Unfortunately there is substantial minority of the US population that believes we could have won the Vietnam war. A combination of a dying or aging population that was around when the war was happening, simplistic nationalism, rewriting of history by conservatives, and American feel good propensities are responsible. No one like to admit they lost a major war, and certainly not the hyper nationalistic US. The simple fact is we did lose the Vietnam war and only achieved a draw in the Korean war. The two wars of the 20th century which the US indisputably won were WW 2 and the Cold War. Otherwise our "victories" were walk overs like Grenada and Panama. It's the reason why we were never going to get into a war with N. Korea and they knew it hence the collapse of all Bush and Cheney's bluster. It's also the reason there will be now war against Iran despite all the saber rattling because the consequences would be far worse for us than them. Iran is a nation of 80 million people with by far the biggest military in the area sitting on 10% plus of the world's proven oil reserves and with the ability to close the straights of Hormuz through which about 60% of the world's oil flows. With the US hovering on the verge of an economic meltdown because of oil prices (we consume 25% of the world's production) and an unstable financial system there will be no attacks on Iran.
I agree with the sentiment of much of your post.
But I quibble with one, relatively major, point...
There are a substantial number of historians and reputable observers that believe we could have won the Vietnam War if we had kept fighting for another five years. This is not an unreasonable position. The North Vietnamese had taken very heavy losses (both to the military and civilian populations) and there is a real question about how long they could have kept fighting.
This should not be confused with the question of whether we did the right thing by ending the war. I feel that we certainly did.
The substantial number of historians you mention are all conservatives who are essentially advancing the stab in the back doctrine that something was going to turn up that would enable us to win and it was only prevented by the wimps and liberals at home. During this five years another 50,000 Americans would have likely died and hundreds of thousands of North and South Vietnamese. There was also the economic cost since the huge growth in public expenditures was a major factor in the inflation which set in during the late seventies. Basically the US public was not willing to pay these prices, not to mention the domestic discord which was ripping society apart because of the draft, on the basis of promises of jam tomorrow by a lot of discredited generals and politicians. That's what happened. It's like a gambler at the Roulette table who says if only I had another $200,000 I knew I could win a million instead of losing a million.
Well, yeah. That's exactly what happened, but its beside the point. What they are arguing is that if the US public had been more willing to bear the costs of the war, we probably would have won within the next five years. In and of itself, that's a legitimate perspective. What's wrongheaded is the idea that it would have been worth it to do that, prolonging the war and costing hundreds of thousands of lives combined on both sides. That's what is ridiculous about the conservative position, not the idea that it might have been possible to win at all.
McCain is not an option!
McCain is still fighting the Vietnam war. Does anyone really think he wasn't serious about the Iraq, 100 years comment?
I agree he is still fighting the vietnam war and he wants one more chance to "redeem" us.
That's beyond disturbing -- it's completely warped. Thanks for posting this. Recommended.
You are too sweet.
Why is it so many of these neocons are themselves, for lack of a better word, draft dodgers? I know McCain served, but he seems to be the exception to the rule. I look at bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh and have to wonder why they are so anxious to take us to war. I will not try to analyse them (repressing shudder at the thought), but it does seem telling that each of these men actively sought to remain out of harm in Viet Nam.
Again just skirting analysis, I wonder if McCain is trying to make up for something as well?
I ask these questions, because every person I know with real war experience, feels that this is not a war we should be in, and the that actions of this administration have been utterly criminal in regards to the Iraq war.
To be fair anyone with a brain in his head in late 60's/70's America was a draft dodger. Many of the people like McCain, Hagel, Powell, Clark etc. who served meritoriously in a completely useless war were professional soldiers. The problem with people like Cheney and Limbaugh who had other priorities or boils on the ass is that all they are doing is exploiting the veins of genuine patriotism, simplistic nationalism and nativism that exist on the right to further today's political agenda. It's like Limbaugh's continual ranting about media and Hollywood elites. Well if he with his $400 million contract is not a media elite I don't know who is but a large proportion of the alleged 20 million who listen to his radio programs seem to miss this rather obvious fact. These guys are all as phony as a three dollar bill.
Well said. I just wonder at how they can fool the American people, I mean they are such obvious hypocrites.
Oh and thank you for the diary and getting a couple people to talk about something really important.
Rec'd.
"Unfortunately there is substantial minority of the US population that believes we could have won the Vietnam war"
It happens to be the same ignorant minority who think the South could have won the Civil War (and still will).
Yep these same people are romanticizing and wrapping in nostalgia a cause whose goal was the perpetuation of a monstrous evil. And then when they actually lost they went home and stopped blacks from voting, and lynched and burned them alive by the hundreds.
Good analogies, there is kind of a sick pattern going back even to the civil war.
This video really drives it home. Especially, since it is a right-wing nut, like Pat Buchanan, doing the talking.
Thanks for the very moving link. I find myself agreeing with Pat on this issue, which is an odd place to be. He is a complete isolationist, so we have to be careful not to follow him too far into Buchanan world ;-). Though I am curious about his latest book, about how we should not have gone to war against Hitler, and he compares that conflict with our current situation in the Mideast and Iran and Afganistan.
Thank you Hollende. I'm pleased to be able to read your comments and Diaries more often these days.
Thank you. I am doing my summer vacation on mydd it seems.
me too
MSO1 sorry for the late reply. This is a great link. It says it all. More Wars! In your face diplomacy!
I don't know if people other than McCain types really care if we won Viet Nam or not. What is the definition of winning for these people? McCain is all about war and the military. He has very little else to say. I think he still has issues about his experience as prisoner of war that are far from resolved. He has channeled his anxieties and emotional injuries into becoming what he considers an expert on war and the military. That is okay for someone to do, in fact maybe even healthy, if only they are not running for the President of the US. The possible projection of his personal experience into the lives of everyone by becoming president and putting them into action is not appropriate and dangerous. He is better to handle his emotional issues in private and stay away from the country with them.
agreed
Well said I always enjoy your take on things. What is the definiton of winning in Vietnam and in Iraq?
