The American War: The US In Vietnam

Like Jefferson and the barbary coast wars?

He was one of those founding fathers

 

Why did the US enter the war and, with the US defeat, did those reasons prove true?

 

We entered the war because North Vietnam attacked our ally.

 

If you lived during the 1950's and 60's you always heard about SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) founded five years after forming NATO.

When JFK signed off on the CIA backed military coups of regime change to remove the corrupt Diem regime from power in 1963 it backed fired when the President Diem was murdered.

From that day on JFK knew that America owned South Vietnam, that South Vietnam became America's problem.

The world watched, what would JFK do ? If SEATO fails, NATO was likely soon to fail.

Three weeks later in Dallas, Texas JFK met the same fate as President Diem.

The world watched, what will LBJ do ? If SEATO fails, NATO is likely to fail.

SEATO:

FYI:
North Vietnam's People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) combat troops better known as the NVA wouldn't cross over into South Vietnam until 1965. Before 1965 it was the Peoples Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (VC) fighting ARVAN. North Vietnam before 1965 just provided logistical support for the VC while America did the same for the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. (ARVAN)

After the Gulf of Tonkin Incident where the USS Maddox, a Gearing class DD was attacked by North Vietnam PT boats on August 4th, 1964 and NVA combat troops entering South Vietnam some months later and conducting combat operations and the attacks on the U.S. Air Force at the former Japanese WW ll airfield at Da Nang, LBJ's response was to send in America's first combat troops to protect the Da Nang air base. On March 8th, 1965 the 9th Marines Expeditionary Brigade landed on "Red Beach" just north of Da Nang city.

The rest was history.

 

Treaty obligations were certainly a factor in the decision to back the RVN. So was the well based fear that Communism might take over most of Sth East Asia. There were, of course, ways the US could have done that other than close to 2 million troops & overwhelming firepower.

In hindsight the war was a success in the wider Cold War, if a failure in itself. There is a persuasive argument that The war was never winnable if the North chose to pursue it doggedly, as they did. The South was not resilient enough & the US unable to make up for that. Sadly the North did decide on war. The millions of deaths & destruction that was wrought on Indochina stems from that decision.

 

That being a mass murdering dictator with a drug addict brother as a minister in his government.

 

Does that justify invasion from North Vietnam?

 

I think the US went for invasion of a country that couldn't harm America in any way and lost about 60 thousand US troops in the process. By 'lost', I mean dead in a body bag.
Your invading forces were hit long and hard, then ran away with absolutely nothing to show for their efforts.
The most powerful military in the world was defeated by a bunch of farmers.

 

They claimed all of Vietnam, just as America's mass murdering dictator did, so internal conflict was on the cards.
How does America justify killing who knows how many Vietnamese and 60,000 of their own people to invade a country that was zero threat to them?

 

Diem did not claim all of Vietnam actually.

The mass murdering dictator of the North DID claim it all but had no justification for his claim.


Once again the US did not invade Vietnam.

repeating that fallacy does not make it true and you did not answer the question.

Did Diem's corruption justify invasion from North Vietnam which had an equally or MORE corrupt and murderous regime?

 

How did they end up there?
There were two people with claims,neither were American but America went there well armed and against the wishes of many of the locals who promptly started shoot and getting rid of them.

Sounds a lot like an invasion being resisted by the locals.

 

The government asked for assistance and based on a treaty with that government it was provided.

Not an invasion when you are invited.

There was no one with a claim there was one government with a demand and another which simply wished to be left alone. The one with the demand was north vietnam

 

Actually there were two other incidents as well, both documented, but let's not let any facts interrupt your fake narratives, and of the flimsy anecdote that there 'some locals who opposed the U.S. n stuff' well there were also 'some locals' who opposed the communists under Ho invading as well, but I guess they don't counts, cuz 'Amerka EVul!!!' or some other silly 'points' that only mean something to the clueless.

 

Who are you responding to?

 

Ah, the fake concern over 'those poor soldiers that got killed n stuff', as if people getting killed is something you commie fans are really wrenching your hearts over. Of course, no word of grief for any murdered by Ho or any other commie vermin to be found in any of these dishonest hypocritical narratives.

 

Johnson's escalation crushed the Viet Cong as a major player within 3 years after his escalation; the main complaint about him was his anal concern for not violating UN rules and stepping over borders, which the NVA did constantly, and without a peep out of the fake 'left' or the UN and world opinion, but that's another topic. The other was his 'micro-management', but then he was surrounded by liars and couldn't trust a thing he was being told by his military or his Intelligence agencies, so he can't be faulted for that caution either. Insurgencies require a lot of manpower from a state to put down, which is why the commies used the tactics and strategy. We didn't have a lot of intrinsic expertise in our military at the time, at least what we needed, and there was also the military's 'good old boy' system that created a huge drag on effectiveness; lot of loony alcoholic careerists getting their combat stamps to get promoted and the like. They were still fighting WW II in many cases.

Yes, but the reality is most of the time all of the 'choices' are bad, and one has to go with what seems like the least bad option available. America was still looking for quick fixes and big parades and clear victories like in the Hollywood movies; those kinds of 'victories' were increasingly rare in the aftermath of WW II, which is actually a good thing, not having huge wars between major powers, though I think most don't appreciate that change for the blessing it is. I still call it a victory, since it was in terms of the politics and existential threats of the time.

We've had similar events elsewhere besides VN, like backing the Shah over the Tudeh Party puppet that would have taken over Iran if we hadn't made a 'bad choice' at the time, as another example.

 

The Indofred poster, and your comment of the Gulf of Tonkin incident; you posted while I was typing out mine. I should have quoted him but I didn't think anybody else was here posting at the same time. There two incidents that were more than enough pretext to escalate if he needed one; don't know why he went with the Tonkin thing; I guess it sounded more dramatic to his press flack than the other two.

 

Two time Congressional Medal Of Honor winner, US Marine General Smedley D. Butler nailed it when he wrote War Is A Racket. Still is and always has been. I just hope that our new President who ran against foreign intervention and was an active draft dodger during Vietnam does not huddle with the pack of thieving war profiteers, oil barons and bank swindlers to cook up a couple more trillion dollar turd hunts like Cheney/Bush (a couple more draft dodging chicken hawks) did.

 

Corruption in the military purchases are a separate issue from the need for an active foreign policy; some cops being corrupt doesn't make doing away with all cops a great idea, for example. We can certainly spend a lot less, but we would still need a major pre-emptive capability and presence overseas. Nobody is going to argue that it isn't too expensive and there is corruption around; the American public doesn't mind the corruption when it benefit their local pocketbooks so that's a self-inflicted domestic poliitcal issue, not a national foreign defense one. The Isolationists are wrong, and always have been. It's a fantasy ideal.

 

When the people who are involved in crafting foreign policy are also involved with war profiteering corporate scumbags and bank swindlers the foreign policy becomes a means to an end, which is purely profit driven. That has been the case for over a century here in America and around the world. Have you read "War Is A Racket" by General Smedley D. Butler? If not, I suggest that you do..

 

One book does not prove anything.

Clearly you pick and choose what supports your assertion. Others have a more open minded view.

 

There have been hundreds and possibly thousands of books written on this subject over the years. I am just pointing out the one that I found right on target and very credible considering the author. Open minded people should read this book and then continue to investigate the nature of the military, banking industrial complex and it's actions over the last two centuries and draw their own conclusions. It is not surprising that you have jumped in and taken the side of the war profiteers and assassins once again. After all, your whole presence here on PF seems to be propping up cover ups made by killers and war profiteers in every case.

Google Search: "War Is A Racket" by General Smedley D. Butler...

 

Yes and not all of them agree with your views.

Name one such coverup I have tried to " prop up "?

 

Warren Commission, 9/11 Commission...You have never met a government cover up that you didn't like...lol

 

There has never been any evidence presented that either is a cover up.

But it is nice to know where you are coming from.

You cite a book by General Butler which had nothing to do with any war since WWII or even WWII itself and think it answers everything.