Join The Debate!

Subject: East oops now talli

Originally I thought I was answering someone who had been in Vietnam, but it's now an Iraq vet.

I think our understanding of history might even be compatible. I have been reading how the pessimistic appraisals of Viet nam were widespread in the early 60's. Then, how Johnson, miffed that his personal pride would be affected by a pull out, his personal word to the leaders of the South (and of course sabre rattling against Russia and China). I also read that Westie originally ordered 2x as many troops for the start, but the politicians were against it and made him go slow. So, we could both be right there.

My concern and where I see the stupidity continuing in Iraq and god forbid, beyond, is that the original assessments should have been taken into account. They were ignored by the later politicians. And there were military assessments, whose authors were run out of the military and not allowed to let those assessments be heard. (I think a guy named Van even had a hearing scheduled with the JCS, but the meeting was cancelled.) Halberstam tells that McNamara directly confronted the author of one very optimistic report and accused him of falsifying reports from the field. But once Kennedy was out, McNamara's pride got involved also and he went along with Johnson. It was his job after all.

The regime in South Vietnam had very little public support. It doesn't matter that you call the North's attack an invasion if the fighters were convinced that it was a defensive patriotic war. Japan does not compare because, first, their resources didn't match ours, and second, they were clearly imperialistic and not defending their own soil, on the islands of the pacific. As far as conquering their own soil that was done fairly convincingly by technology.

One guy said to McNamara, "I just can't see how we can win, when after we are gone they will still be there."