The Road To Hell

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

And a lot of the free world in LBJ's day was worried about the Domino effect of Communism
In Viet Nam, the enemy was not Communism, it was nationalism. You know: “Dont Tread on Me”

I would suggest that the seeds of Vietminh’s final success sprang from deep roots within the national psyche of the Vietnamese people themselves way before the clashes with the USA began to boil.

The centuries old Vietnamese value of autonomous self governance served them well in their war with America during the twenty year period of their conflict. Strangely their historic nationalist world view seems to have been completely overlooked by USA military planners as it prepared for direct combat.

USA planners had no idea of the age old guerrilla mindset they were taking on.

Completely ignorant that this people had seen off none other than Genghis Khan and the Mongols after they’d swept across China, and had struggled against Chinese rule for 1000 years. Their resistance to Chinese domination over such a long time had helped forge a national identity described by historian William Turley as “a myth of national indomitability.”

Add to the above their engagements with the Portuguese, Dutch and (most inexcusably on America’s part) their decapitation of French Rule after 100 years when General Vo Nguyen Giap afflicted his humiliatingly crushing blow at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu against them in 1954.

Taking the long view America should have clearly recognized that the very imprint of self autonomy, was passed on to each Vietnamese child suckling at their mother’s breasts as night follows day.

These would not be easy people to fight.

This fundamental oversight was I believe a major underlying cause by which America blundered into the Vietnam War - blindly believing themselves to be almost invincible. In the words of Henry Kissinger reviewing the Vietnam conflict…

“We ignored the oldest and most fundamental rule of warfare - know your enemy.”


It wasn’t therefore that the Vietnamese were necessarily consumed with hatred for the USA - rather they were vehemently opposed to outside rule from pretty much anywhere.

Vietnam simply wanted to rule itself and had (reasonably successfully) resisted successive waves of outside aggressors for so long that enduring bloodshed had become almost a national pastime.

Having been so often outnumbered by each new invader, the Vietnamese had developed a resolute military response which combined immeasurable patience alongside guerilla warfare. In essence they always took the long view - even as long as centuries in scope if required.

Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap outlined this as the concept of waging protracted war. It was indelibly stamped within every Vietnamese insurgents thinking that they needed only to avoid losing in order to win their struggle eventually. By sitting tight they’d suck the life out of the invader… slowly.

They were right.

If the US had not withdrawn from Viet Nam, We would be fighting there still.

By the way, the Afghans have also been fending off invaders since the time of Genghis Khan and the Mongols. They are also a fiercely independent people.

Since 1747 when Ahmad Shah Durrani established the country of Afghanistan in Kandahar, to guarantee the independence of Afghanistan by acclaiming sovereignty from the neighboring powers, Afghanistan has managed to always remain an independent nation.

This became particularly difficult in the 19th century, when the European powers of England and Russia both tried to occupy this strategic territory in what became known as "the Great Game". Afghanistan fought for its sovereignty in three Anglo-Afghan wars (1839-43, 1878-1880 and 1919) while also fending off Russian and Iranian intrigues.

You know: “Dont Tread on Me”

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

ScottL wrote:
ladajo wrote:And for the record, We are the World Police whether anyone likes it or not. If it is not our guys doing the heavy lifting, we are paying for someone to do it. Don't be so niave.
cue the banjo and shotguns...

Believing it true and it being true are not exclusive, and to be bluntly I don't believe you were part of the Bush Administration nor the CIA. I don't think there's much to say past that at this time.
I am glad you do not, because I was not, and also am not.

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

forced the enemy to fight on ground of our choosing
This is a point lost on many.

As for Saddam, going after him was not about Al Queda directly. It was an indirect attack, that worked well in the end. The Al-Queda moths were attracted to the flame of Iraq, and that conflict did a great deal in helping us ferret out the International lines of communication. The flame in Afghansitan did not do that, as the conflict was more a local v. local with well established networks. Staking out a new fight in Iraq caused the Al Queade network to need to establish new LOCs and structures, and by doing so brought existing transnational LOCs into the light as they moved to support the "New Fight".

This was a brilliant move on our part IMO, and it has since caused incredible damage to the entire Al Queade structure that alowwed us to choke off and eliminate many tentacles. I explained this to my foreign collegues in the middle east back in 03 during the final spin up, and most of them did not get it. Now they get it. Look at the gains made especially in Europe ferreting out body and money LOCs. There has been a massive amount of progress internationally in blocking funding LOCs that go around the planet. It was not accident the both Zawahiri and Bin Laden had sent out communiques begging funds. Back in the day, they were the sources of funds.

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Axil,
We have been down the Viet Nam and other wars road here before. A good read to expand your insights if you haven't already done it is Andrew Krepeninevich's "The Army and Vietnam". Give a first skim to pages 131-about 270. Then read the whole thing. Look to understand insurgency tactics regarding the Vietnamese, and the entire concept of Dau Tranh (which we did not figure out until too late, but once we did we countered brilliantly, and in a manner that rails against your ideas above). Antoher good read is Eric Bergeron's, "The Dynamics of Defeat, The Vietnam War in Hau Nghia Province". This is another good book to pick out insights on Dau Tranh, as well as American activities. Alot of good things to ponder from pages 223 to 231.
You also can not be complete in understanding the American Way of War without a flip through Mark Clodfelters, "The Limits of Air Power, The American Bombing of North Vietnam". He gives a good account of what worked and why, as well as what did not.
On eof the books on the table today that is on vogue for counterinsurgency planners is Galula's, "Counterinsurgency Warfare, Theory and Practice" and another is Antonio Giustozzi's, "Koran, Kalashnikov, and Laptop, The Neo-Taliban Insuregency in Afghanistan". Another piece that has a divided fan base in professional circles is David Kilcullen's, "The Accidental Guerilla, Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One". I personally think you can draw out some salient points from his personal experiences.

Another good general read, which I am not sure you have read based on your comments is Weigley's, "The American Way of War". It is a good primer on American War Policy, and helps frame the why's and wherefore's of our means, ways and ends.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

I'd avoid the Vietnam war stories, that was bad news all over it. Not only did we back a political power in Vietnam, but we had the gaul to then back the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia when the Vietnamese deposed them. We knowingly backed a party committing genocide on its own people.

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

That is not exaclty accurate. We spent considerable effort trying to undo the corruption, and in a few cases did so pretty well. The biggest problem, is that once we figured out how to do it, we just packed up and left. There is a huge part of the war that is a blank for the American public. It is there to study if wanted, but no one seems to care in general. They would rather talk about the "bad news" part and live on that. Shame. Does a great disservice to those that tried hard and did good. We drew heavily on that experience to correct mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were not new ideas, but ones well vetted in Vietnam.
This has also been discussed here before (by me and others).
Oh well.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

ladajo wrote:That is not exaclty accurate. We spent considerable effort trying to undo the corruption, and in a few cases did so pretty well. The biggest problem, is that once we figured out how to do it, we just packed up and left. There is a huge part of the war that is a blank for the American public. It is there to study if wanted, but no one seems to care in general. They would rather talk about the "bad news" part and live on that. Shame. Does a great disservice to those that tried hard and did good. We drew heavily on that experience to correct mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were not new ideas, but ones well vetted in Vietnam.
This has also been discussed here before (by me and others).
Oh well.
We did no such thing in Cambodia. We funded the Khmer Rouge to defend against the Vietnamese because we were fighting them. The Khmer Rouge funded by us committed a genocide, killing over 2 million people while we looked the other way. We as people never entered Cambodia.....our bombs however most definitely did. When Vietnamese soldiers fled through the jungle, to be sure "we got them" we bombed Cambodian villages in Cambodia. We're not a very morale country when it comes to war.

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

War is about winning.

Just War is a different but related discussion. One, I am guessing you have not done much (no offense intended).

We did enter Cambodia and Laos. We even stayed there a while.
Have you ever read the Historical Fiction, "For the sake of all living things"? Interesting read if you have not. Does a good job of an inside view to the Khmer Rouge and its relations with the Vietnamese.

I think the biggest tragedy that you are missing coming out of the Vietnam War was the US sacrifice of Taiwan to China, and subsequent Global Stage Setting complication. IMO, it was no accident that the Chinese assumed the Security Council Seat, and I argue that it was done as an effort by Nixon and Kissinger to get China to step back and give us a free hand in Vietnam (which they did, and we did). However, other events overtook our efforts, namely Watergate and some other silliness. Too bad, we had a win in our hands. With China on board, we did not need to worry so much about the bush country (Cambodia and Laos). And, oh by the way, the Vietnamese Communists(Nationalists) were very much interested in grabbing up as much territory as they could. This was one of the reasons that China was willing to sell them out, the Chinese were annoyed with the Vietnamese walking their own path both inside and outside of Vietnam. Theirs was most certainly not a marraige made in heaven. And it certainly did not last.
However, we certainly asked for issues down the road by granting the PRC the permanent chair at the UN. Oh well. Always a balance of some kind.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

The Cambodian Campaign (also known as the Cambodian Incursion) was a series of military operations conducted in eastern Cambodia during mid-1970 by the United States (U.S.) and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) during the Vietnam War. These invasions were a result of policy of President Richard Nixon whose decision it was to invade. A total of 13 major operations were conducted by the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) between 29 April and 22 July and by U.S. forces between 1 May and 30 June.

The objective of the campaign was the defeat of the approximately 40,000 troops of the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF, also known as Viet Cong) who were ensconced in the eastern border regions of Cambodia. As great a prize as the defeat of these forces was the possibility of the occupation and destruction of large communist base areas and sanctuaries, which had been protected by Cambodian neutrality since their establishment in 1966. As far as the U.S. was concerned, such a course of action would provide a shield behind which the policy of Vietnamization and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Vietnam could proceed unmolested.
We did not occupy Cambodia, we entered militaristically even though they were neutral.
The relation between the massive carpet bombing of Cambodia by the United States and the growth of the Khmer Rouge, in terms of recruitment and popular support, has been a matter of interest to historians. In 1984 Craig Etcheson of the Documentation Center of Cambodia argued that it is "untenable" to assert that the Khmer Rouge would not have won but for U.S. intervention and that while the bombing did help Khmer Rouge recruitment, they "would have won anyway."[
We made an alliance with a political group who was mass murdering their people and we knew. Our hands are not clean. Breaking neutraility is bad enough, but supporting mass killing via funding and weapons is even worse. I recommend meeting with survivors (I have) and listening to their stories. The atrocities that may have not been as bad without U.S. interference.

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

We did not occupy Cambodia, we entered militaristically even though they were neutral.
Uhh, nope. Sorry, we did have "permanent" operating positions in Cambodia and Laos. And I would hardly call "them" neutral, that would be niave.
We made an alliance with a political group who was mass murdering their people and we knew. Our hands are not clean. Breaking neutraility is bad enough, but supporting mass killing via funding and weapons is even worse. I recommend meeting with survivors (I have) and listening to their stories. The atrocities that may have not been as bad without U.S. interference.
You make a pretty big leap here. In fact, you come off like an idealistic misinformed undergrad that has yet to graduate. Your paste even argues against you.
In 1984 Craig Etcheson...argued...it is "untenable" to assert ...<they> would not have won but for U.S. intervention and...they "would have won anyway".
Can you show any sort of treaty, MOU, MOA, or something showing an official agreement between the US government and Khmer Rouge? Since when did we side with communists in Vietnam? You are making a sophomoric leap here.

The bottom line is that we conducted military operations in Laos and Cambodia against Vietnamese and opportunistic communist supporters (Khmer Rouge is one). We did this with the knowledge of the Laotian and Cambodian governments of the time. By the time the Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia in 1975, we were gone. And by 1977, the Khmer Rouge was begging China to help them fight against their former "buddies" the communist Vietnamese.

The killing fields happened for the most part after we bailed.

But you are fully correct, the national will at the time was to tough it out, stick around and fight all the bad guys. What were we thinking as a nation...why the US public must have been really pissed at the Ford Administration for bringing the military home.

Again, you should give a read to Del Vecchio's, "For the sake of all living things".

And by the by, I have been to SE Asia, and have numerous friends from the various countries. If you want, I can even give an ask to a couple of currently serving Vietnamese military officers and ask them what they think of US Alliance with the Khmer Rouge back in the day.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Ladajo, you didn't read what I said did you? You skimmed it didn't you?
We made an alliance with a political group who was mass murdering their people and we knew.
but supporting mass killing via funding and weapons is even worse.
Sorry couldn't find anything in there that I inferred we wrote a treaty, MOU, or MOA, we gave them weapons in the guise of fending off the Vietnamese while knowing they were killing their own people.

Khmer Rouge:
"We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries" who do not 'belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina."(Ieng Sary, 1977, quoted by Vickery, Cambodia: 1978-1983, p. 288).
"The US not only helped to create conditions that brought Cambodia's Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pot's exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support -- $85 million from 1980-86 -- was revealed 6 years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation."

In 1981, Pres. Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. The US", he added, "winked publicly" as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge(KR) through Thailand."

In 1980, under US pressure, the World Food Program handed over food worth $12 million to the Thai Army to pass on to the KR. According to former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke,'20,000 to 40,000 Pol Pot guerrillas benefited. This aid helped restore the KR to a fighting force, based in Thailand, from which it destabilized Cambodia for more than a decade.

In 1982, the US and China, supported by Singapore, invented the Coalition of the Democratic Government of Kampuchea, which was, as Ben Kiernan pointed out, neither a coalition, nor democratic, nor a government, not in Kampuchea. Rather, it was what the CIA calls a 'master illusion.' ... Cambodia's former ruler, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, was appointed its head; otherwise little changed. The KR dominated the two "non-communist" members, the Sihanoukists and the Khmer Peoples' National Liberation Front (KPNLF). From his office at the UN, Pol Pot's ambassador, the urbane Thereon Parish, continued to speak for Cambodia. A close associate of Pol Pot, he had in 1975 called on Khmer expatriates to return home, whereupon many of them disappeared.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/ ... potnus.pdf

If you'd like I can link you to several academic papers on the subject. This is a subject I have had the honor of learning about from first-hand witnesses and survivors. Their resilience is amazing and something I can't imagine ever having.

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

So what you are telling me is that you have discovered that China was the principle supporter of the Khmer Rouge, as a proxy to mess with the Soviets and Vietnam, and that the US in an attempt to curry favor with China, supported their efforts to mess with the Soviets, as well as exact a level of revenge on Vietnam. In the middle was Cambodia. Welcome to the world young man.

If you want to make a crusade against the US government, you should make friends with Noam Chomsky and tell him that he is a stable well centered rational man. Then tell him that it is a crime that the US government has gotten away with so many horrible things. Of course you will have to ignore the fact that he is a bit schizophrenic, and has trouble dealing with reality slaps in the face. Hopefully you can manage.

You would do better to argue your point if you tied your thesis to the timelines involved. You should not jump around history and say that it was always so. Geo-politics is a constantly morphing animal. It changes sometimes rapidly and brutally. Your argument (not really yours but Noam Chomsky's in fact) does not really hold water. The US is certainly not directly responsible for the deaths of 2 million Cambodians. US "support" for the Khmer Rouge came after they got tossed out of Cambodian by the Vietnamese. US "support" certainly did not occur during the Khmer Rouge take over of Cambodia, with its corrosponding mass murders between 1975 and 1978. In fact, during that period, as I recall, Carter publically labelled Pol Pot & His Red Khmer buddies as murdering sickos. Then along came Reagan. Stick to the timeline.

If you have trouble with the timeline, go watch the PBS Frontline documentary on Cambodia that is out there on the internet somewhere. I am sure your google tool can find it.

In the meantime, here is a snippet from Human Rights Watch to help you sort this out in your head:
The Khmer Rouge came to power at the end of the United States' war in Indochina. Led by Pol Pot and Nuon Chea, the Khmer Rouge was in power from April 17, 1975 to January 7, 1979. Estimates suggest that as many as 2 million of Cambodia's 8 million people were killed or died from disease, starvation, or forced labor during this period.

After the Khmer Rouge carried out numerous cross-border attacks on Vietnam in which hundreds of villagers were massacred, the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia. It pushed the Khmer Rouge out of Phnom Penh on January 7, 1979. The Khmer Rouge retreated to the Thai border, where it received support from Thailand, China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore and others for the next decade.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/01/05/camb ... ll-elusive

Your argument is about as sensible as the Armenian pursuit of the Turkish Government for Genocide. I can't wait to hear what you have to say about that.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Ladajo, you've continuously ignored what I've posted....completely, making up your own seemingly off responses. Let me summarize:

We (U.S.) supported the Khmer Rouge while they committed genocide.

Not just before, not just after, but during (link provided below, check time lines). Whether this was a shot at Russia, communism, etc, is irrelevent. We indirectly supported mass killings by providing food, munitions, and funding. Yes we directed these things through China, but we did them regardless. This has been supported by evidence time and again, so I'm not sure what you're even arguing now.

At what point are you going to admit that a U.S. policy really screwed over another nation?

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/us.html#policy

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Scott,
You remain confused. You are mixing definitions at will to suit your argument. Please define clearly "support" and "while". Support requires an active commitment, vice abstinance. While requires occurance at the same time.

The US, as I previously stated, used the Chinese and others to contain, and even exact a certain level of revenge on Vietnam and cause pain for the Soviets. Camdobia was a tool in the middle. You have taken selective clippings, and left out the parts where the administration was clear in its opinion of Khmer Rouge. We did not support the genocide, and yes, because of our interest in China and others, we "looked away". This was a decision based in the lessor of evils. Carter even publically condemed the Khmer Rouge for its actions, as well as Kissinger espressed his distaste on many occasions. You are cherry picking. At best the Khmer Rouge fit the enemy of my enemy is my friends distasteful tool concept.

Again, show me where we made direct agreements, provided direct support and top cover.

I repost my earlier statement:
So what you are telling me is that you have discovered that China was the principle supporter of the Khmer Rouge, as a proxy to mess with the Soviets and Vietnam, and that the US in an attempt to curry favor with China, supported their efforts to mess with the Soviets, as well as exact a level of revenge on Vietnam. In the middle was Cambodia. Welcome to the world young man.
And yes, Virginia, US policy has screwed over many nations. Especially ones we have not been happy with. You are missing the bigger picture still. The entire point of building up China was an effective strategy, ultimately helping lead to victory over the Soviets with the cold war. That said, it did however provide genesis for the future issue of how to deal with China once Russia fell apart. Once we (the US) figured out that we could leverage China against the Soviets effectively, it was not long before the russians started to unravel. However, as stated, we borrowed against future China conflict to do this. In the end, I think it was a good call. Face one at a time, vice all at once.
Cambodia is a mere blip on the radar of much larger Geo-Political issues and world stability. I am sorry for the cambodians, as well I am for many other nations that have been dealt shyte deals and the hands of powerful states. But better that than general global war where everyone loses and dies.

I am not sure who you are looking to hang for this, but as I said earlier, if you want to hang somebody, you need to hang the US public. Of the people, by the people, for the people. Selfish bastards we are. Noam Chomsky, your hero, would love to see the american people hang.

Please read your references fully and put them in full context.
The US did not support the genocide. China, however, did. And, it was not in our interest at that moment to contest it. It put the screws to Vietnam and Russia.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

I think many Cambodian's would take offense rightly so to your comment that what happened to them was a mere blip. If what happened to them is a blip, then so must be the jewish holocaust.

Post Reply