Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Peace with honor' We didn't get it in Vietnam and we won't get it in Iraq (ALL NIXON'S FAULT)
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | August 13, 2007 | Junior Marxist NEIL STEINBERG Sun-Times Columnist

Posted on 08/13/2007 5:02:09 AM PDT by Chi-townChief

The next American president can boldly lead our nation in exciting new directions. That at least is the theory. That's why we care so much about the process.

While this does happen, sometimes, the hard truth is that once elected, presidents all too often balk in the face of conflicting constituencies and the drag of bureaucracy. Remember Bill Clinton, a liberal, Democratic progressive who thought he'd permit gays in the military -- a small shift that cost nothing and benefitted the country, its only drawback being the new policy offended hidebound military officers and religious reactionaries.

Couldn't do it. Thwarted. And now the Democratic candidates pause from vying to outdo each other promising how quickly we'll exit Iraq, given the chance, to allow that, well yeah, it might take a long time to end the war.

No kidding. No president, left, right or center, is going to yank our troops out and face the disaster that ensues. And if the cost is continuing death for American soldiers, we've already shown ourselves more than willing to tolerate that.

Richard Nixon squeaked to election in 1968 promising "peace with honor" and vowing to end the war in Vietnam. But he didn't. He expanded it, and four years later he was re-elected by the greatest landslide in American history. Keep that in mind.

mailto:nsteinberg@suntimes.com


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: iraq; liberals; rats; vietnam
Steinberg is evidently quite lacking in his knowledge of fairly recent history. One of the reasons Tricky Dick got the boot is that he was on the verge of "peace with honor" and the rats and commies just could have that.
1 posted on 08/13/2007 5:02:17 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

OOPS - “... the rats and commies just couldN’T have that.”


2 posted on 08/13/2007 5:03:06 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

Little Marxist needs a history lesson....what is wrong with Chicago, how did this great city become so packed with Commie/Socialist?


3 posted on 08/13/2007 5:08:38 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Richard Nixon squeaked to election in 1968 promising "peace with honor" and vowing to end the war in Vietnam. But he didn't.

Ummm... no, he did bring an end to the Vietnam war in regards to U.S. involvement. (peace with honor only comes to the victorious.)

You're right, Chi-town. This writer is a colossal idiot.

4 posted on 08/13/2007 5:12:16 AM PDT by Northern Yankee (Freedom Needs A Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Richard Nixon squeaked to election in 1968 promising "peace with honor" and vowing to end the war in Vietnam. But he didn't. He expanded it, and four years later he was re-elected by the greatest landslide in American history. Keep that in mind.

Nixon did get us out of Vietnam as he promised. The last US combat troops left in March 1973. The Paris Peace Accords were supposed to provide for "peace with honor," but the NVA violated the agreement and Congress stopped the US from responding. Nixon won in a landslide in 1972 because he did get us out of Vietnam.

5 posted on 08/13/2007 5:14:05 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
but the NVA violated the agreement and Congress stopped the US from responding.

Excuse me, but you accidentally omitted the adjective DEMOCRATIC from the noun 'Congress' - my proofreader's eye caught it immediately.

N.B. - When I first typed that, I misspelled 'proofreader.'

6 posted on 08/13/2007 5:25:02 AM PDT by nina0113 (If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Richard Nixon squeaked to election in 1968 promising "peace with honor" and vowing to end the war in Vietnam. But he didn't. He expanded it, and four years later he was re-elected by the greatest landslide in American history.

I think we obtained peace with honor - then we through it away. There was a gap of about a year or two between our departure and the fall of Vietnam. We promised South Vietnam aid. We promised that we would provide military support in the case of a conventional military assault by North Vietnam. The Democratic Congress reneged publicly on both promises early. While we sent nothing, the Soviet Union provided about $9B in aid. The North Vietnamese came in with more tanks than Patton had in World War Two. We could abandon Korea today. But that wouldn’t mean that we did not win the Korean war. For Vietnam, the span of time between victory and abandonment was short enough that the press was able to present it as one event - defeat.
7 posted on 08/13/2007 5:34:02 AM PDT by ChessExpert (Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He does not anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Nixon won in a landslide in 1972 because he did get us out of Vietnam.

Nixon won in 72 in a landslide because McGovern was a complete Idiot (although he would fit right in with today's democrat wackos )

Nixon was a disaster for Conservatives

The liberal should erect a monument to him.
He implemented all their programs
8 posted on 08/13/2007 5:39:43 AM PDT by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

Absolutely - even in early ‘75, the commies advancing on “highway 1” could have been blasted to smithereens with air support as promised back in ‘72-’73.


9 posted on 08/13/2007 5:40:54 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert; kabar
Correction to self. “threw” not “through”

"I think we obtained peace with honor - then we threw it away."

“The last US combat troops left in March 1973.” kabar

Saigon fell April 30th, 2005.

I think we won the war. The Democratic Congress abandoned South Vietnam. It took two years for the North Vietnamese, backed by the Soviet Union, to prepare, mobilize, and conquer.

10 posted on 08/13/2007 5:43:21 AM PDT by ChessExpert (Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He does not anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

In terms of US military involvement, Nixon did not expand the war in Vietnam. Instead, through the policy of “Vietnamization,” Nixon announced in June 1969 in a press conference on Midway Island following a meeting with President Thieu that the US would conduct a phased troop withdrawal that would occur in 14 stages from July 1969 through November 1972. The last US combat troops left Vietnam on March 29,1973 as President Nixon declares “the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come.” The last American soldier to die in combat in Vietnam, Lt. Col. William B. Nolde, was killed on January 27, 1973.

On January 23, 1973 - President Nixon announced that an agreement has been reached which will “end the war and bring peace with honor.” On January 27, 1973 the Paris Peace Accords are signed by the U.S., North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. Under the terms, the U.S. agrees to immediately halt all military activities and withdraw all remaining military personnel within 60 days. The North Vietnamese agree to an immediate cease-fire and the release of all American POWs within 60 days. An estimated 150,000 North Vietnamese soldiers presently in South Vietnam are allowed to remain. Vietnam is still divided. South Vietnam is considered to be one country with two governments, one led by President Thieu, the other led by Viet Cong, pending future reconciliation.

December 13, 1974 - North Vietnam violates the Paris peace treaty and tests President Ford’s resolve by attacking Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam. President Ford responds with diplomatic protests but no military force in compliance with the Congressional ban on all U.S. military activity in Southeast Asia

On January 8, 1975 the - NVA general staff plan for the invasion of South Vietnam by 20 divisions is approved by North Vietnam’s Politburo. By now, the Soviet-supplied North Vietnamese Army is the fifth largest in the world. It anticipates a two year struggle for victory. But in reality, South Vietnam’s forces will collapse in only 55 days.

January 14, 1975 - Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger states that the U.S. is not living up to its earlier promise to South Vietnam’s President Thieu of “severe retaliatory action” in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty.

April 21, 1975 - A bitter, tearful President Thieu resigns during a 90 minute rambling TV speech to the people of South Vietnam. Thieu reads from the letter sent by Nixon in 1972 pledging “severe retaliatory action” if South Vietnam was threatened. Thieu condemns the Paris Peace Accords, Henry Kissinger and the U.S. “The United States has not respected its promises. It is inhumane. It is untrustworthy. It is irresponsible.” He is then ushered into exile in Taiwan, aided by the CIA.

April 30, 1975 - At 8:35 a.m., the last Americans, ten Marines from the embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam. North Vietnamese troops pour into Saigon and encounter little resistance. By 11 a.m., the red and blue Viet Cong flag flies from the presidential palace. President Minh broadcasts a message of unconditional surrender. The war is over.

The South Vietnamese had fought on for almost two years after the US ceased military involvement in Vietnam. Nixon had fulfilled his promise made in 1968 that he would end the war in Vietnam. He won in a landslide in November 1972 precisely because he kept his promise. By the end of 1972, there were less than 15,000 US military personnel left in Vietnam, i.e., Army advisors and administrators remaining to assist South Vietnam’s military forces. At the end of 1968, just before Nixon took office in January 1969, U.S. troop levels reached 495,000.


11 posted on 08/13/2007 5:47:58 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
Steinberg is evidently quite lacking in his knowledge of fairly recent history.

The author is a 'born-yesterday' historian... with his sole source, the NYTimes and few, spittled rants from Chris Matthews.

12 posted on 08/13/2007 5:49:33 AM PDT by johnny7 ("But that one on the far left... he had crazy eyes")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nina0113
I prefer DEMOCRAT Congress.
13 posted on 08/13/2007 5:50:14 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Nixon was a disaster for conservatives. He instituted wage and price controls, established COLAs and affirmative action and greatly expanded bureaucracy. I have never understood why the liberals hated him.
14 posted on 08/13/2007 5:55:00 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

It always comes back to Gays, do these people ever have a thought that doesn’t concern Gays?


15 posted on 08/13/2007 6:16:50 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

Like most “journalists” today Steinberg seems to get his history lessons from pop documentaries and television “news” personalities. An accurate account how congressional Democrats squandered victory in Vietnam is here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101faessay84604/melvin-r-laird/iraq-learning-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html


16 posted on 08/13/2007 6:16:58 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee ("A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
I have never understood why the liberals hated him.

The "D" next to his name had an "R" in it.

17 posted on 08/13/2007 6:35:36 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Just RAT.


18 posted on 08/13/2007 6:41:43 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief

Big let down coming for the Anti American Left coming up.

Does not matter if you elect Hillary in 2008. The second it no longer becomes an issue to beat President Bush over the head with, these same Democrats are magically going to discover why we need to stay in Iraq. It is shaping up to be the big Clinton betrayal for 2008. The same way Bill Clinton did not intend to pursue a “Middle Class Tax cut” in 1992, Hillary knows she will not be able to cut and run from Iraq.

One can argue that we should not be so dependent on ME oil, what cannot be argued is we are depended on it. Like it or not, the free flow of oil from that part of the world is a vital US National Security Interest. Our economic well-being, and thus our national security, depends on it.

Iraq sits on anywhere (depending on whose figures you use) from the second largest, to the fifth largest, oil reserves in the world. No US Administration is going to be able to walk away from Iraq. That is just reality.


19 posted on 08/13/2007 6:47:02 AM PDT by MNJohnnie ("Todays (military's) task is three dimensional chess in the dark". General Rick Lynch in Baghdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
Nixon also created the EPA. Their de facto worldwide ban on DDT cost many lives in Africa. It would be interesting to see a cost benefit analyis of the EPA that included the lost lives due to the DDT ban. I suspect the EPA has done more harm than good.

I think liberals hate Nixon because of MSM. Influential editors and writers in the MSM hated Nixon because of his successful anti-communism that included the unmasking of Alger Hiss. Like Ken Starr, Nixon would not allow the left to dismiss the truth. The left hates Bush for many reasons. But I think it started with Bush frustrating the left’s attempt to steal the 2000 election. Liberals just hate to be crossed, and carry a grudge.

Your on the street liberal is liberal because of what he gets from the MSM. This person has almost no memory. His memory is supplied by the MSM. But editors at the NYTs, Washington Post, etc, never forget when someone crosses them successfully (e.g. Nixon, Starr, Bush). When that happens, it's personal.

20 posted on 08/13/2007 6:49:16 AM PDT by ChessExpert (Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He does not anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984

Add detente and failure to win the war in Vietnam to that (he should have cranked up the B52s just like he did to get the POWs back ) the day after he took office when he still had war support

And his biggest disaster —helping drag China into being a global power (why Reagan didn’t reverse that policy like he did Detente is beyond me )


21 posted on 08/13/2007 6:58:22 AM PDT by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
I have never understood why the liberals hated him.

Payback for Alger Hiss. If you haven't read Witness, by Whittaker Chambers, move it to the top of your list.

22 posted on 08/13/2007 7:13:19 AM PDT by nina0113 (If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kabar
I prefer DEMOCRAT Congress.

Rats. I never can keep those straight.

23 posted on 08/13/2007 7:14:53 AM PDT by nina0113 (If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984

Alger Hiss and that semi-commie female candidate for the California supreme court that he derailed.


24 posted on 08/13/2007 6:10:17 PM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

As a veteran of the Vietnam War from August of 1969 to January of 1971, serving as an infantry squad leader in a mechanized infantry company, and with another unit as a tank commander on an M48A3 tank; I am keenly interested in the distortions, lies, and half truths perpetuated about the Vietnam war by many of those who helped to undermine the US effort there. Much of the conventional understanding of the US involvement in the South East Asian conflict indicates a general disapproval of the United States war effort, and an acceptance of the oft regurgitated leftist conventional wisdom as to it’s historical course and outcome. That is painting the American war effort in Vietnam as misguided at best and an imperialistic effort to establish SE Asian capitalistic hegemony at worst. The antiwar left is portrayed as being noble and idealistic rather than populated by a hard core that actively hoped and worked for a US defeat, the US government as destructive of basic civil liberties in its attempt to monitor their activities, and the North Vietnamese and Vietcong as nationalists who wished to preserve their unique culture against an imperialistic onslaught. The South Vietnamese government’s struggle to survive a ruthless Communist assault while engaging in an unwarranted assault on human rights .while ignoring the numerous genocidal atrocities of the Vietcong (VC) and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) is also part of this narrative. The deceptive reporting of the Tet Offensive, the Communist’s worse defeat among numberless hundreds of others was probably the most grievous deceit perpetuated by the Press .

The reason that the United States opposed nationwide elections that were to be held in accordance with the 1954 Geneva accords was due to the murder and intimidation campaigns carried out by Ho Chi Minh. This fact is in Professor R. J. Runnel’s book Death by Government, in which he cites a low estimate of 15,000 and a high figure of 500,000 people in the “murder by quota” campaign directed by the North Vietnamese Communist Party Politburo that would have made the election a corrupt mockery. This campaign stipulated that 5% of the people living in each village and hamlet had to be liquidated, preferably those identified as members of the “ruling class.” All told says Runnel, between 1953 and 1956 it is likely that the Communists killed 195,000 to 865,000 North Vietnamese. These were non combatant men, women, and children, and hardly represent evidence of the moral high ground claimed by many in the antiwar movement. In 1956, high Communist official Nguyen Manh Tuong admitted that “while destroying the landowning class, we condemned numberless old people and children to a horrible death.” The same genocidal pattern became the Communists’ standard operating procedure in the South too. This was unequivocally demonstrated by the Hue Massacre, which the press did a great deal to downplay in its reporting of the Tet Offensive of 1968.

The National Liberation Front was the creation of the North Vietnamese Third Party Congress of September 1960, completely directed from North Vietnam. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a disastrous military defeat for the North Vietnamese and that the VC were almost wiped out by the fighting, and that it took the NVA until 1971 to reestablish a presence using North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. The North Vietnam military senior commanders repeatedly said that they counted on the U.S. antiwar movement to give them the confidence to persevere in the face of their staggering battlefield personnel losses and defeats. The antiwar movement prevented the feckless President Lyndon Johnson from granting General Westmoreland’s request to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail or end his policies of publicly announced gradualist escalation. The North Vietnamese knew cutting this trail would severely damage their ability to prosecute the war. Since the North Vietnamese could continue to use the Ho Chi Minh Trail lifeline, the war was needlessly prolonged for the U.S. and contributed significantly to the collapse of South Vietnam. The casualties sustained by the NVA and VC were horrendous, (1.5 million dead) and accorded well with Gen. Ngyuen Giap’s publicly professed disdain for the lives of individuals sacrificed for the greater cause of Communist victory. They were as thoroughly beaten as a military force can be given the absence of an invasion and occupation of their nation. The Soviets and Chinese recognized this, and they put pressure on their North Vietnamese allies to accept this reality and settle up at the Paris peace talks. Hanoi’s party newspaper Nhan Dan angrily denounced the Chinese and Soviets for “throwing a life bouy to a drowning pirate” and for being “mired on the dark and muddy road of unprincipled compromise.” The North Viets intransigent attitude toward negotiation was reversed after their air defenses were badly shattered in the wake of the devastating B-52 Linebacker II assault on North Vietnam, after which they were totally defenseless against American air attack.

To this day the anti-war movement as a whole refuses to acknowledge its part in the deaths of millions in Laos and Cambodia and in the subsequent exodus from South East Asia as people fled Communism, nor the imprisonment of thousands in Communist re-education camps and gulags.

South Vietnam was NOT defeated by a local popular insurgency. The final victorious North Vietnamese offensive was a multidivisional, combined arms effort lavishly equipped with Soviet and Chinese supplied tanks, self-propelled artillery, and aircraft. It was the type of blitzkrieg that Panzer General Heinz Guederian would have easily recognized. I didn’t recall seeing any barefoot, pajama-clad guerrillas jumping out of those tanks in the newsreel footage that showed them crashing through the gates of the presidential palace in Saigon. This spectacle was prompted by the pusillanimous withdrawal of Congressional support for the South Vietnamese government in the wake of the Watergate scandal, which particularly undermined this aspect of President Nixon’s foreign policy. It should be noted that a similar Communist offensive in the spring of 1972 was smashed, largely by US air power; with relatively few US ground troops in place. At the Paris Accords in 1973, the Soviet Union had agreed to reduce aid in offensive arms to North Vietnam in exchange for trade concessions from the US, effectively ending North Vietnams hopes for a military victory in the south. With the return of cold war hostilities in the wake of the Yom Kippur war after Congress revoked the Soviet’s MFN trading status, the Reds poured money and offensive military equipment into North Vietnam. South Vietnam would still be a viable nation today were it not for this nation’s refusal to live up to it’s treaty obligations to the South Vietnamese, most important to reintervene should they invade South Vietnam.

There is one primary similarity to Vietnam. A seditious near traitorous core of anti-war protesters is trying to undermine U.S. efforts there with half-truths, lies, and distortions. In that respect, the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam are very similar. A significant difference is that thus far the current anti-war movement has not succeeded in manifesting contempt for the American military on the part of the general U.S. public as it did in the Vietnam era.

When I was in Vietnam, I recall many discussions with my fellow soldiers about the course of the war in Vietnam and their feelings about it. Many, if not most felt that “We Gotta Get Outta this Place,” to cite a popular song of the time by Eric Burden and the Animals, but for the most part they felt we should do it by fighting the war in a manner calculated to win it. I do not recall anyone ever saying that they felt the North Vietnamese could possibly defeat us on the battlefield, but to a man they were mystified by the U.S. Government’s refusal to fight in a manner that would assure military victory. Even though there was much resentment for the antiwar movement, and some (resentment) toward career professional soldiers, I never saw anyone who did not do his basic duty and many did FAR MORE THAN THAT as a soldier. Nineteen of my friends have their names on the Vietnam War Memorial Wall in Washington DC. They deserve to have the full truth told about the effort for which they gave their young lives. The U.S. public is not well served by half-truths and lies by omission about such a significant period in our history, particularly with their relevance toward our present fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.


25 posted on 08/13/2007 6:10:43 PM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank; kabar
Thanks both for your outstanding posts (#11 and #25) on this important event in American history. I recommend you provide these posts to a additional audiences, for example, Townhall.com. You might even beard the lion in his den and post to liberal sites such as Newsweek or CBS.
26 posted on 08/16/2007 5:46:34 AM PDT by ChessExpert (Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He does not anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert; DMZFrank
I had an interesting exchange of emails with the author, Steinberg. His last response was as follows:

"Thank you for your persuasive argument -- I'll review the history -- I'll admit I'm flying by the seat of my pants here -- and adjust my views accordingly."

NS

I am constantly amazed about the general ignorance of the Fourth Estate when it comes to the Vietnam era. Revisionist history has poisoned a whole generation.

27 posted on 08/16/2007 5:54:18 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

What can I say about this post? Astounding clarity? Well said?

I’m thinking about putting a link to this post on my profile page. Vietnam - The rest of the story.


28 posted on 08/23/2007 5:33:17 AM PDT by listenhillary (millions crippled by the war on poverty....but we won't pull out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson