The Late War in Viet Nam

As this is Veterans Day (formerly Armistice Day) and having already discussed often my thoughts on World War I (a disaster all around) and being the glutton for punishment that I am, I thought I would take this opportunity to pass on a few words about a very controversial conflict: the Vietnam War. First of all, for the sake of honesty, let me say that I will probably have to plead guilty to the charge of being biased on this one. I had loved ones involved extensively in the Vietnam War, both American and Vietnamese. I know how bad it was, I know the toll it took on people and I know what Vietnam has been like since the American withdrawal and the Communist takeover. That last bit is the part I think is all too often ignored today. But, to stay on point, I am, to say the least, emotionally invested in the Vietnam War and it is impossible for me to look back at it as history without thinking about those I know and knew who were directly and dramatically affected by it. I have never picked up the habit of desiring popularity and therefore it troubles me not at all to say, even today, I support the late war in Vietnam. To be even more unpopular, I will say that I would have supported the French war in Vietnam and, personally, I think it would have been best if the United States had supported the French even more during their war in Indochina. As I see it, that was the really crucial time of the multi-decades long conflict between the communists and anti-communists in Southeast Asia.

To be sure, there were many unsavory aspects of the colonial rule of the French republic in Indochina. However, during that time, every region (Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam) still had their traditional monarchs on the throne, at least in a ceremonial capacity -not ideal, but something to work with. I can also say that, based on what I have seen, Vietnam was much more “Vietnamese” before independence than after. I would have supported the French effort because they were fighting to win and, although the government of the State of Vietnam which they sponsored, was not ideal by any means, it was at least under the nominal rule of the last Emperor in the capacity of “Chief of State”. When the French threw in the towel (Eisenhower having refused to come to the rescue at Dien Bien Phu -big mistake) the communist regime in the north was effectively recognized as a legitimate government and that was a very, very big mistake. The deal that was made might have been the only thing the former Vietnamese Emperor and the United States ever totally agreed on -they were both opposed to it and refused to sign on. Both realized that it would be absurd to trust the fate of the country to a nation-wide plebiscite with more than half the population under communist control and not free to make their own choice at all. Additionally, even if they were not coerced, many would have likely voted for the communists anyway as the vast majority of their base of support were uneducated peasants who could not read, write or understand and had not the slightest conception of what communism was or would mean.

The United States, in my view, was doing the right thing in Vietnam even if they did it in the wrong way or, in some cases, for the wrong reasons. Getting rid of the ex-Emperor was a very bad move in my book, but the guy they replaced him with, Ngo Dinh Diem, was not all bad. Giving the ‘green light’ to get rid of Diem when he proved to be uncooperative was also a bad move in my book and it started a period of devastating political instability in Saigon that did not even start to be clamped down until the presidency of Nguyen Van Thieu, effectively the last President of South Vietnam. The U.S. did not fight the war properly in my view either. They were fighting, effectively, a defensive war with the only strategically offensive measures being reduced to the bombing campaign. I’m sorry, but you just cannot win a war that way. I believe it was the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte who said that, “The only logical end to defensive warfare is surrender”. Many people wonder how the war could have lasted so long when the U.S. won virtually every engagement. The simple answer is that because every time the communists were beaten they could retreat to their side of the border to re-arm, reorganize, re-equip and then come back to try again and again. That, under the best of circumstances, is not a recipe for victory but for a war without end.

It is a simple rule of mine that, putting aside all the other political junk, any time anyone fights communists they have my full support, regardless of the circumstances. I think of where the line was held, such as South Korea, and compare that to countries where it was not, like Vietnam. Of course, South Korea has its problems, but it is a veritable paradise compared to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I also know that the Vietnamese, regardless of allegiance, were terrified whenever Korean troops came to town (yes, the U.S. was not the only one with troops on the ground). They were not ‘nice guys’. That is because the Koreans had first-hand experience with confronting communism. They knew what it was all about, it wasn’t just something they had read about in a book like most American draftees. The Koreans knew that when it came to the communists there was no room for half-way measures, you have to go “Old Testament” on them. It is a sad fact of human nature that many people will never understand the heat until they get burned by the fire. The self-obsessed, spoiled hippies prancing around America had no idea what communism really meant; they had never been burned by it. The Koreans had and it showed.

The real point today though is to remember the veterans and that I certainly do. They were misled at the highest level but the troops fought as hard as any in any war before or since. All too often we also forget that they were *victorious* in spite of having one hand tied behind their backs. In the dastardly Tet Offensive of 68 the communists hit every major installation in South Vietnam with all the strength they could muster and the U.S. and ARVN forces completely wiped them out. The Viet Cong was all but annihilated in that campaign and were never a significant force afterward. It was tough, I had one cousin who lost a leg from wounds he suffered while battling the communists in Hue for control of the Forbidden City. But, in the end, they held the line and repelled every attack. Furthermore, no matter what one thinks of “Tricky Dick” Nixon, his policy of “Vietnamization” worked. The heroic South Vietnamese armed forces rarely get any credit these days but the fact is that after the U.S. withdrawal the communists launched their biggest offensive of the war and, with only some U.S. advisors and air support, the South Vietnamese kicked their commie butts. It is so maddeningly frustrating that, believe it or not, by the early to mid 70’s the war was won. With only a little fire support and supplies (much less than the north was receiving from the Soviets) the ARVN forces had the south completely secure and it was at that moment that the Democrat-controlled Congress cut off all aid and assistance to South Vietnam, robbing them of everything as well as robbing the American veterans of all they had fought for in the previous ten years. The soldiers, U.S. and South Vietnamese, won, they did not lose that war -Washington DC politicians did.

Armistice Day

It was on this day in 1918 that the fighting officially ended on the western front, bringing an end to the First World War, a conflict which, few would deny, put the final nail in the coffin of the old, traditional Europe. The human cost was beyond imagination and only surpassed 20 years later by World War II. Even then, many countries lost far more troops in the First World War than in the Second. In addition to the individual lives that were lost the conflict was also the end of an era in world history and certainly western civilization. By the time it was over the German Empire was gone, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was gone, the Russian Empire was gone and the Ottoman Empire would soon be. Revolutionary communism had been set loose on the world, ethnic nationalism was set looose in the Balkans and the Middle East, the United States had been drawn out of isolation to become a world power and faith in traditional institutions had been shattered. In the end, when it was all over, people -and not a few- looked at the millions of deaths, the fallen civilizations, the political and social chaos and asked; was it all worth it?

That remains something to struggle with even now, at least for those willing to give it sincere thought. Was the pride of Serbia worth such a horror? Was Alsace-Lorraine? Any given cause seems pretty small and inconsequential when weighed against the millions of casualties and fallen empires. Finding someone to blame is never as easy as it seems in such cases though there were certainly guilty parties. The murderers of the Archduke, the Austrian Foreign Minister, the French ambassador in St Petersburg, the German "blank check" and so on can all be justly blamed along with other individuals and actions. However, even if one were to say that Serbia should have been crushed that Europe might live or that Belgium should have been sacrificed so that more peoples could have been saved -it still doesn't add up. The simple reason being that if the Archduke had not been murdered Austria-Hungary and Serbia would have found another reason to fight. So long as Serbia made Austria her enemy to advance their goal of a "Greater Serbia" and so long as the Austro-Hungarian military advocated the elimination of Serbia once and for all they were going to find an excuse to have at each other. Likewise, so long as France seethed over the loss of Alsace-Lorraine they would have sooner or later found some excuse for fighting Germany. Britain had long wanted to eliminate the naval and industrial competition of Germany and if Belgium had not been violated they could have found another reason.

As I see it, the question as to whether the conflict would have been a world war or just another Balkan war was decided by Russia. Some may (and have) disagreed with me, but Russia was the first power to threaten intervention in what was an Austro-Serbian conflict. Germany, of course, had voiced support for her Austrian ally but the Germans were not about to intervene with military support to help the Austrians. No one would have expected Austria-Hungary to need any help defeating Serbia (though as it turned out the Serbs were a tougher nut to crack than anyone had imagined) but Russia was ready to send in troops to support her fellow Slavs. That does not mean that the fault lies only with Russia of course but as I see it there would have been no wider war if Russia had washed her hands of Serbia and let them take their punishment from the Austrians. How that scenario would have progressed, who can say? What can be said with a fair amount of certainty is that once Russia intervened some countries spread the war freely but others were locked in. Germany was bound to help Austria fend off the Russian attack and France was bound to help Russia which meant Germany was bound to invade Belgium to have any chance of success in fighting both.

Britain chose to join in (contrary to popular perception she was not actually obligated to defend Belgium), the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria chose to join in and, let us be honest, Italy and Romania were effectively bribed into coming in. Lest this all be too depressing we can at least find some virtue in the fact that the soldiers at least had pure motives; duty, patriotism, love of country and so on. In most cases the monarchs felt they had no choice in the matter. Emperor Francis Joseph was lied into war when you come down to it. The Tsar struggled terribly over the decision. The German Kaiser tried to call the whole thing off but was defied by his top general. King George V was not really making the decision to go to war and Albert I of the Belgians simply had it thrust upon him. Sultan Mehmed V thought it was a terrible mistake but was not really the man in charge anymore either. However, if some nations were forced into the war the absolute disaster that was made of the peace was forced on no one but the defeated. That is where perhaps the greatest tragedy of the armistice truly resides.

No one forced the major allied leaders to commit the muddled stupidity that resulted in the Treaty of Versailles. It was just the sort of incoherent mess that one could expect to come from the collaboration of a manipulative Welsh socialist, a vindictive French radical (former communard) and a preachy American progressive with no concept of reality. Whereas the Congress of Vienna that ended the Napoleonic Wars was presided over by conservative, practical statesmen, the conference at Versailles was presided over by deceptive, inconsistent, ideological liberals all with conflicting views and goals. No one left happy, no one left satisfied, even on the winners' side and honestly I am sometimes amazed that it only took twenty years for war to break out again. But that's another story. In any event, the conflict that brought down four empires, the war to end war that resulted in a peace to end peace came to a close 92 years ago today. We are still struggling to repair what was destroyed on that day.

Veterans Day

Today it is Veterans Day in America, an occasion to honor all those who have served in uniform on the far flung battlefields where duty called them. In the old days it was known as Armistice Day to commemorate the end of hostilities on the western front in World War I. That is a day I have mixed feelings about to say the least. Of course there was every reason for celebration, particularly by the victorious allied nations, but for all parties in that the slaughter had finally stopped. However, at what cost? The loss of millions of lives, the loss of the Romanov, Hapsburg and Hohenzollern monarchies as well as the fatal weakening of several others whether they knew it at the time or not. It is also hard to be too celebratory about the peace considering how short-lived it was. The post-war peace haggled out at Versailles was a far cry from the (much more successful) Congress of Vienna. If anything it only proves what sort of "peace" the world can expect when all the agreements are made a vindictive Frenchman, a socialist Welshman and a preachy American professor. Instead of peace Europe got a ceasefire for a couple of decades and to say that at least the slaughter was over requires turning away from the fact that an even greater and more inhuman slaughter was to follow it. However, as "Veterans Day" we can at least give all due credit to the brave and long-suffering soldiers who shed their blood across Europe, Africa, Asia and the oceans in that war and in all those since, none of which were of their making but which they fought with a courage and tenacity to do pride to all of their nations.