Whose Fault was the Vietnam War?

[oostevo]

One of my (government) teachers was trying to convince me that the fault for the United States' getting involved in the Vietnam War rested squarely on the shoulders of democrats (i.e. JFK). I'm no recent history scholar, so could someone help me out by giving me some ammunition proving that this is not the case?

Thank you very much in advance.

[demsrule4life]

1. Democrats being pushed by the

military industrial complex.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. Partially correct...JFK tried to get us out, and LBJ escalated the war...

...there has been some discussion within JFK assassination circles that Lady Bird Johnson bought stock in two Texas companies six months before JFK was killed. The two companies were General Dynamics and Bell Helicoptor...both of which achieved massive growth during the war. By the time LBJ left office, they were worth well over $6 million, most of it in stock from those two companies.

Deaths in Vietnam by Year
<http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/vietnam_war_casualty_lists/statistics.html#year>

Take a look at the numbers on the chart noted above, then take a look at the following list of Presidents and when they served:

Eisenhower, Dwight (GOP) 1953-61
Kennedy, John F. (DEM) 1961-63
Johnson, Lyndon (DEM) 1963-69
Nixon, Richard (GOP) 1969-74
Ford, Gerald (GOP) 1974-77

Please note that the first Vietnam era deaths took place when Eisenhower was in office, and Nixon was his VP. Ike had approved the sending of those advisors to Vietnam shortly after the French left in 1954. Nine Americans were killed in Vietnam between 1956 and 1960.

During the time that he was in office, JFK approved a total of 16,000 military advisors for Vietnam, but signed NSAM 263 on October 11, 1963, authorizing the return of 1000 of those men with the ultimate goal of getting out of Vietnam entirely by 1965. By the time of JFK's death on November 22, 1963, another 186 Americans had died in Vietnam.

NSAM 263
<http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html>

Within four days of JFK's assassination, LBJ signed NSAM 273 on November 26, 1963, which escalated the U. S. troop levels in Vietnam significantly. From 1964 until LBJ left office in January 1969, 35,597 Americans died in Vietnam.

NSAM 273
<http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM273.html>

Another 23,300 Americans died in Vietnam while Nixon served six years in office. Ford presided over the end of American involvement in the war in 1975 shortly after the fall of Saigon.

[mlawson]

2. Not necessarily JFK.

I believe that the SEATO treaty, signed in 1959 by Ike, at the urging of John Foster Dulles and his CIA brother Allan Dulles, was the deal that sealed the US' fate over there. Also, there was a paranoid mindset afoot, that the Communists would not rest until they dominated all of Asia; most people believed it back then, including LBJ, and probably JFK. No president wanted to be known as the "one who lost ________" -- fill in the blank with any country anywhere.

Remember, it was a diferent world, back then.

[FlemingsGhost]

3. Blame France!

Seriously. One can make a somewhat convincing argument that French colonization set that conflict in motion.

[oostevo]

8. Well ...

The French _had_ been waging a gorilla war there for something like 20 years and had numerous people dead. And we didn't think the same thing was going to happen to us???

[mlawson]

13. Oh, it COUDLN'T happen to us!

This was 1960. The US does NOT lose wars! Again, this was a different world, one that you might not be able to imagine.

The French puled out of IndoChina in 1954, I believe, after getting beaten at DienBienPhu. But the US was slowly going in, because SOMEone had to save Asia!! :eyes:

[FlemingsGhost]

14. Once they lost control, and bugged out...

An economic/political power vacuum was created and it wasn't long until the Cold War empires were squabbling over the booty. Remember, "the Domino Theory?" That concept is what sealed our fate.

By the way, you unwittingly gave me a good laugh: the mental image of a "gorilla war" strikes me funny. (It's "guerilla.")

(on edit: typo)

[oostevo]

52. Oops.

That really was emabarassing. Amazing what sleep deprevation can do to you. I, of course, meant 'guerrilla war'. (Two r's, by the way, is more common).

[WilliamPitt]

18. (ahem)

'guerilla'

[dreissig]

81. ahem, ahem ...

The diminutive of the word 'guerra' (war) is 'guerrilla', not 'guerilla'.

[kanrok]

4. Why, Bill Clinton, of course.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Yes, I'd love to see Republicans try to pull that one off...

Considering the guy was in high school at the time.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Dupe n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. Clinton's penis, of course!

Not sure exactly how yet, but the wayward member has been blamed for so much already, why not Vietnam as well?

[kanrok]

7. Jinx, owe me a Coke

[mbartko]

73. First answer that came to my mind. n/t

[Kamika]

6. I blame Clinton

Runner up is Karl Marx

[slackmaster]

9. I blame the French

They started mucking with things in Indochina in 1847 and eventually handed the US a hot potato in 1954 after their defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

[Cocoa]

45. the U.S. is to blame for that as well

after WWII, the U.S. chose not to support independence for Vietnam.

[slackmaster]

66. Affirmative

Many opportunities for a peaceful arrangement in Southeast Asia have been lost over a long time. I like to hang it on the French because they were in there the longest.

[K-W]

67. The U.S.

blocked reunification talks many times. A peaceful united vietnam was not an acceptable result for them.

[noonwitch]

84. I blame the french/colonial euros, too.

Colonialism was a big mistake in most cases.

[ComerPerro]

10. I just always figured it was Johnson and his people

But I don't know much about that history, seeing as I wasn't alive and no one teaches it.

[mlawson]

16. LJB saw what happened to his hero, Truman,

when Truman "lost" China in 1949. He vowed that HE would not lose a country to the Communists!! The mindset of the WII generation was quite different than what we understand nowadays.

[Ardee]

11. he must shoulder some blame

Kennedy agreed to allow the CIA to kill the premier of South Viet Nam,
Diem, a very popular man. The regimes that followed were corrupt and incompetant, thus dooming the war to a foregone conclusion.

Kennedy had stated privately that he intended to end our military involvement in Viet Nam before his death. It might be conjectured that this is why he was murdered......I would place the blame for Viet Nam more on the policies of the cold war than on any one figure.

http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0195052862.html

[Mountainman]

12. That is like asking who's fault was WWII. Democrats - Roosevelt

If you say it is the fault of the party of the President at the time then WWII is Roosevelt's fault. Not a good way of framing the debate is it?

[elperromagico]

20. And the bloodiest war on American soil

... was a Republican's fault.

No, not a good theory at all.

[tom_paine]

50. But that was back when Republicans were lib Dems

Abolitionists? Those "Commie Pinkos", eh? Bleeding Hearts.

Of course, in those days there were a-plenty of Fighting Liberals to stand up to the ancestors of Ashcroft.

[WilliamPitt]

15. Read 'An Unfinished Life' by Robert Dallek

Kennedy was petrified of Vietnam, and very much intended to get American forces out ASAP. But then he went to Dallas, and the war fell into the hands of Johnson. Johnson, far more than Kennedy, stirred the shitstorm in Vietnam. Nixon (Kissinger) in '68 sabotaged the paris peace talks, in defiance of the Logan Act, to help his campaign. Four years and untold thousands and thousands of dead later, the cease-fire was signed. Everyone gets a slice of the pie. Hell, blame Truman for starting the Cold War, I guess.

[Devlzown]

17. That's a complicated issue.

The first advisors were sent in by Eisenhower and more were sent in by Kennedy. Johnson escalated it into a full-blown war. Johnson didn't run in '68 because many in the Democratic Party were fed up with him because of the war. And then Nixon came along and he and Kissinger took their sweet time bringing an end to the war. Was the war started by Democrats? I'd have to say yes. The protest movement, however, had its roots in left wing politics and the protests were the most important factor in changing public opinion about the war. So even though Democrats deserve much of the blame for starting the war, Democrats also deserve much of the credit for ending it.

[elperromagico]

19. You could blame a few thousand people

Truman first sent advisors there,
Eisenhower escalated,
Kennedy escalated,
Johnson escalated like a fucking madman,
Nixon said he'd "win the peace"... of course it took a few thousand more boys and a few more carpet bombings to do that,
and we didn't get out fully until Ford was president.

Certainly the Cold War attitudes are very much to blame, and Johnson's attitude that the US wouldn't lose a war on his watch helped as well.

We wound up fighting a war for the French and Vietnamese that we shouldn't have fought in the first place.

[ohiosmith]

21. I know, I know!

That Cubs' fan who deflected the foul ball.

[elperromagico]

26. Let's blame...

Gray Davis!

[birdman]

22. Joe McCarthy

Although the Red scare actually predates McCarthy it was
the dire fear of being called soft-on-communism that drove
policy in Vietnam. Truman had been blamed for the "loss" of
China to the communists. Kennedy and Johnson were not going
to have the same things said about them.

[ComerPerro]

37. Great point

He is the one who played up the fear and parnoia

[RichM]

23. It was VERY bipartisan, starting with Truman. To frame it in terms of

the 2 US parties is ridiculous -- it was a matter of imperialism & colonialism. There is no difference between the 2 US parties on that score, as on so much else.

Briefly: FDR promised Ho Chi Minh independence for Vietnam after the war. But Truman reneged on this promise, & supported the French in their attempt to regain control of the country. When the French failed in 1954, the US under Eisenhower replaced the French as the colonial power. The main part of the US military buildup came under LBJ, but JFK's hands were not clean either.

In brief, all presidents from Truman until Nixon were involved, & there is plenty of blame for ALL of them to share.

[buckanear7]

35. Very partisan

Correct, Secratary of State Dulles was key in the convincig of Esienhower not to allow the reunification election that was to have taken place in 1956. By then the die were cast and Ho Chi Minh sought China and Russia for aid to liberate So. Vietnam from US colonial rule.

ed

[RichM]

43. Yes, this is right - but why did you say "Very PARTISAN?"

I don't understand the use of the word "Partisan" here.

[sandnsea]

49. RichM scores

And the McCarthy answer too. But Rich's post is my understanding. And also that JFK tried to tell Eisenhower not to get involved. But that red scare and the domino theory was like a religion. And JFK followed through just enough to keep them off his neck, but with no intention of increasing the conflict. He was for non-proliferation and interntional engagement.

[DealsGapRider]

24. Excuse me, but can we assign blame where it really belongs:

...with the Soviet Union and China, who systematically funded Marxist insurgencies across the globe. The North Vietnames invasion of South Vietnam could not have occurred without help from the USSR and China.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DealsGapRider]

28. What about it is false?

Do you deny that the USSR and China funded North Vietnam and the Viet Cong? I don't know any serious person, including opponents of the war, who disputes this.

Can you back up your position with facts, or do you just sling personal insults like a child?

[FlemingsGhost]

27. Excuse you, indeed.

The French were setting up shop some 50 years before the birth of Marxism.

[DealsGapRider]

29. And how do the French have anything to do with...

...our involvement?

[FlemingsGhost]

30. Read posts #3 and #14 (n/t)

Dems

[DealsGapRider]

32. That still doesn't explain how the communists would have....

...been able to threaten the South (to the extent that it required hundreds of thousands of US troops to defend) without aid from the USSR and China. The French might have caused the Viet Minh movement to begin, and thus set in motion the communist insurgency, but it wouldn't have gotten anywhere without Soviet and Chinese aid.

[FlemingsGhost]

34. The thread title reads: "Whose fault is the Vietnam War."

you write:

"The French might have caused the Viet Minh movement to begin, and thus set in motion the communist insurgency..."

Cause and effect. Without a "communist insurgency," there is no reason for the U.S. to involve themselves.

[buckanear7]

33. read your history

The treaty of 1954 ended French colonialism in French Indo China (Vietnam). That treaty split Vietnam into to countries, South and North Vietnam. There was to be a reunification election to be held in 1956, but Secratary Dulles seemed to have sufficient power to convince the US to persuade teh South not to go ahead with the reunification election. Thus the build up started. First with just equiptment and a few advisors. By 1960 there were 16,000 men in So. Vietnam.

ed

[DealsGapRider]

36. Doesn't explain anything...

Do we agree that the US had no plans to forcibly annex the North? Do we agree that the South had no plans to invade the North?

North Vietnam intended to do exactly this with So. Vietnam. And they couldn't have done so without Soviet and Chinese aid, which they got in abundant supply. Thus the need for US troops.

[RichM]

54. Please read this. I'll be nice this time, I promise.

Your comments here & elsewhere show that you are putting a very important cart before an important horse.

You are picturing the events like this: FIRST (in your version), there is Soviet & Chinese aid. This THEN creates a "need" for US troops to "defend" South Vietnam.

All that is backwards. In reality, FIRST there was just "Vietnam" - not North, not South, just one country & people. THEN the Western powers artificially divided it, implicitly treating the "South" part as "theirs." They put troops in to hold on to it. THEN the USSR & China gave assistance, to help the Vietnamese in their effort to remain free & independent.

The idea that there was a "South" first, & that this South "needed" US troops to "defend" it -- this is all just propaganda & distortion. The US (and France before it) was there to TAKE, COLONIZE and CONTROL -- not to "defend." The thing they were pretending to "defend" (the "South") was their own invention.

Here's an analogy. Suppose tomorrow the US sends troops into the south part of Sweden. It bribes a few people in southern Sweden to say that they "invited" the Americans in. The US now claims that it has sent in troops to "defend" "South Sweden" from "North Sweden's aggression." It says that South Sweden only wants to live peacefully with its neighbor, but North Sweden keeps behaving aggressively. The US sets up a puppet regime to control South Sweden, but Denmark sends money to the North, to help them get rid of the American occupiers... Etc etc

That's basically what happened.

[buckanear7]

58. the Split of Vietnam

RichM

Vietnam, before it was known as Vietnam, was commonly known as French Indo China. It had been a colony of France since the middle of the 19th century. Only during WWII did the region fall under Japanese control. In 1945 Ho Chin Minh established the the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. For 8 years they fought the French to evict them from Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh became aligned with communist movement in China during their struggle to over throw the Japanese. The Chinese were helping Ho Chi Minh from 1945 through 1954 to overthrow the French.

The Treaty in Geneva in July of 1954 ended French invovlement in Indo China. Out of that treaty came the countries of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam was split in two with the provisions for a reunification by 1956. This would allow the French a gradual one year to two year extraction of troops from Indo China.

HO chi Minh had already been a communist when we became involved in 1955. After loosing 47,000 troops in Vietnam Charles DeGaul had to be be laughing to his grave in 1975 as the US total death count surpassed 52,000. We took thre years to fully extract all troops and end our involvement in Vietnam.

ed

[mitchum]

62. RichM, thanks for posting this (so I didn't have to....

I'm a real lazy typist) That is a very well -written and concise history of the creation of the "two Vietnams"
Good work.

[buckanear7]

55. what doesn't?

Dulles was the key to getting the US invovled into Vietnam. The fear of a united Vietnam as a communist country was in direct conflict the natioanl security of the US and the stability of the region. Ho Chi Minh was already receiveing support from Communist China during the conflict with France. Was there plans then fore North Vieatnam to invade South Vietnam? Good question. Problem is that anyone who was in the kow is now dead and cannot answer that question. The best we can do is speculate and I am not about to go down that road.

North Vietnam was bent on unification of the South if not by elections as mandated in the Geneva Treaty of 1954, than by force. Ho Chi Minh saw the US support of the southern state and blocking of elections as US colonialism. After fighting a war to rid the French, Ho Chi Minh was ready to take on the US if nneded. To him it was a war of liberation.

Like I said, the players in the early stages are now all dead and we canonly specualted as to their motives. All we have now to judge them on is their actions. The actions were evident that if the North invaded the South, then the US was committed to military aid and intervention.

ed

[markses]

76. The North could not "invade" the South

Since the two were only separated by an illegitimate subversion of the initial agreements. The "South" never existed as a separate entity.

[markses]

75. The US forcibly annexed the South by preventing reunification

It forcibly subverted and defied the Geneva Conference mandates.

Moreover, the Republic of Vietnam (there never was a "South" Vietnam, an American lie from start to finish) NEVER relinquished territorial claims to "North" Vietnam (another entity which exists only in the American imagination).

"6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/indoch/inch005.htm

And, in fact, the puppet government of the RVN did launch hostile raids against the DRV. The Gulf of Tonkin incident resulted from one such raid.

As for the "North" annexing the "South" (an impossibility, since neither entity existed as separate), it is quite clear that the initial uprising in the southern (that is, American occupied) part of Vietnam was homegrown, and began roughly following the subversion of the national plebiscite in 1956, and the installation of a murderous puppet dictator (Ngo Dinh Diem), who proceeded to slaughter families of Viet Minh soldiers who had regrouped north of the TEMPORARY provisional military demarcation line in accordance with the Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference in 1954. While a good deal of support for the rebellion came from the north, itself supported by the USSR and China, the rebellion was a homegrown anti-imperialist uprising. Blaming the USSR and China is like a Brit blaming France for the American Revolution. It's stupid.

[markses]

72. Read YOUR History: The Geneva Accords did NOT create two countries

In fact, the Geneva Accords explicitly prohibits the "splitting" of Vietnam into two countries, in clause 6, to wit:

"6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet-Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/indoch/inch005.htm

There is no North Vietnam, and there is no South Vietnam, and there NEVER was. The Republic of Vietnam, a rogue state set up by the US, never relinquished its claims to the territory north of the provisional military demarcation line, nor did it cease its assaults on that territory. (The supposed Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred while our naval ships ran radar interference for so-called "South" Vietnamese coastal attacks on "North" Vietnam, called DeSoto raids).

Moreover, the initial rebellion within the so-called Republic of Vietnam were not only homegrown, they were against the wishes of the government of Vietnam in Hanoi, which was still attempting a diplomatic solution. The homicidal maniac we installed in as dictator in the illegitimate country we falsely call South Vietnam (Ngo Dinh Diem) was sending guillotine squads around the countryside executing the families of those soldiers who had relocated to the the northern side of the line in accordance with the temporary and provisional demarcation. The Vietnamese rebellion against American imperialism was certainly assisted by the USSR and China (although China began stealing supplies from Soviet transports as early as 1967, and was involved in a border war with Soviet forces in 1969), but it was a homegrown rebellion all the way. That some folks here are still under the delusion that it was anything else is truly mystifying, and a testament to the persistence of our deep ignorance on the matter.

[IranianDemocrat]

70. Blame Howard Dean!

Blame Dean for everything!

Dean sunk the Titanic!

Dean shot JFK!

Dean is the leader of PNAC!

Dean orders the tortures of kittens!

Condom failed? Dean poked a hole in it!

[RichM]

40. The first thing that's wrong is your use of the term "Marxist insurgency."

This is a nasty-sounding name that rightwingers use, to refer to what is simply a desire of a people to be free and independent. The Vietnamese desired to have their own country - they didn't want to be colonized & exploited by the French anymore, after suffering many decades of it. Their desire to be free of the French was very much like the US desire in 1776 to be free of the British. That is what you are calling a "Marxist insurgency." (And the British of that day also had nasty phrases for it, though Marx hadn't been born yet.)

This is a standard trick of US imperialism - to define any popular movement anywhere, when people want to kick out their colonizers & exploiters - as a "Marxist insurgency." The US gives small countries 2 choices: "Either let us control you - or you're a dirty commie, so we have to destroy you (& install our own puppet government)."

There was, BTW, really no such thing as a "North Vietnam" and a "South Vietnam." This was an artificial distinction that the great powers found useful, for trying to legitimize their claim to a big chunk of the area. As far as the Vietnamese were concerned, this distinction was largely a fiction. There was a Geneva conference in 1956 where agreements were made about how Vietnam would be governed & when elections would be held. After signing the accords, the US promptly broke all the agreements.

In your version, you cast the USSR & China as villains for giving assistance to the North Vietnamese. What you're not seeing is that first the French, then the US, had the desire to CONTROL and EXPLOIT their chunk of real estate in Vietnam -- something that the Russians & Chinese did not have. Big capitalist powers have a long shameful track record of exploitative colonial relationships to small countries. The USSR & Chinese don't/didn't have that kind of record.

[tritsofme]

65. Oh come on!

>>>Big capitalist powers have a long shameful track record of exploitative colonial relationships to small countries. The USSR & Chinese don't/didn't have that kind of record

Can you say Eastern Europe?

Tibet?

[DealsGapRider]

74. Are you kidding me?

"Big capitalist powers have a long shameful track record of exploitative colonial relationships to small countries. The USSR & Chinese don't/didn't have that kind of record."

That may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen posted on DU.

[IrateCitizen]

78. No, your posts on this subject are the most ridiculous things I've read...

... on DU.

Your posts on this subject display a terrible grasp of history and an acceptance of propaganda that you believe to be the truth. It's a common theme for you, whether the subject is a historical matter like US involvement in Vietnam or the internment of "enemy combatants" in violation of international law at Guantanamo Bay.

I usually try to be level-headed and fair when debating most posters here on DU, but your posts are just so over-the-top ridiculous that I can't help but to attack them, just out of the hope that others will realize how absurd they are and refuse to follow you down the path of blissful ignorance.

But since we're talking about colonialism, could you please list for me the external colonies seized for exploitation by the USSR and Red China? I'd love a list, because while I'm intelligent enough to realize that the former USSR was far from a human rights paradise within its own borders, it operated only really within a limited sphere of influence. The United States after the Spanish-American War, OTOH, has established and maintained puppet regimes thousands of miles from its own borders in an attempt to maintain neocolonial relationships for the sole purpose of forcing open markets and keeping access to cheap natural resources.

[RichM]

79. Your remarks have already shown that you believe the US was in Viet

-nam to "defend" it against "agression." This demonstrates that you do not know the difference between propaganda and history.

What you are calling "ridiculous" is quite true. The relationship of the USSR to Eastern Europe was 1) not characterized by economic exploitation, & 2) was not BASED on economic exploitation, either. It came into being as a very reasonable defensive buffer zone, after the USSR/Russia had been attacked twice by the West in the last century. The USSR did not milk those countries for resources & financial gain -- in fact, the net flow of wealth was in the other direction (for example, just as the USSR supported Cuba, as opposed to exploiting it).

There's an amusing contradiction in what you've already written. On the one hand, you've accused the USSR of financing "global Marxist insurrection." Now you're objecting to my statement that the USSR did NOT exploit these 3rd world countries. In other words, according to you, the USSR both financed them, and exploited them. If this were true, the net flow of wealth would have been in both directions at the same time. You can't have it both ways!

Even if you don't accept my view of Eastern Europe's relation to the USSR, there still would be no comparison between that relationship, and what the USA has done to all of Latin America, Indonesia, the Middle East, & certain countries in Africa & Asia. THAT is genuine plundering & exploitation on a massive scale. Nothing the USSR or China ever did compares to it.

[IrateCitizen]

82. We're both barking at a wall with DealsGapRider, Rich

Don't forget -- this is the same guy who failed to see why people might be uncomfortable with the fact that the US was violating international law in its treatment of Gitmo detainees, and also stated that he believed that Daniel Pipes was a voice of "moderation" on Middle East affairs.

I keep hoping that he's willing to open his eyes, but I'm not overly encouraged. That's why his BS needs to be exposed for what it is -- blind acceptance of propaganda -- every time it rears its head. Even if he is beyond reach, hopefully it will help make others see.

[RichM]

85. Oh, believe me -- I KNOW it!!

I was writing my last response to him while you were posting yours. (And the "Deleted Message" post above, #25, was mine too. Seeing him yak about "global Marxist insurgencies" made me blow a fuse & violate DU civility rules.)

No, you can be sure that I've noticed DGR before this. I remember the Daniel Pipes comment, too. // What I don't quite understand is whether or not he's aware that he has the worldview of a nationalist/rightist. From what I've seen of him, he'd feel much more at home at FR.

Though DRG is an extreme case, the harsh uninformed anticommunist attitudes he expresses are often detectable in posts from others here, who overall are more in the category of "mainstream liberal." I see this as a real weakness of liberalism. It's one thing to criticize the USSR objectively for its many grievous shortcomings. It's something else again, to swallow whole a deeply dishonest US propaganda campaign against a rival. // The fact that American liberalism was bludgeoned into uncritical acceptance of a hysterical brand of anticommunism, seems to me to have crippled it. It contributed, IMO, to liberalism's weakness; to its inability to accurately critique the nature of the situation today.

[IrateCitizen]

86. I agree with you 100% on this!

The fact that American liberalism was bludgeoned into uncritical acceptance of a hysterical brand of anticommunism, seems to me to have crippled it. It contributed, IMO, to liberalism's weakness; to its inability to accurately critique the nature of the situation today.

The hysterical anti-communism that was adopted by American liberals going back to the time of the beginning of the cold war has SEVERELY crippled it over time. What it essentially has done has completely given up any kind of challenge to a capitalist economy in which the corporation reigns supreme, leaving liberalism to fight for only an equal footing for all to enter a ruthless, selfish, greed-driven marketplace. What liberalism has failed to note is that by de facto endorsement of that ruthless, selfish, greed-driven marketplace, they have undermined the very ideas of fair play that they advocate.

I don't know if you remember the essay I wrote titled, "The Failure of Liberalism", but it speaks to this very idea.

Just look at the issue of single-payer health care in this country. It should be a no-brainer, especially when compared with the rest of the industrialized world. But it keeps being beaten back (even among many Democrats!) because it's just too easy to attach the label of "socialism" to it. And anything that can be labeled "socialism" is one step from "communism" and therefore one step away from the complete collapse of America.

[buckanear7]

31. VietnAm

Our Entrance into Vietnam was during the Eisenhower administration. In 1954 the conflict between France and what was called French Indo China came to a conclusion with a treaty in Geneva. The treaty split Vietnam into north and south. There were provision to have a reunification election in 1956. Under the urgence of then Secratary of State Dulles, the US took the position of opposing any reunification of Vietnam. By the end of 1960 the US had about 16,000 troops in South Vietnam. The escallation occured under the Johnson administration shortly after the assasinations of both Kennedy and Tue. So if there is any blame to be passed around for our involvement in Vietnam it has to start with Dulles adn Ike. The real combat and death toll started with Johnson. There is blame for both political parties.

ed

[maha]

38. Your teacher, of course, is an idiot.

And you can tell him/her I said so.

Kennedy's Vietnam policies were a continuation of Eisenhower's Vietnam policies, so IMO our involvement with Vietnam began with Eisenhower. Eisenhower was the one who first supported the "domino" theory, which said South Vietnam must not come under the authority of the Communist government of North Vietnam, or else all of Asia would fall to communism like dominos. Kennedy and Eisenhower saw nearly eye to eye on the "Red Menace" and reasons for propping up a series of dictators in South Vietnam.

There's a pretty fair short historical background here.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_089400_vietnamwar.htm

[knight_of_the_star]

39. Vietnam was a mistake

I don't think that there is any dispute that it was a mistake. Personally, I would have to say Ike was mostly at fault for starting the whole thing in the first place for his opposiiton to the reunification election and sending over advisors. Ho Chi Mihn wouldn't have asked for help from the Soviets and the Chinese in the first place if we were willing to help them. He even asked for Truman to make Vietnam a US colony like the Phillipines to help build up the country's infrastructure and then let it go as a democracy, but that was when the French still "controlled" it. If Ike had not refused the election, then we wouldn't have had a war in the first place. Mihn was known as a nationalist anyway, not a communist. His interest was a free and united Vietnam, not the Marxist Revolution or anything like that.

[mumon]

47. He WAS a Marxist, but he was ALSO a nationalist

Ho (Like Chinese, the family name is first) was also a dictator.

But he was infinitely more preferable than the folks down south.

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. Robert MacNamara

I think his equivalent would be Rumsfeld.

[Tinoire]

42. I'd say the Democrats

LBJ-Vietnam Redux

Interestingly enough, I just read this last night from Mike Rupport's latest fascinating article (Beyond Bush II) which was posted in GD yesterday and it fits it perfectly with what I heard from my Democratic mother as a child:

Contrary to popular belief, it was not a group of die-hard conservative militarists who pushed the US into an unwinnable conflict in Vietnam. It was a coterie of liberal "Eastern Establishment" members of the Council on Foreign Relations and lifelong Democrats. Included here are the likes of Dean Acheson, McGeorge and William Bundy, John J. McCloy, Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara. These were the advisors who continued to prod Johnson into escalation after escalation until, suddenly in March of 1968 right after the Tet Offensive, they all became doves overnight and said the war was a mistake. Johnson was set up and betrayed and he never recovered. He immediately announced that he would not run for re-election. That gave us Nixon, more escalations, and four more years of conflict as the American people were suckered into believing that Nixon would end the war quickly.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html

And the rest was another sterling bi-partisan effort- just like the one we all witnessed this year.

The 2 Party system ensures that each party can blame the other but in the long run, they both work together.

[maha]

44. I'd say you are wrong.

JFK's Vietnam policy was a continuation of Eisenhower's. The eastern establishment guys you mention supported Eisenhower's basic position and expanded it, but they didn't originate it.

Your synopsis isn't bad as far as it goes, but you should understand what went on before JFK to get the whole picture.

[Yupster]

63. I agreee which is why I blame LBJ

JFK followed Ike. I don't believe either of them would have allowed 500,000 troops to go to Vietnam. JFK followed Ike, but LBJ did not follow JFK. His policy was completely different, and an utter disaster. Did he have a plan for winning the war? Even a bad plan?

[slaveplanet]

68. Wasn't Kissinger

//These were the advisors who continued to prod Johnson into escalation after escalation until, suddenly in March of 1968 right after the Tet Offensive, they all became doves overnight and said the war was a mistake. Johnson was set up and betrayed and he never recovered//

and a secret meeting in France,lurking behind the scenes (like he does so well) involved in all this.His skullduggery cost thousands of lives Until public pressure and watergate brought things to a screeching halt...we'd still be there if the repugs had it their way.

[diamond14]

71. could something like the 'Tet Offensive' happen in Iraq???? nt

nt

[mumon]

46. I blame Joe Mc Carthy and Richard Nixon.

If we had a stronger left movement in America this would never have happened.

[ShaneGR]

51. Personally, I think the Pentagon

They advocated ramping up our forces there, under the premise that we could mop up and get out within a few years. Of course, that wasn't true.

[Capn Sunshine]

53. You teacher has the answer already

as we have learned here. It was "democratic elites", pushed on by Clinton's penis , who was just a young advisor penis at the time, over objections from the saintly republicans who only wanted a free and independent country of happy natives friendly to America and her business interests, with no strings attached.

Does that clear it up for you?
:nuke:

[soothsayer]

56. Took place under five (count 'em, 5) presidents

I figger you can blame all of 'em

[mitchum]

57. The Dulles brothers

[Yupster]

61. I blame LBJ the most

He turned a small commitment of JFK's of mostly trainers into over 500,000 battle soldiers without seeming to have any plan to get them out or to win the war either. At least Nixon had Vietnamization. Whether it worked or not, at least it was a plan.

I don't blame Eisenhower orKennedy nearly as much as LBJ because we send advisors to hundreds of countries. That doesn't inevitably lead to 500,000 US combat troops. It was LBJ who did that.

[K-W]

64. How f'n coincidental

My girlfriend and I just took an exam in our global politics class that discussed the causes of Vietnam policy. Maybe I can add a few things to the discussion.

THe first problem with the question is that there really never was a Vietnam war. Wars tend to have destinct starts where something triggers a military intervention. The Vietnam conflict was charecterized by a slow military escalation, the first shots of the war were special forces missions and bombing raids, though the public war didnt start until '65 when Johnson started the massive escalations.

As far as I'm concerned this question has no answer. Or at least no answer that wont fill a 50 page paper. You can start tracing the causes back to the late 1800's when the American government first chose to become an imperial power through exploiting foriegn markets which would be opened by any means necessary. This policy was played out in south/central america and in eastern asia. Following World War 2, the US found itself in a position to expand that policy into most of the world due to an end to domestic isolationism and an overall weakened european military. The US and USSR were then by far and away the most powerful military powers in the world. With the US in this huge position of international influence and power, they saw the opportunity to take the world leadership role they wanted to continue to provide markets for the "surplus" goods that the US economy produced as well as protecting sources of materials and products that the US consumed. For this reason and for the reason of quenching the continueing domestic threat of workers against the status quo, they villianized communism, the soviet union, and china. This was used domestically to increase military spending, kill organized labor, and retain support for interventionist foreign policy. This was used internationally to convince europe that the Soviet union would attack them, so that europe would open up trade with the US and let the US setup bases and other such things in exchange for a promise of US protection and eventually US nuclear deterrence.

This is very much neither here nor there though. It has little to do with Vietnam. Ho Chi Mihn was a communist, but that really means nothing. Communism isnt a cult or an organization, its simply a belief system (one that most argue is unrealistic, but only a fool would question the ideals of) he didnt want Vietnam to become part of China or the USSR. He would have accepted US aid in a minute if they had offered to help him dethrone the french.

But of course the United States had economic interests in Indochina and even more so economic interests all over southeast asia. The United States didnt fear marxism, it feared peasent revolt. Just like it has done in asia, the middle east, africa, and south america, the U.S. stepped in because it feared that other countries in the region would see a successful populist government and take the cue to fight oppressive governments and free colonies from thier imperialist controllers and change the economies from those of export to those of subsistance. The last thing in the world the U.S wanted was for southeast asian people to sit around and grow food for themselves and have land sharing etc. So the U.S. went in to show that it would step in and protect it's interests, sending a clear message that rebellion against other U.S. allied governments or systems would also be met with such a force.

THe big error on this thread from those blaming communists is the assumption that South Vietnam was a country being invaded. The destinction between the two countries was entirely fabricated by the western powers. North Vietnam didnt have to invade South Veitnam, they were welcomed in with open arms. Heck, at first the regime in the north didnt want the south to become a military conflict, because they were afraid that the US would do what it did. They were hoping the regime in he south could be crumbled without war.

the Vietnam war was an imperialistic parade by the United States to send a message around the world that it would not hesitate to use it's massive strength to defend it's economic interests

[durutti]

69. He's Right

Read Chomsky's Rethinking Camelot.

[bearfan454]

77. The Power Elite.

War is big money. The military industrial complex is still around today. The Power elite live in Europe and own most of the bonds in our banking system. The Federal Reserve and the CFR are two of the main portions here in the US. JFK was going to abolish the CIA and the Federal Reserve. The Powers to be said this guy has got to go. Money is still number one today. It is profits over people at ANY cost. ANY.

[IkeWarnedUs]

80. Eisenhower tried to warn us about the military industrial complex

And that M/I complex is the common denominator through all of the administrations involved in VietNam. I don't believe Eisenhower ever intended for his sending advisors to signal the start of US military involvement. Just the opposite. He was very much against war as a way to solve the world's conflicts. In fact, he says as much.

This is what Ike had to say in his farewell address as he left office, January 17, 1961:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

<snip>

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

Link to entire address: http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/farewell.htm

[MadHound]

83. Blame for the Vietnam debacle can be placed many places.

Truman initially authorized advisors, Ike upped the ante, JFK first put in "official" troops(though covert troops were already there, LBJ blew the conflict wide open with the bogus Gulf of Tonkin resolution, Nixon illegally interfered with the Paris Peace accords for his personal political gain, on top of which he then proceded to illegally bomb the bejesus out of Laos and Cambodia. Lots of mistakes went into the creation of the collosal Vietnam fuckup.

But it is interesting to note that the reason the US initially got involved in Vietnam was because it allowed the CIA and other covert agencies free reign to play in the poppy fields of the Golden Triangle. Yes, Vietnam was our very own version of the Opium Wars. If you want a book with a great perspective on this issue, go pick up The Politics of Heroin, by Alfred McCoy. It goes into great detail about how the CIA(initially the OSS) covertly went into Vietnam in late WWII to investigate the opium trade. After the French pulled out in the mid-fifties(with a little pushing from the US), the CIA went full bore into the opium trade in Vietnam. This is when such notorius institutions such as Air America were created. The CIA was making to much money to pull out any time soon, but didn't have enough manpower to control the country. Thus troops were sent in. A side bonus to the troops going in was the fact that the troops provided a ready made captive market for opium and heroin.

The full details are too long and extensive to go into here, but trust me, they're quite ugly. I highly recommend the book I mentioned if you wish to get to the root cause of why we were in Vietnam(and elsewhere).

[leftofthedial]

87. It was Bill Clinton's fault

or more accurately his penis's fault