Friends:

Here's another piece worth taking into consideration:

"Iraq: The War of the Imagination," Mark Danner, New York Review of Books, Vol. 53, No. 20, December 21, 2006 

A lot more deserves to be said about the madness (quote-unquote) of the current regime in Washington.  But I must add a caveat.  It is only with serious reservations that I'm recommending the Danner, as at no place in his extended critique does he characterize the U.S. military seizure of Iraq as a crime.  Or show that he understands the continuity of policy that stretches across multiple theaters of American military power: Iraq, Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia Central America and the Caribbean, Angola and Mozambique, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam....The Occupied Palestinian Territories....[Feel free to add some more.]

Still.  At least Danner does convey how egregious the current regime's nonfeasance has been.  Even if it doesn't delve into the mis- and the malfeasance of the same.

(A quick aside on how respectable New York Review of Books-type intellectuals ply their trade: At the outer extremes of dissent, such as Danner musters up in his piece, they are at most willing to characterize the war over Iraq--while ignoring everything else--as the consequence of a vast complex of understandable blunders and mistakes and oversights and the like, given the erroneous assumptions and passions of the moment, or the personal foibles of the policymakers, or the interagency failures of the governing institutions, whatever.--Of course, I'm not buying this line.  But it does appear to be the one that Danner is peddling.  As always, if you want to read something far more rational and insightful, see, e.g., "Why It's Over for America," Noam Chomsky, The Independent, May 30, 2006.)

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Victor,. I L have to make time just to read all of David 's annotations. ..

Cyrano That's the key - in the Vietnam War France and the USA were up against a force that cannot be defeated - the people themselves. They wanted freedom badly enough to fight for it - North and South. And of course, in the end they and the brilliance of Ho Chi Minh won.

Victor OMG, Ive been trown a book at me.. ( A lots of countries failed in VietnAM..Vietnam fought with reasons, courage, ideology and the (armed) support of their women)

TB:

Is Vietnam (or Laos or Cambodia) located in the geographic region commonly known as Indochina (or Southeast Asia)?  Or the region commonly known as North America, and inside U.S. national territory specifically?

Did the population of Vietnam invade and occupy the United States?  Or did the United States invade and occupy Vietnam?  (For the record, so-called "South" Vietnam, beginning with regimes based in Saigon in the mid-1950s, and enlarged from there.)

The only way that "there would not have been a war" involving the United States would have been for the U.S. Government not to have conducted a war over a roughly 20-year period.  This was never in the control of the Vietnamese.  Except insofar as they resisted the U.S. war.

What is needed is an understanding of what this sentence really means: "[W]hat is not in dispute is the reason the U.S. was in Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism."

(Compare something that Noam Chomsky has written on this topic (in many different places over many years).  In the paragraph that follows, NC's basing his discussion largely on a 1955 volume edited by William Yandell Elliott, The Political Economy of American Foreign Policy: "Turning to the superpower conflict itself, it is true enough that by its very nature, the USSR constituted an unacceptable challenge. Specifically, its autarkic command economy interfered with U.S. plans to construct a global system based on (relatively) free trade and investment, which, under the conditions of mid-century, was expected to be dominated by U.S. corporations and highly beneficial to their interests, as indeed it was. The challenge became still more intolerable as the Soviet empire barred free Western access to other areas. The Iron Curtain deprived the capitalist industrial powers of a region that was expected to provide raw materials, investment opportunities, markets and cheap labor. These facts alone laid the basis for superpower conflict, as serious analysts were quite well aware. In an important 1955 study on the political economy of U.S. foreign policy, a prestigious study group observed that the primary threat of Communism is the economic transformation of the Communist powers 'in ways that reduce their willingness and ability to complement the industrial economies of the West', a factor that regularly motivated Third World interventions as well as hostility to the Soviet Union and its imperial system."  Deterring Democracy, NC (2nd. Ed., Hill and Wang, 1992), p. 27.  In the e-text version, see Ch. 1.2, "The Cold War as Historical Process," Segment 3.  In fact, "Cold War: Fact and Fancy," the whole first chapter of this book, deserves to be read closely with an eye toward the current discussion.)

With respect to the contemporary period, don't you think we could easily rewrite your sentence to read: What is not in dispute is the reason the United States is in Iraq (or Afghanistan, and so on) is to wage the war on terror?  Or: To stop the spread of Islamo-fascism?

So: Fifty years ago, it was to stop the spread of Communism.

And fifty years on, to wage the war on terror or to stop the spread of Islamo-fascism.

Continuities and change.  But the changes have occurred at the level of propaganda.  While the continuities remain steadfastly the case at the level of real power.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

David, while Eisenhower may have said that 80% of the population would have voted "communist," that doesn't negate that the election was fixed. at least in the north if not heavily weighted in the south.

Hindsight being what it is, yes, communism was the tool the Vietnamese used to throw off 2000 years of Chinese and French imperialsim.  Had that been recognized by ANY party, maybe there would not have been a war.  But alas, there was.  And what is not in dispute is the reason the U.S. was in Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism.

We must not confuse "why we fight" and "how we fight."  Refering back to my first post, considering post-WWII Soviet policies and actions, the "why we fought" was clear. 

Let us also add that Ho did go to the U.S. first to seek help against the French (he was apparently a great admirer of Jefferson). Ho was therefore "communist" in the same way that Nehru in India was "communist". The thing with the nationalists in a lot of the so called third world (outside central America; the latter had a much more realistic view) was that they were often taken in by U.S. mythology only to be disabused of their notions about the U.S. government very quickly....

TB:

The two of us definitely don't read the history at stake here the same way.

To quote the President of the United States during the period most relevant to our current discussion:

I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held...possibly 80 percent of the populace would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader.  (Dwight D. Eisenhower, The White House Years, Vol. 1: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (Doubleday, 1963), p. 372.)   

The only problem of interpretation being what, exactly, it meant for Eisenhower to modify Ho with the term 'Communist'.  But the rest of his point is straightforward, I believe.  And perfectly accurate.  (Though perhaps an understatement of popular support for a side that the Americans rejected.)

This level of support for the so-called "Communists" (and opposition both to the European colonial legacy as well as to the latest foreign military invaders) only grew over the course of the next 20 years.

 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

David, I will attempt to use neutral language to keep this discussion as objective as possible.  Without trying to sound "preachy," please do the same.

One has to remember that the Soviet Union refused to allow free governments to come into existence in Easter Europe after WWII.  The Soviet Union was also using communist parties in non-communist countries to undermine the non-communist governments.  Additionally, the Chinese communist forces had yet to break from Moscow. In short, every communist party everywhere was taking orders from Moscow.  This background puts into perspective why America was interested in Vietnam: to stop communism. 

I do not recall exactly when Vietnam was partitioned.  I don't think the year is necessarily important to this discussion.  The country was divided in the manner it was based on political/social differences between the North and South, i.e., communists in the North, non-communists in the South.

There was to be a unification vote in 1956.  Communist North Vietnam, however, did not allow non-communist campaigning. It was a "one-party" state.  The North did provide manpower and financial support to communists in the South at this time.  Thus, any unification vote would have been rigged in favor of the North.  As a result, the vote did not take place. 

Between 1956 and 1961, the North began supplying arms and military personal to communist groups in the South, who later became known as VietCong.  In light of the Soviet influence mentioned above, in 1961 JFK put 8,000 combat troops in South Vietnam to aide the non-communist government.

Hopefully that provides an objective, not slanted view of what you were asking for.  The rest, as they say, is history.

 

 

David The Berrigans would be proud of you... ;-)

TB:

Special thanks for calling the recently published work of the U.S. Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center to everyone's attention, the "first systematic mapping of the ideology inspiring al-Qaeda," as the Center bills it: 

The Militant Ideology Atlas: Executive Report, William McCants et al., Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy at West Point, November, 2006
The Militant Ideology Atlas: Research Compendium, William McCants et al., Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military Academy at West Point, November, 2006 

Looks interesting.  Valuable.  And quite comprehensive.  Just as you say.

On the other hand: Can you tell me when North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam?  Or how and when so-called North and South Vietnam came into existence, such that the North ever could have invaded the South?

When you write "PRIOR to a unification vote," you are referring to which period?  1954 or thereabouts.  Right?

Last, might you be able to tell me when the United States militarily invaded Vietnam?  And which Vietnam, exactly, did the United States invade first: The North or the South?

Thanks.

(See below, where I'll post the hyperlinks to the Gravel Edition of the "Pentagon Papers" to facilitate this discussion.  Also see Documents Relating to American Foreign Policy: Vietnam, as maintained by the International Relations Program at Mount Holyoke College, Massachusetts.)

Go to Volume 1, Chapter 1 of the Pentagon Papers, "Background to the Conflict, 1940-1950." pp. 1-52

Go to Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. Involvement in the Franco-Viet Minh War, 1950-1954," pp. 53-107

Go to Volume 1, Chapter 3 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Geneva Conference, May-July, 1954," pp. 108-178.

Go to Volume 1, Chapter 4 of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. and France in Indochina, 1950-56," pp. 179-241

Go to Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the Pentagon Papers, "Origins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960," pp. 242-314

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 1 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Kennedy Commitments and Programs, 1961,"pp. 1-127

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Strategic Hamlet Program, 1961-1963," pp. 128-159.

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 3, of the Pentagon Papers, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 4, of the Pentagon Papers, "The Overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem, May-November, 1963," pp. 201-276.

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 5 of the Pentagon Papers, "US-GVN Relations, 1964-1967," pp. 277-407.

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 6 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Advisory Build-up, 1961-67," pp. 408-514

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 7 of the Pentagon Papers, "Re-Emphasis on Pacification: 1965-1967," pp. 515-623.

Go to Volume 3, Chapter 1 of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. Programs in South Vietnam, Nov. 1963-Apr. 1965," pp. 1-105.

Go to Volume 3, Chapter 2 of the Pentagon Papers, "Military Pressures Against North Vietnam, February 1964-January 1965," pp. 106-268.

Go to Volume 3, Chapter 3, of the Pentagon Papers, "The Air War in North Vietnam: Rolling Thunder Begins, February-June, 1965," pp. 269-388

Go to Volume 3, Chapter 4, of the Pentagon Papers, "American Troops Enter the Ground War, March-July 1965," pp. 389-485

Go to Volume 4, Chapter 1, of the Pentagon Papers, "The Air War in North Vietnam, 1965-1968," pp. 1-276.

Go to Volume 4, Chapter 2, of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. Ground Strategy and Force Deployments, 1965-1968," pp. 277-604.  

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

David, you are forgetting a very, very crucial point in refrencing Vietnam.  Communist North Vietnam invaded non-communist South Vietnam PRIOR to a unification vote. 

 

Also, because you are  a researcher, you may be interested in the most comprehensive study done yet of jhihadi literature and its authors: http://www.ctc.usma.edu/atlas/default.asp

 

David, I am stiked bY Bush in Vietnam, "it's just going to take a long period of time to -- for the ideology that is hopeful, and that is an ideology of freedom, to overcome an ideology of hate", considering the atrocities coomitted in Vietnan, Bush does have a short and very selective memory.. I am surprised the people of Vietnam did not lynch him..