|
IMO vietnam is way too generalized as a fight for a "democratic" ally - reading some pieces including Henry Kissinger's book Diplomacy on the Vietnam War, one realizes this:
The U.S. ended up choosing South Vietnam because between the two authoritarian regimes, one was communist and the other was anti-communist.
Ngo Dinh Diem was hardly "democratic" as my post way above said and indeed numerous coups and hardly democratic procedures passed through the years until finally another leader came about - and by then the war was pretty much a lost cause.
On the topic of colonialism.. colonialism isn't simply ruling natives, garrisons, etc. as traditionaally seen. Colonialism and imerpialism can simply deal with economic matters.
On French Indochina... after World War II the U.S. at first supported Ho Chi Minh for many empires were giving up their colonies and the U.S. has traditionally been the anti-colonial member of the Western nations.
However, with crises in Berlin, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Greece, and finally the Korean War, Truman decided to send aid to France for he believed that the French had to hold back the revolutionaries.
At that time it seemed as though Ho Chi Minh was just another part of the great Soviet communist conspiracy and was part of the world revolution.
Truth be told Vietnam years later when unified would prove to be more like Tito than part of any bloc and indeed traditionlly has been against China.
As for Vietnam in general...
With so many troops drafted and sent to fight for a nation they had little interest in, I salute the vets and am greatful they fought.
But I cannot stand those today who criticize the vets who don't like the war - because you know what, many soldiers sent didn't like the war but fought anyways. They fought and died and IMO they easily earned the right to protest the war.
It could be noble a goal as to protest the sending of their brethren to fight and die in a lost cause - that simple.
|