Is this soon to occur in Iraq?

[The_Professor]

…the North Vietnamese evidently believed that by spring of 1972 their strategy had succeeded. They believed that the United States was no longer capable of supporting South Vietnam. They then selected a new center of gravity – the destruction of South Vietnamese Armed Forces – and once again massed their forces to assume the tactical offensive. On 29 March 1972 North Vietnam launched what was to become known as the Eastertide Offensive. It becan with an armored attack across the DMV. Leaving two divisions on Laos and one as a strategic reserve, North Vietnam committed some 12 divisions – a total of about 150,000 men – to the attack on South Vietnam. Supported by tanks, heavy artillery and mobile antiaircraft units, they had some initial success. But they had severely miscalculated both the fighting ability of the South Vietnamese Army and the ability of the United States to react. As President Nixon said, “The bastards have never been bombed like they’re going to be bombed this time.” By July 1972, the North Vietnamese had reverted to the tactical defensive. Their attempt to mass had proven disastrous – again over 100,000 battle deaths.

Note that this was in 1972, and it was an invasion from the North, not some kind of insurgency or guerrilla warfare or civil war. This was flat out invasion by World War II sized forces, equipped with Soviet trucks and armor and ammunition; and the result was total defeat for the North (many fewer than 50,000 of those sent south ever got home again) and a total VICTORY for the United States and our South Vietnamese allies.

Why would anyone call this a defeat for the United States?

Because, of course, in 1975 the North did it again. Not an insurgency, not a guerrilla war, not a civil war, but a flat out invasion by more than 12 divisions, a World War II sized operation; and this time, instead of supporting our South Vietnamese allies, the United States, on orders from the Congress of the United States, did not give any air support and limited our materiel aid to twenty (20) cartridges and two (2) hand grenades for each South Vietnamese soldier. South Viet Nam accordingly fell, the United States bugged out with the pathetic scenes of escapes from the roof of the embassy and pushing helicopters off the decks of carriers to make room for incoming. We bugged out, and the Reeducation Camps, Boat People, Killing Fields, and other horrors began.

But we were not defeated. We withdrew on orders from the Congress. That wasn't defeat.

The last time we engaged in Viet Nam we, without our South Vietnamese allies, won a great victory.

Breaking an alliance with phased withdrawal is not defeat. It only feels that way. Perhaps it ought to feel that way -- but our troops were ready to engage the advancing North Vietnamese armored divisions. They didn't cut and run. They were ordered to stand down and watch the slaughter of their former allies and friends and soldiers they had trained.

God help us. God forgive us.

Is this coming soon in Iraq?

www.jerrypournelle.com

[Xavier_Onassis]

IF this does happen, this time we need to blame the assholes than got us into the mess in the first place.

We could argue forever over who was really responsible for getting the US into Vietnam and even worse, staying there: The Dulles brothers, JFK, LBJ, Nixon...

But it is crystal clear which morons got us involved in Iraq.

I propose a monument to Juniorbush and the Neocons in DC, with the title "Monument to American Arrogance, Misinformation and Stupidity".

It could be next to the still-to-be-built Monument to the Mormon War.

[Michael Tee]

<<We bugged out, and the Reeducation Camps, Boat People, Killing Fields, and other horrors began.>>

Yes, before those "horrors" began, there was just the relative peace and quiet of your average South Asian land war, with the usual napalm, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, land mines, horrific tortures, countless millions of maimed and crippled and two million Vietnamese dead.

The "horrors" began when the U.S. left Vietnam to the Vietnamese.

I find this whole perspective a little weird, Professor.  Not only because there is absolutely no mention of the very real horrors of the American invasion, but because of the relatively trivial nature of the "horrors" that the author is able to find afterwards.

Vietnam obviously went through some readjustment which was inevitable in the wake of the American departure.  The Re-Education camps were a humane and imaginative way of dealing with traitors and collaborators who probably deserved nothing better than a firing squad.  The Boat People are just refugees with an exotic name - - there's nothing particularly horrifying about them or their fate.  They voluntarily took some risks in order to escape a regime they didn't want to live under, for various reasons, but most of those who stayed behind seem to have made out alright.  The killing fields the author refers to were in Cambodia, not Viet Nam, and nothing could have been done about them by the American forces in Viet Nam even had they not left that country.  In the end, it was actually the Vietnamese army that entered Cambodia and put an end to them, while the Americans sat on their ass and tut-tutted about the whole thing.

[sirs]

Vietnam obviously went through some readjustment which was inevitable in the wake of the American departure.  The Re-Education camps were a humane and imaginative way of dealing with traitors and collaborators who probably deserved nothing better than a firing squad.  The Boat People are just refugees with an exotic name - - there's nothing particularly horrifying about them or their fate.  They voluntarily took some risks in order to escape a regime they didn't want to live under, for various reasons, but most of those who stayed behind seem to have made out alright. 

The art of rationalization some of its more finest.  "some readjustement".  Country just needed a minor tune-up is all with some "imaginative" approaches.  Almost makes one ill     

[_JS]

Before you get too ill, let's not forget that we sent aid to the Khmer Rhouge when they fought the Vietnamese (and for many years thereafter) so I'm not sure we get the little halos and angel wings to point our fingers at other nations when it comes to killing fields. I won't even go into our other "allies" who killed priests and nuns, villagers, women, and children. Not to mention the ones we killed by our own hands. So let's not be too quick to paint us as glorious saints and the NVA as the evil hordes.

Something to remember Professor, we weren't winning in Vietnam. It is an oft-cited myth that the protesters were somehow responsible for our defeat in the war, but the reality is that yes we won the major engagements, but we weren't winning the war! Yes, we were winning the body count, but the little fact the military never told the people was that the Vietnamese did not care. What were we going to do? Slaughter the entire nation? The people of Vietnam did not want us there. Even the South Vietnamese generally considered us a necessary evil.

We never understood Vietnam. We never understood the people, the culture, the fact that they had fought wars for centuries before Christ was born. We never understood that though they despised the Japanese incursion on their land that in another way they respected the fact that an Asian people had kicked French and British ass. For some reason we doubted that Ho Chi Minh was beloved by the people, though Eisenhower had made it abundantly clear:

It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Hồ Chí Minh would have been elected Premier. Unhappily, the situation was exacerbated by the almost total lack of leadership displayed by the Vietnamese Chief of State, Bảo Đại, who, while nominally the head of that nation, chose to spend the bulk of his time in the spas of Europe rather than in his own land leading his armies against those of Communism.

No matter what is said, the truth is that the military believed that search and destroy was going to succeed in a battle of attrition. Blame the politicians or the protesters, but the US military knew damned well what was going on and they chose the method of warfare that they believed would lead to a victory. What they underestimated was the Vietnamese soldiers' willingness to die in order that foreign entities be primarily removed from Vietnamese affairs.

How does that compare with Iraq?

On one level it compares in that I certainly believe that this administration either had no understanding of the Iraqi people and the disparity between the different segments of Iraqi society or they were simply willfully ignorant of such knowledge. I think that the influence of Iran was significantly underestimated and the alienation of Syria was ridiculous.

On other levels though, I don't see it as all that similar to Vietnam. I think it is far more similar to Northern Ireland - only on a much larger scale and with more foreign influence.

[Michael Tee]

<<Almost makes one ill >>

Presumably you were OK with all aspects of the U.S. invasion, from the napalm to the Phoenix Program to the Tiger Cages to the My Lai massacre, but you seem to have a problem with re-education camps and traitors and  former collaborators escaping the people's revenge by boat.  

Figures.

[sirs]

Before you get too ill, let's not forget that we sent aid to the Khmer Rhouge when they fought the Vietnamese (and for many years thereafter) so I'm not sure we get the little halos and angel wings to point our fingers at other nations when it comes to killing fields. I won't even go into our other "allies" who killed priests and nuns, villagers, women, and children. Not to mention the ones we killed by our own hands. So let's not be too quick to paint us as glorious saints and the NVA as the evil hordes.

A) my response in no way absolves whatever things the U.S. did wrong
B) my response was specific in its condemnation of Tee's once again rant of everything evil = U.S. while anything else evil that happens, especially if its regarding communist/socialist regimes, is rationalized & justifed.   The Re-Education camps were a humane and imaginative way of dealing with traitors and collaborators who probably deserved nothing better than a firing squad  It doesn't get more pathetic than that.
C) I'm not the Professor

[_JS]

I was responding to you and the Professor, it saves more time.

I wasn't defending re-education camps, nor do I plan to do so.

My post was a response to the broader debate of relating Iraq to Vietnam as the Professor has done.

[Michael Tee]

<<B) my response was specific in its condemnation of Tee's once again rant of everything evil = U.S. while anything else evil that happens, especially if its regarding communist/socialist regimes, is rationalized & justifed.   The Re-Education camps were a humane and imaginative way of dealing with traitors and collaborators who probably deserved nothing better than a firing squad  It doesn't get more pathetic than that.>>

Oh, God, I'm sorry sirs.  I forgot to balance out my comments.  What I should have said was that the re-ed camps were hideous examples of barbarism that totally eclipsed both the Phoenix Program AND the My Lai Massacre.  Unfortunately, sirs, balance and truth are not the same thing.  The USA is more evil than its opponents, kills and tortures more people, destroys more lives, either directly or through its agents and proxies.  

Your real beef is that you are hearing some truths you don't want to hear.  But they are truths whether you like them or not.

[BT]

If we are more evil why the fuss about Abu Ghraib?

[Michael Tee]

The author of the article sounds like a nut.  He seems to have a sports-freak mentality where it's important for its own sake that the U.S. "win" whatever conflict it happens to be engaged in.  There doesn't seem to be much thought devoted to whether the U.S. should or shouldn't be in the conflict in the first place.  Wars aren't football games and it's always legitimate to ask "what are we doing here?" at any stage in the proceedings, better sooner than later.

The author then attempts to legitimize U.S. participation by referring to the "horrors" that followed.  As horrors go, compared to the horror of the original conflict, these seem to be pretty small potatos.  But the author seems to be a moron, so he doesn't really get it.

Can it happen in Iraq soon?  Yes, of course.  With real horrors possibly following in the wake.  It's amazing to see how people will close their eyes to the actual horror going on right in front of their eyes as a direct result of US policies, yet refuse to reverse the policy because of the horror that will follow.  They in effect choose to continue the horror they have created in order to avoid a horror that might or might not result in the future.  At the same time, they have absolutely NO INTENTION of punishing their "leaders" who not only unleashed the present existing horror but left them with the dilemma of either (a) choosing to continue it or (b) change course and risk new future horrors.  These guys will walk away free in any event.

[Michael Tee]

<<If we are more evil why the fuss about Abu Ghraib?>>

That's a no-brainer.  The good Americans are outraged by the actions of the evil Americans who've been running the country for a long time.  You don't see any outrage coming from those who support the war, do you?  (I'm talking real outrage, not fake outrage, of course.)

[sirs]

 It's amazing to see how people will close their eyes to the actual horror going on right in front of their eyes as a direct result of US policies, yet refuse to reverse the policy because of the horror that will follow.  

Yea, that freedom thing is so horrible, I mean not being able to criticize the Government without having your body dismembered, was so in vogue back in the day.  Let's bring back the concentr....I mean the all-caring compassionate "re-education camps" to get those folks to start thinking how they're supposed to. 

 

[Michael Tee]

<<Yea, that freedom thing is so horrible, I mean not being able to criticize the Government without having your body dismembered, was so in vogue back in the day. >>

It's a lot better now when you can be dismembered without even having to criticize the Government.  Just being the wrong religion in the wrong place can do it for you.  Another example of how "conservatives" like to get Big Government off the backs of the people.  Who says the people can't dismember each other faster, cheaper and more efficiently than the government?

<<Let's bring back the concentr....I mean the all-caring compassionate "re-education camps" to get those folks to start thinking how they're supposed to.  >>

No, I think it's really better to handle traitors and collaborators the way the French Resistance did once the invaders had gone - - shoot about 20,000 of the bastards on whatever street corner you find 'em.  Re-ed camps are for wimps.  BTW, I noticed the snide comparison to concentration camps.  What I didn't notice was any mention of medical "experiments," gas chambers and crematoria at the re-education camps anywhere, in any description of them I ever read.  Re-education means re-education.  Not that facts mean anything to you people, but there was very little resemblance between the re-ed camps and the concentration camps.

[sirs]

<<Yea, that freedom thing is so horrible, I mean not being able to criticize the Government without having your body dismembered, was so in vogue back in the day. >>

It's a lot better now when you can be dismembered without even having to criticize the Government.  Just being the wrong religion in the wrong place can do it for you.  Another example of how "conservatives" like to get Big Government off the backs of the people.  Who says the people can't dismember each other faster, cheaper and more efficiently than the government?

With said dismemberments coming from targeted attacks by terrorists vs being sanctioned by the Government.  Apparently the liberal plan supports sanctioned torture and dismemberment when exerising their 1st amendment.  Oh wait, that's only if it's Conservatives speaking out.  My bad

<<Let's bring back the concentr....I mean the all-caring compassionate "re-education camps" to get those folks to start thinking how they're supposed to.  >>

No, I think it's really better to handle traitors and collaborators the way the French Resistance did once the invaders had gone - - shoot about 20,000 of the bastards on whatever street corner you find 'em.  Re-ed camps are for wimps. 

Spoken like a true bleeding heart lib

Not that facts mean anything to you people, but there was very little resemblance between the re-ed camps and the concentration camps.

Facts to folks like you Tee, is like Kryptonite to superman