It takes too much time to add links to replies, and I figured I might have to do some work today, so I will start a response built with my opinions and articles I could find supporting it. Of course their will be another side, but just because you read that side first doesn't make it fact. Anyways, this way I can save it and come back to it later.
It is impossible for us--as in me and you--to know with certainty that what we say is fact, but having many family members who were there telling me how it was, I tend to believe them over some asshat trying to make a buck selling a book. Therefore, my ideals stem from first hand accounts I can trust, and develop from there on.
To get started, I believe the government played a major role in the eventual outcome of the Vietnam War. Due to its extreme opposition in America the politicians saw a way to rise faster than ever before. Simply oppose the war and all it's about. By doing so, funding was limited. Typical war tactics were prevented. The war was treated as winnable yet not worth it; therefore, the supplies, weaponry and infantry needed to win with out question weren't provided.
Funding for this war, and any war for that matter, comes from our elected officials. If we need a troop surge, then we go to our government and request it. If we need more choppers, jets, and bombs, we go to our government. If they are against that war, then they will not provide our troops with what is necessary leading to increased American casualties. As is clear, their actions were strictly political and it was sick! They were
A cause of American deaths and only for their own gain.
Communism was spreading like the plague. The attempt to prevent the spread of communism (terrorism of that time) into South East Asia was necessary. If Russia had continued to try to force their ideals on more countries, then we could be living in a completely different world now. The argument could be made capitalism was doing the same thing, but come one... capitalism is good!
Unfortunately the message was not being told. The people telling the stories were unqualified to make assertions and judgments on what was going on, and they never made retractions when they reported completely incorrect stories. At home, the war was being seen as horrible. Innocent lives were lost. Vietnamese women and children were being blown up. Casualties were building up quickly for a war we should have won with ease. All these are bad things, but they are expected in war.
Look at how the anti-war crowd handled themselves. They called our soldiers baby killers and spat on them upon returning home (my Uncle had this very thing happen to him). That should show you how worthless they were as human beings, yet their spoken words are treated as gospel.
Our media was propaganda for our enemies. Instead of reporting this war like a war that needed to be won, they reported it in a way that would get them published. A way that shows impact. They reported it as a war that was being fought beyond its necessary means and with a "blank check," as if our presidents were going after Vietnam: a country that has done no wrong. They never talked with the South Vietnamese, the country we were attempting to protect in this war (who we eventually took a dump on when the hippies got what they wanted). Their stories were formed through "hastily gathered or incomplete facts," but it was all the American people had to go by.
The fact that our government publicly criticized our troop involvement, yet kept them over there was very dangerous. It shows that both sides knew and believed that the war had to be won, but one side wanted to get elected to better positions, so they spoke differently from how they voted. Otherwise known as cowardice.
Public acknowledgment of a "lost war" or "wrong war" will help morale of the enemy. During a war you will question yourself, presence, and purpose of being wherever you may be. To gain support from your enemies and have them telling you that you are doing the right thing is huge. It will make you fight with new meaning. It will increase your fighting numbers because others will believe that this war is important to win (either that, or they simply are afraid of being considered an enemy of the eventual victors). To say otherwise goes against what the Vietnamese have gone on record as saying.
My memory is slipping, but a Vietnamese General (and he was pretty much
the general) wrote a
book in which he said every time they heard the American planes flying above followed by earth rattling explosions they wanted to give up. The American people's angst towards the war and their troops is what lifted them to keep fighting. [After a quick wikipedia search, the name that stood out to me was
Vo Nguyen Giap. I linked the book's amazon page to
book above.]
After the Vietnamese realized that the key to winning the war was by provoking Americans into believing the war was their fault and their fault only, they revved up the propaganda machine. They allowed Americans entrance to their country so they could show them what they wanted to show them. The Rosey O'Donnell of the time, Jane Fonda, spearheaded and abetted the VC lies by returning with fabricated stories of POW camps and more. "We won the war over there, but we lost the war here." This has become a typical response when talking to Vietnam vets about what happened in this time.
I know in your opinion the media is infallible, but in attempt to gain viewers, they reported the war errantly. This reporting led to public opinion falling, which led to government changing their wartime policy, which led to a poorly fought war, that appeared lost (although the spread of communism to not extend past Vietnam was the objective).
Also, you read some book by McNamara and because he was up there, whatever he says is 100% truth, but unfortunately even he made some errors during that time. Nixon screwed up with his Vietnamization policies, and Lyndon Johnson may have run one of the dirtiest offices of all time. All that being said, taking everything the higher ups say during that time as complete fact is ignorant. You need to have a credible source that you, yourself, can trust first. These people writing books, and articles (including the ones I'm quoting from) are all in it for the all mighty dollar or to clear their name by any means possible. What I'm getting at is you have to have personal convictions on this topic backing up what you read. You can't just say, "well, Robert McNamara told me this and he was chief of staff (or whatever he was at the time)."
I work across the hall from a retired military strategist (who had a lot of good insight on the current situation as he was one of the lead strategists during the Gulf War) who told me McNamara was the last person you want to read when talking about the Vietnam war. He also added that the time table Nixon announced at the behest of the American public, turned the war into a much tougher battle. The day before Nixon made the announcement, the VC were running scared from us. His unit captured 54 tons of rice to give to the South Vietnamese. The VC almost seemed like they were done fighting because they were getting slaughtered. Following Nixon's announcement of an exact date of withdrawal, they were fighting for their livelihood. Why? Because they needed to keep their supplies and food knowing that the war would end soon. Saying what some bozo thousands of miles away says doesn't effect the battlefield is about as inaccurate as you can get. I've spoken with multiple Vietnam vets today. Then again, perhaps they are all lying. They do have so much relying on it.
The links I posted below have some supporting information from what I said above, some are links to their amazon page for purchase, but the final one is a great breakdown of misconceptions held during that time. It talks about how the media portrayed the war to purposely reflect it as horrible, and in doing so, our military as murderous and wanting to destroy everything they came across. I could include everything this article says above, but I figure I'll just let you read it.
But yeah, you say but yeah a lot.... But yeah.
Labels: The Ever lasting Vietnam Debate: Rob v Paul
