Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Tophat665 · 08-26-2004, 04:12 PM

While Vietnam was a mistake, I think it was an inevitable one. The long road by which we got ourselves enmeshed in what, looking back superficially seems to be a loosing battle against communism has much more to do with The state of our relations with France as far back as the Hoover administration. After WWII a traumatized France was in a position to call on the US to help it attempt to regain some of its lost self respect, not at rolling over in the face of the Germans - Blitzkrieg was an innovation the French were not uniquely ill equipped to deal with, though they were uniquely placed to get one of the first viewings - rather at kow-towing to them and releasing the ugliest side of the French character in the Vichy administration. This is a side of their character that had hitherto found its expression in their colonies abroad. So, after WWII, lacking a navy, but being one of the victorious allies squaring off against the initial cold snaps of the cold war, France could basically demand that the US ship French troops to Indochina. There was a time (and I'll be damned if I can remember where I read it) that Ho Chi Minh offered to ally with the US against the communists if they would only leave the French in Europe. (Ahh! Now I remember: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345308239/qid=1093564153/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-4704480-7235959"><i>The March Of Folly: From Troy to Viet Nam</i> by Barbara Tuchman</a>)

So we mishandled the foreign policy at the outset, misapprehended the necessary tactics, failed to understand the cultures with which we became entangled, lacked the will to commit everything to win, sold it to ourselves as a war against communism when it was really a war for colonialism, and treated the returing fighters like dirt. I believe we learned the lesson from that last point, at least what there is of a peace movement does not seem these days to have anything but thanks and praise for our soldiers and veterans (and rightly so. Give me armed forces that do what the civilian gov't tells them to do even if it is moronic. That is much better than any other alternative.) But everything else: sloppy intelligence, slipshod foreign policy, post facto justification, cultural insensitivity, linguistic barriers, and stategic confusion look really familiar from where I sit. Even lack of commitment seems familiar (though I doubt that there was any level of commitement that would have allowed us to prevail in Viet Nam. Hell, they took 1000 years to send China packing.)

But , at the base of it, the only reason that Vietnam is important here is that Kerry Voulentered to fight and showed up and performed, and Bush voulenteered to fly domestic milk runs, didn't show up, and seems not to have performed. Kerry came back from Viet Nam convinced that we had made a mistake and tried to get us out of a war. Bush never went and got us into another mistaken war.

Now, what is interesting to me is the recent article about one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush who has been the most vocal (the name escapes me. Pretty sure the article was in the Washington Post last week) also got a Bronze Star for Valor under fire on the same occasion in which Kerry got the Bronze star for valor under fire and on which occasion that jackass maintains no one was under fire. Now, I am sorry for the name calling, but that really does seem asinine. Two bronze Stars, both for valor under fire. If there was no fire, then both men are liars. If there was then only the Not So Swift Boat Vet is.

Now, all that aside, Kerry has mishandled this. He should have come right out and said: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are lying to you about a war that happened thirty years ago. That's not important right now. What is important is that we discuss the war we were mislead into fighting now." Then he could have had any number of much higher profile ex military types come out of the wood work and thoroughly discredit these jokers. He didn't. It seems important to him that he win a pissing match with the agents of his adversary. That's a mistake. However, I don't think it will lead to anyone dying, so he's still ahead in my book.

08-26-2004, 04:12 PM	#24 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	While Vietnam was a mistake, I think it was an inevitable one. The long road by which we got ourselves enmeshed in what, looking back superficially seems to be a loosing battle against communism has much more to do with The state of our relations with France as far back as the Hoover administration. After WWII a traumatized France was in a position to call on the US to help it attempt to regain some of its lost self respect, not at rolling over in the face of the Germans - Blitzkrieg was an innovation the French were not uniquely ill equipped to deal with, though they were uniquely placed to get one of the first viewings - rather at kow-towing to them and releasing the ugliest side of the French character in the Vichy administration. This is a side of their character that had hitherto found its expression in their colonies abroad. So, after WWII, lacking a navy, but being one of the victorious allies squaring off against the initial cold snaps of the cold war, France could basically demand that the US ship French troops to Indochina. There was a time (and I'll be damned if I can remember where I read it) that Ho Chi Minh offered to ally with the US against the communists if they would only leave the French in Europe. (Ahh! Now I remember: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345308239/qid=1093564153/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-4704480-7235959"><i>The March Of Folly: From Troy to Viet Nam</i> by Barbara Tuchman</a>) So we mishandled the foreign policy at the outset, misapprehended the necessary tactics, failed to understand the cultures with which we became entangled, lacked the will to commit everything to win, sold it to ourselves as a war against communism when it was really a war for colonialism, and treated the returing fighters like dirt. I believe we learned the lesson from that last point, at least what there is of a peace movement does not seem these days to have anything but thanks and praise for our soldiers and veterans (and rightly so. Give me armed forces that do what the civilian gov't tells them to do even if it is moronic. That is much better than any other alternative.) But everything else: sloppy intelligence, slipshod foreign policy, post facto justification, cultural insensitivity, linguistic barriers, and stategic confusion look really familiar from where I sit. Even lack of commitment seems familiar (though I doubt that there was any level of commitement that would have allowed us to prevail in Viet Nam. Hell, they took 1000 years to send China packing.) But , at the base of it, the only reason that Vietnam is important here is that Kerry Voulentered to fight and showed up and performed, and Bush voulenteered to fly domestic milk runs, didn't show up, and seems not to have performed. Kerry came back from Viet Nam convinced that we had made a mistake and tried to get us out of a war. Bush never went and got us into another mistaken war. Now, what is interesting to me is the recent article about one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush who has been the most vocal (the name escapes me. Pretty sure the article was in the Washington Post last week) also got a Bronze Star for Valor under fire on the same occasion in which Kerry got the Bronze star for valor under fire and on which occasion that jackass maintains no one was under fire. Now, I am sorry for the name calling, but that really does seem asinine. Two bronze Stars, both for valor under fire. If there was no fire, then both men are liars. If there was then only the Not So Swift Boat Vet is. Now, all that aside, Kerry has mishandled this. He should have come right out and said: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are lying to you about a war that happened thirty years ago. That's not important right now. What is important is that we discuss the war we were mislead into fighting now." Then he could have had any number of much higher profile ex military types come out of the wood work and thoroughly discredit these jokers. He didn't. It seems important to him that he win a pissing match with the agents of his adversary. That's a mistake. However, I don't think it will lead to anyone dying, so he's still ahead in my book. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.