped him move on; including a great time at Phred's resort
for American vets. (Great picture in the back of the collection of GB
Trudeau in a Vietcong tunnel doing research)


The preceding is offered not in the hope that you will change your
opinion on the war. But rather instead are offered as an illustration of
the complexity of the issues surrounding the war, and in the hope that
you will acknowledge that support for the war does not originate with the
"PC" ravings of a "theorist".

Perhaps you might entertain the notion that some of those very real names
on that very real wall might be alive today if we had been able to
maintain our national unity in wartime.


Relaity Check: No peace protest/demonstration could change the fact
those names are there because they were sent to a warzone to die,
rationalizations about "national unity" cannot change that.


This isn't a rhetorical exercise for me. It is an act of honor and
gratitude towards those that came before me to ensure that I would have
all of the opportunities and freedoms that I currently enjoy.

And no, this isn't alt.war.vietnam. My apologies for furthering any
confusion in that regard.

Thus it ends . . .



--

- ReFlex76

- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"

- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"

- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!

Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
.

Loading