Skip to comments.Prevailing myths of the Vietnam War
Posted on 01/31/2004 11:41:34 AM PST by William McKinley
THE VIETNAM WAR marked the first time in American history that we waged war not only against a foreign enemy, but against ourselves.
Truth was the first casualty of that internecine fight, which means that now, on the 25th anniversary of our departure from Vietnam, many younger Americans know little about the war other than the grim idiocies passed on by the professors and the press.
Let's refute some of those popular myths. [snip]
Most protesters got involved not because they had lofty feelings about war and peace. They joined in because they were bored, because disobedience was exciting, because the movement provided the next best thing to a dating service and because they wanted a high-minded way to dodge the draft.
In retrospect, the tactics were wonderfully stupid. The Moratorium, which Bill Clinton helped organize in England, was built on the premise that college students could put an end to global conflict merely by standing around in the street and chanting slogans. Instead of inspiring peace, the young scholars goaded communists into waging a broader war on human liberties. The Soviets and their proxy armies concluded that Americans lacked the spirit or will to fight back.
Even worse, anti-war organizations proved to be every bit as delusional as the Pentagon's bean-counters. The boat people proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Vietcong were peddling death and misery -- and yet, left-wing commentators refused to acknowledge the fact. Many still do. Only communism could have turned the Vietnamese people into paupers. Here in America, Vietnamese immigrants have demonstrated their entrepreneurial and economic genius.
Although Ronald Reagan and subsequent presidents have lavished Vietnam vets with praise, we can never give them what they deserve, which is their youth.
We lost nearly 60,000 Americans in a war plagued by shabby planning on one side and a narcissistic anti-war movement on the other. Young people were instructed to fight, but not given the means to win. And when they stumbled home from the hell of jungle warfare, they had to endure taunts from a protest movement that viewed its cowardice as a form of nobility.
This sorry legacy does, however, permit us to formulate a pithy summary of the "lessons of Vietnam." First, if you enter a war, declare war and build popular support. Second, fight to win. Third, honor those who serve. And fourth, remember: A strong military is necessary not just to fight wars, but to prevent them. No sane outfit will mess with a superpower that not only has the means to fight, but the will to punish aggressors.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Perhaps you should rephrase that. :~)
If you want to read a few good books on that part of your life, I would suggest "Vietnam: The Necessary War" by Michael Lind which goes into the whys behind the war as seen from the perspective of decades later, and "Stolen Valor" by B.G. Burkett which goes into how certain politically motivated groups worked to turn the public against the soldiers.
Exactly, of what 'value' is a 'Worldview'...?
(NEA public education)
I might agree with your point if I had any idea what it was. Care to explain it?
Sure,....and....'Diem' would still be alive if he had been a socialist-Buddhist!
You obviously disagree with something for some reason. Beyond that, you are coming through clear as mud.
By looking forward.
LOL......read William McKinley's 'Home Page'......
Worldviews of 'value' do count!
Being a democracy, America is was never monolithic in any of its wars. Anyone here remember the Civil War (Ooops, the 'War Between the States' for my southern in-laws).
He also got wrong that domino theory bit. If the theory worked, than after Burma we'd have lost the Phillipines, Japan, then hopefully California (well, maybe one out of three was true). But it didn't happen because the theory was bogus. In conflicts you pick defensive positions and Vietnam was not one of the best places to defend.
But we did defend there for the better part of two decades and Snow overlooks the biggest myth-- the idea that our efforts were wasted. They weren't because our goal was (or was supposed to have been) containment, not conquest. We contained communism (or at least slowed it down a lot) enough for Reagan to finish it off in the '80's. I'd call it a successful Fabian defense.
So your point is that you are incapable of communicating a point?