Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vietnam: Looking Back - At The Facts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vietnam: Looking Back - At The Facts

    Vietnam: Looking Back - At The Facts

    Updated – 9 May 04 © By: K. G. Sears, Ph.D. - mrken @saigonnet.vn
    Information presented here was excerpted from Dr. Sears' dissertation and related research materials.

    "The reason America’s agonizing perception of “Vietnam” will not go away, is because that perception is wrong. It’s out of place in the American psyche, and it continues to fester in much the same way battle wounds fester when shrapnel or other foreign matter is left in the body. It is not normal behavior for Americans to idolize mass murdering communist despots, to champion the cause of human oppression, to abandon friends and allies, or to cut and run in the face of adversity. Why then, did so many Americans engage in, or openly support these types of activities during the country’s “Vietnam” experience?

    That the American experience in Vietnam was painful and ended in long lasting (albeit self-inflicted) grief and misery can not be disputed. However, the reasons behind that grief and misery are not even remotely understood – by either the American people or their government. Contrary to popular belief, and a whole lot of wishful thinking by a crowd tens of millions strong that’s made up of mostly draft dodgers and their antiwar cronies, along with their families / supporters, it was not a military defeat that brought misfortune to the American effort in Vietnam..."


    EDIT: That's all you need. The intro and thesis. If there's an interest, others will read and comment upon it. If not-it dies.
    Last edited by S2; 31 Jan 11,, 09:42.

  • #2
    Warrior,

    I got bored of the dubious assertions & curious conclusions before half way. I will bet back to it & if the mood takes me chew it up some. In the meantime could you please provide us with some comment on the piece & why you posted it. I realise you are new here so you may not realise that this is considered polite behaviour, especially for new posters. Tell us what you think. Kick off a discussion. DOn't leave all the hard work to others, especially with such a huge piece to tackle.
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • #3
      OK. Read it all now. Wish I hadn't.

      Warrior. Did you read this before you posted it? Please tell me you don't base your opinions on poorly constructed polemic like this. It is just bile interlaced with a few facts & a lot of questionable assertions. If you are serious about Vietnam then talk to me, I'll recommend some books.
      sigpic

      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

      Comment


      • #4
        I would recommend Dereliction of Duty, by HR McMaster. Shek recommended it to me a few years ago, excellent read.

        Amazon.com: Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam (9780060929084): H. R. Mcmaster: Books
        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

        Comment


        • #5
          Please tell me that K. G. Sears, Ph.D. works in some think tank or some college/university. This doesn't seem like it came from someone who is out in the real world!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by avon1944 View Post
            Please tell me that K. G. Sears, Ph.D. works in some think tank or some college/university. This doesn't seem like it came from someone who is out in the real world!
            It certainly doesn't come from anyone who adheres to the most basic standards of proof or argument.
            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • #7
              It festers and agonizes because it was a defeat snatched out of the jaws of victory. NVA General Vo Ngun GIap admitted he believed they were defeated by what they correctly perceived as a defeat in the failed Tet Offensive. It was only the moral defeat at home in the US, and the perception that Tet was a success, that changed Giap's mind by the self destructive left undermining the war effort. The same useful idiots who shamed our troops and in the end denied our victory by encouraging our enemies.. All those American lives lost fighting that war, and it was fellow Americans who denied us a deserved victory. And even us pulling out would not have ended in the loss of the South if it were not for those traitors in Congress cutting off all support for the South Vietnamese. THAT is why it is a painful cultural memory. In the end we were trying to lose.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sandman View Post
                It festers and agonizes because it was a defeat snatched out of the jaws of victory. NVA General Vo Ngun GIap admitted he believed they were defeated by what they correctly perceived as a defeat in the failed Tet Offensive. It was only the moral defeat at home in the US, and the perception that Tet was a success, that changed Giap's mind by the self destructive left undermining the war effort. The same useful idiots who shamed our troops and in the end denied our victory by encouraging our enemies.. All those American lives lost fighting that war, and it was fellow Americans who denied us a deserved victory. And even us pulling out would not have ended in the loss of the South if it were not for those traitors in Congress cutting off all support for the South Vietnamese. THAT is why it is a painful cultural memory. In the end we were trying to lose.
                It agonizes me that all this time later people still don't understand what people in power understood then - Ther was NEVER sustaned support in America for anything more than a limited war. This is why the pentagon & White House always had a limited set of options to choose from & this is why the war was always on the clock. Every hour & dead American was one step closer to a war that was too unpopular to sustain. it also agonizes me that there are still people who act as if this war was America's to win & lose. This was a Vietnamese war & the side that fought more effectively won it. I wish they hadn't, but they did. America could have made different & better choices, but there is no guarantee that any of those would have changed the final outcome. America was denied 'victory' by the successes & failures of their allies & adversaries.

                I once recall a d!ckead protester proclaiming 'we stopped a war'. To which someone replied, 'yeah, you & several million dead Vietnamese'. What fascinates me about this debate is how desperately the those who claim to despise the antiwar movement want to buy into its self-aggrandizing fantasies. Jews, traitors & Communists didn't defeat Germany in WW1, 'the Media', traitors & communists didn't defeat the US in Vietnam.
                sigpic

                Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                Comment


                • #9
                  Speaking of Vietnam, how much longer would South Vietnam had gone on for if Cable 243 hadn't been sent and Ngo Dinh Diem and his family continued to have free reign?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                    Ther was NEVER sustaned support in America for anything more than a limited war.
                    That's not how I remember it. I don't know that "sustained" describes public support at the time. Sounds to me like retrospect.

                    I recall there being strong support for the Tonkin Resolution. A unanimous vote in favor in the House or Representatives and near unanimous in the Senate hardly reflect negative public opinion.

                    From the buildup in 1965 until early 1968 public opinion backed the war. Only after the Tet Offensive in early 1968, did it begin to fall sharply in reaction to discouraging media reports.


                    Later in the war, after Tet and the beginning of American troop withdrawals in 1969...journalists grew skeptical of claims of progress, and the course of the war was presented more as an eternal recurrence than a string of decisive victories.
                    VIETNAM ON TELEVISION - The Museum of Broadcast Communications
                    I won't mess with the rest of your post because we'd have to get into Cold War dynamics. Suffice it to say that democracies are at a disadvantage in limited wars from the start and the disadvantage grows as the war goes on.
                    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Anybody notice the article Warrior posted has a virus trap at the end. Neat trick. Hijack an article on a sensitive subject, invite comments, and hope people bite.
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It does? *deletes link*

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't know what it does, but google threw up a warning and blocked me. I could go on, but I didn't.

                          Delete the "comment on this" part?
                          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            [QUOTE=JAD_333;798454]
                            That's not how I remember it. I don't know that "sustained" describes public support at the time. Sounds to me like retrospect.
                            Well...yes. nature of history.

                            I recall there being strong support for the Tonkin Resolution. A unanimous vote in favor in the House or Representatives and near unanimous in the Senate hardly reflect negative public opinion.
                            The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution set out the very basis for a limited war. No grand & dramatic decalarations of war, no invasion of the North. That was not just chance - after Korea Johnson was uncertain that he could get support for a lengthy or bloody war. That was one of the keys to understanding why he fought the war he did.

                            From the buildup in 1965 until early 1968 public opinion backed the war.
                            Yes, support for a limited war. Even that slid steadily as the war became longer & costlier. Thus Johnson & Westmoreland spent the last months of 1967 running around telling anyone who would listen that the war was being won & that there was 'light at the end of the tunnel'. Around the end of 1967 support & opposition for the war were both in the 40% range.

                            Only after the Tet Offensive in early 1968, did it begin to fall sharply in reaction to discouraging media reports.
                            Wrong. Support dropped steadily over time. There are a lot of good reasons to see Tet as a 'turning point', but it only led to a slight acceleration in an existing trend. As long as the war continued & Americans kept dying the numbers were going to keep sliding (as they had in Korea).

                            As for the 'media lost the war', a popular myth (especially among conservatives) that doesn't gel with reality. Typical example of confusing correlation & causation. Over three years of largely positive reporting hadn't made the war more popular, two weeks of in which there were more negative images & stories than usual didn't make it unpopular. The accurate assessment by people that the war wasn't being 'won' in they way they had been told & the equally accurate assessment that it wasn't going to end soon or without substantial loss of American life helped to push support down. So did the rising body count. 1968 was the bloodiest year of the war - Tet was only responsible for a small part of that. Indeed, the big poll drops didn't happen just after tet, but months later.

                            Back to where we started, my reference to 'limited war'. Many in the 'we coulda won' crowd believe that the way to victory would have been a bigger & more violent war. Often they suggest an invasion of the DRV as the way to victory. My point is that Johnson & his advisors knew they would struggle to maintain support for this sort of war (and they would risk another war with China). That path is as much a historical dead end as what was actually tried.

                            I won't mess with the rest of your post because we'd have to get into Cold War dynamics. Suffice it to say that democracies are at a disadvantage in limited wars from the start and the disadvantage grows as the war goes on.
                            Democracies have problems in most wars unless they can convince people that there is a clear & present danger to the nation. Time is a problem, so is death. Johnson wanted to avoid a long & costly war, in the end he got both.

                            Just a point on your link. Not a bad summary of TV & the war (I've read most of the reference works it cites), but if you're using it to support the idea that coverage led to a drop in support ethen you've misread it. The article actually describes a change in coverage in response to a drop in support for the war, not driving one. Throughout the war media coverage generally followed public opinon rather than leading it.
                            Last edited by Bigfella; 27 Mar 11,, 11:25.
                            sigpic

                            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Skywatcher View Post
                              Speaking of Vietnam, how much longer would South Vietnam had gone on for if Cable 243 hadn't been sent and Ngo Dinh Diem and his family continued to have free reign?
                              I'll get back to this when i have more time because it is a good question. Personally I think it would have ended the war more quickly. Diem's regime was increasingly unstable & had a bad image in the US. Land reform had tanked & the buddhist protests were causing probelms inside & outside Vietnam. Indeed, I recall at one point Nhu even musing with the idea of discussions with the NLF. Without the massive committment of US ground forces that started in 1965 the RVN would have fallen. I can't see that committment coming while Diem was there.
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X