The Vietnam War

[Praxus]

I believe it was, this is how someone a lot more knowledgable then I explained it to me...

Officer of Engineers from World Affairs Board...

Long Version - The VN War cost Hanoi by its own accounts over 2 million people and was litterally bombed back to the Stone Age. Hanoi was facing its own anti-war movement before Linebackers I & II. Families may be willing to lose their sons and maybe even their grandsons in a foreign adventure but no way in hell would they tolerate losing their great grandsons unless they're directly threatened. LB I & II gave them that threat and extended the war.

However, once the war was over, there was very little stomach in another repeated extended struggle as the underdog and the bleeding associated with it.

Once the war was over, the unity that kept the Communist allies together in a common cause disappeared. In fact, no amount of pretence could overcome the racial hatre between the various peoples outside and inside VN. The ethnic cleansing of the Boat People could not have irrated the Chinese more, especially when most of the refugees ended up in China on China's welfare dollar.

VN turned to the USSR for support for several reasons.

1) China could do a Hungary/Czechoslavkia wheras the USSR was too far away to punish any communist manifesto "blasphemy."

2) The USSR could and did provide far more aid quantitatively and qualitatively.

3) 450,000 nuclear armed Soviet troops on China's Northern borders.

VN felt safe enough to reassert Hanoi's historic dominance of the other ethnic minorities in Indo-China including Cambodia and Laos but did not want to challenge the Thais who were defensively as powerful and as racially motivated as the Vietnamese.

However, that reassertion bring them into open conflict with the Chinese who responded militarily for two reasons.

1) They had to check VN expansion less the VN might expand into Chinese territory (with Moscow's urging).

2) China must break the Soviet encirclement.

Quote:

sidebar

The traditional view that China was trying to rescue Cambodia is being challenged by China watchers and I, too, have doubts about this intent. A couple of facts do not correspond with the rescue Cambodia view.

1) The best armed and best trained Chinese units were shipped north to face the Soviets. The troops that attacked VN were litterally 2nd rate reserves.

2) China fought two wars on the Sino-VN border and not in Cambodia even though over 10,000 advisors had gone in and out of Cambodia.

Whatever the tactical failings of the 79 War, the strategic aim of breaking the Soviet encirlement was achieved. The Chinese southern front remained since that war in China's favour.

Thus, VN neither have the stomache, the resources, nor the desire to take on a 3rd fresh and determined Thailand while fighting two determined wars at the same time.

What do you think?

[argive99]

Doesn't anyone have a philosophical evaluation of the war to offer?

[Praxus]

It was in our interest to stop communism ----> Vietnam War stoped communism -----> Therefor Vietnam was in our interest and thus a moral war.

What do you mean by philosophical explination of the Vietnam war?

[argive99]

It was in our interest to stop communism ----> Vietnam War stoped communism -----> Therefor Vietnam was in our interest and thus a moral war.

What do you mean by philosophical explination of the Vietnam war?

Wow. You have opposed everything Ayn Rand ever wrote on the subject. She condemned that war and said it was not fought in the name of stopping Communism. Do a search on what she wrote about it and get back to me.

By philosophical evaluation, I am really interested in someone like Oddsalt or Jack Wakeland to explain what they think of Rand's evaluation of that war and if they believe it was a valid military exercise to sacrifice all those young American men in the jungles of Vietnam in a conscript army.

It scares me when Objecivists so easily defend that war. Even Jack Wakeland's seemingly positive attitude towards it concerns me. Rand offered some amazing political insights into both World Wars and the fiascos in South East Asia. Have they been completely forgotten already?

[pvtmorriscsa]

Wow. You have opposed everything Ayn Rand ever wrote on the subject. She condemned that war and said it was not fought in the name of stopping Communism. Do a search on what she wrote about it and get back to me.

By philosophical evaluation, I am really interested in someone like Oddsalt or Jack Wakeland to explain what they think of Rand's evaluation of that war and if they believe it was a valid military exercise to sacrifice all those young American men in the jungles of Vietnam in a conscript army.

It scares me when Objecivists so easily defend that war. Even Jack Wakeland's seemingly positive attitude towards it concerns me. Rand offered some amazing political insights into both World Wars and the fiascos in South East Asia. Have they been completely forgotten already?

Yeah her opinion on the issue was pretty clear. I must say that this topic made me go back and reread the article, "The Lessons of Vietnam", in the Voice of Reason. The following quote from the article really jumped out at me. It has some striking similarities to what is going on in Iraq at the moment.

Ayn Rand wrote:

"In compliance with modern politics, the war was allegedly intended to save South Vietnam from communism, but the proclaimed purpose of the war was not to protect freedom or indvidual rights, it was not to establish capitalism or any particular social system -- it was to uphold the South Vietnamese right to "national self-determination," i.e., the right to vote themselves into any sort of system (including communism, as American propagandists kept proclaiming).

The Right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system--...."

Let me tell you it has really got me thinking. I would like to hear from any Vietnam vets that are also objectivists, and get their take on both of these issues. On Iraq, and on the war in Vietnam. My father served fours months in Vietnam, (I wonder if that is why he is a Kerry supporter?) but he is now a confirmed bureaucratic socialist, so his take on it is pretty skewed.

[Inspector]

It was in our interest to stop communism ----> Vietnam War stoped communism -----> Therefor Vietnam was in our interest and thus a moral war.

Ah, but how is the best way to stop Communism? Does it not stop itself? What difference does it make to us if some unindustrialized pesthole is Communist or not? How has Cuba, sans Soviet arms, threatened us? Do we need to go into cuba and "fight communism?"

No, we do not. We don't have to waste a single life, bomb, or dollar on Cuba becuase it will never amount to anything. Communism will fail on its own and it doesn't need any help from us.

Had Vietnam represented any threat to the USA, we could have carpet bombed it until it no longer represented a threat. Of course these days, terrorism has changed that a bit, but the fact remains that it was a waste of our time, money, and irreplacable lives to fight in Vietnam.

You could make an argument for stopping a looter from plundering something that might make him a threat to you, but how is this the case in Vietnam?

[Praxus]

Ah, but how is the best way to stop Communism? Does it not stop itself? What difference does it make to us if some unindustrialized pesthole is Communist or not? How has Cuba, sans Soviet arms, threatened us? Do we need to go into cuba and "fight communism?"

Good point. I didn't think of it this way. But what if one were to say that if Communist wasn't stoped it would have spread to Thailand and even further?

No, we do not. We don't have to waste a single life, bomb, or dollar on Cuba becuase it will never amount to anything. Communism will fail on its own and it doesn't need any help from us.

It may fail but the people in these countries refuse to accept that fact.

It scares me when Objecivists so easily defend that war.

I'm not an Objectivist, I'm still learning:)

[Inspector]

Good point. I didn't think of it this way. But what if one were to say that if Communist wasn't stoped it would have spread to Thailand and even further?

Well, Thailand hated Vietnam so much that they would have stopped them. Between the terrain and the size of the Thai army, I doubt it.

But even if they did... so what? Again, how does that affect America? There isn't anything particularly worth stealing in Thailand.

It may fail but the people in these countries refuse to accept that fact.

They don't have to. The more they embrace Communism, the more they are helpless and weak and starving. We don't have to drop a single bomb.

Consider North Korea: would they even HAVE missiles if the Chinese and Soviets hadn't given them the tech and factories? Nope. So China invades them... what are they then besides a drain on China's money and a big fat revolution waiting to happen?

Communism and Nazism were set up as this big bogeyman, but they were not half as powerful as people say. The soviets STOLE every idea and invention they made from us or from the Germans. (who only ever had inventions because of the enlightenment)

[Praxus]

Well, Thailand hated Vietnam so much that they would have stopped them. Between the terrain and the size of the Thai army, I doubt it.

But even if they did... so what? Again, how does that affect America? There isn't anything particularly worth stealing in Thailand.

Stealing? That statement presupposes that people in Thailand rightfuly own anything.

Communism and Nazism were set up as this big bogeyman, but they were not half as powerful as people say. The soviets STOLE every idea and invention they made from us or from the Germans. (who only ever had inventions because of the enlightenment)

True, I was just thinking if every country in the world was communist there would be massive starvation and death on an amazing level. Afterall Communist nations wether they want to admit it or not depend on Capitalist nations. Not only as an evil to confront to unit the people while they are being looted and murdered by their own Government but because everything they could build was based on things discovered in the west. Without Capitalism, there would be a massive decrease in productive ideas. So the ammount of material the communists could base new things off of would be drasticly smaller.

[argive99]

Ayn Rand wrote:

"In compliance with modern politics, the war was allegedly intended to save South Vietnam from communism, but the proclaimed purpose of the war was not to protect freedom or indvidual rights, it was not to establish capitalism or any particular social system -- it was to uphold the South Vietnamese right to "national self-determination," i.e., the right to vote themselves into any sort of system (including communism, as American propagandists kept proclaiming).

The Right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system--...."

This is a fascinating quote. If there is an argument to be made regarding the validity of the Vietnam War, its actually contained in that quote. Rand says "but the proclaimed purpose of the war was not to protect individual rights, it was not to establish capitalism or any particular social system..." This is in line with her other writings on rights where she says a free nation can invade an oppressed one to liberate it if it is in their self interest, although it is never their duty.

So, if the purpose of the war had been to destroy completely the Vietnamese Communist movement, institue capitalism and a rights-respecting government, and do it with the least American causualties possible, then perhaps the war could have been justified.

I think about our involvement in South East Asia; from the Phillipines to Japan to Korea to Vietnam. With the exception of Japan, the rest have been relative or complete failures. If the US had defeated both the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese and done what they did in Japan, I wonder what the state of South East Asia would be today. There would be at least three Western Style Constitutional Republics with powerhouse economies. Would China be the menace that it is today?

So I wont foreclose the notion that engagement in South East Asia was axiomatically wrong, as it seems that Rand herself did not. But to be effective the wars would have had to have been fought from a selfish, pro-capitalist position and unfortunately, as we know to well, we ourselves have lost the knowledge of our heritage. How can we be expeected to transplant it on the world's savages?

[Guest Kien]

Doesn't anyone have a philosophical evaluation of the war to offer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have quite a bit of thoughts on this issue having lived there during the war and now here as an American citizen but due to time constraints of a busy schedule plus I'm no historian nor a philosopher, I can offer just a few (philosophical) thoughts.

1) Any political or military actions or analysis of such actions are bound to fail as floating abstractions without taken into these historical context or facts:

a)The fact that there were 2000 yrs of war between China and VN as a run away province, much like Tibet today. China and Viet Nam have always been arch enemies and will continue to be despite the shared political ideology.

b)Also, the defeat of the French on the battlefield of Dien Bien Phu by the Viet Minh gave the North VN more hope of unifying the country using Marxism as an overt political tool. It was denied this dream by the cancellation of a provision of the Geneva Agreement for a general election to be held in 1956 and instead the establishment of South VN as a sovereign nation. The North would fight to the last man if need be for this unification goal. The South would play a defensive role of survival. The North was fighting for a goal, an objective; while the South was fighting not for a goal but only against communism. The introduction of US troops only strengthened the North politically while the South was forced to become dependent on US strategies and less of an immediate enemy in the eyes of the North.

(check out Errol Morris's "The Fog of War" where he interviewed Robert Mc Namara , then the Secretary of Defence for his views on a wrong premise accepted due to a lack of proper context. He has a brilliant mind but carries a mixed view of rationality)

2) LBJ's foreign policy was merely a tool to get elected so he can have his Great Society. He was a socialist to the core at home even as he was trying to stop communism half way around the world.

In short, LBJ was trying to eat his socialist cake and have it too.

Once Nixon learned of the historical context about China and VN it was easy for him and Kissinger to play the China card and extricate the US from VN with honor.

Context to me is always the key!

Needless to say, Ayn Rand's essay on VN in The Voice of Reason is a great starting point. It embodied my arguments, anger and contempt from '75 until now with my fellow Vietnamese in the US who cried like babies that the had US abandoned them. Even if the US did win would they just leave VN out of altruistic reasons??

This why I love her mind once I discover her philosophy.

But I believe that it ended up as altruism only when the US troops began to take casualties. No one talked of the war until '66 or '67, even as the first US casualty was in the late '50's.

No US policy maker would use altruism as a goal. Even the altruistic, socialist USSR did not send a single soldier to VN and quite frankly got alot of undeserved political credit for doing very little in the war compare to the US.

So my view is that the US had an interest that is shared by most of the Vietnamese, but that the US politicians and military brass having their own political agenda and careers chose the wrong method to achieve a moral cause.

Also,I'm one of the few that hold the view that the general election in 1956 in VN should have been held to deprive the Communist the long term hold on the country by using force. It was a political problem and not a military problem, because if it was military the US would have achieved it's goal of containing Communism.

Kien

[Guest Kien]

I believe it was, this is how someone a lot more knowledgable then I explained it to me...

[snips]

VN felt safe enough to reassert Hanoi's historic dominance of the other ethnic minorities in Indo-China including Cambodia and Laos but did not want to challenge the Thais who were defensively as powerful and as racially motivated as the Vietnamese.....

[more snips]

1) They had to check VN expansion less the VN might expand into Chinese territory (with Moscow's urging).

What do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The question you posed in the heading and your own answer to it seem to have no relation to the quoted passage. I don't have the benefit of the context of the discusssion but the analysis seems to be about events after the take over of South VN by the North in'75 and 7 years after the US troops left. So I don't follow your question.

But whatever the context, the assertions about the Thais are simply wrong. Since when were they ever powerful militarily or otherwise? Just because she is non-communist? or her troops carry M-16"s.. She never had to fight against a European colonial power and her army never was tested on any batlle field. VN historically has a continious war with China for independence, it was the only third world country to get rid of a European Colonial power thru military means. Mark my word, when Giap dies you will see it on the front pages and it will be soon since he is very old.

Also not once in history had VN ever encroached into the mighty China's soil. Her conflicts has always been in VN. (And this thing about Moscow's urging is sheer fantasy. PSSSST the North VN never liked nor trusted the Soviets after the Geneva Agreement that divided VN permanently and will not do their dirty deeds even during the '60's.)

Cambodia was an exception, but following Sun Tzu of never to fight a prolonged war on foreign soil Giap was very much against it. The Party promtply retired him. VN got rid of the Kmer Rouge and went home, their troops for the first time were deserting and demoralized by the whole experience.

Some arm-chair general of yours need to brush up on the history of the region!

[Godless Capitalist]

Communism and Nazism were set up as this big bogeyman, but they were not half as powerful as people say. The soviets STOLE every idea and invention they made from us or from the Germans. (who only ever had inventions because of the enlightenment)

i have to nitpick this a bit. The USSR did have some excellent scientists and engineers who developed ideas and inventions on their own. Of course they were hampered by the communist system and did steala lot from the west but they certainly did not just steal every single thing.

[Praxus]

The question you posed in the heading and your own answer to it seem to have no relation to the quoted passage. I don't have the benefit of the context of the discusssion but the analysis seems to be about events after the take over of South VN by the North in'75 and 7 years after the US troops left. So I don't follow your question.

His point was that US forces so decimated North Vietnamese forces that they were unwilling and unable to spread communism to Thailand. It stoped the spread of communism in south-east asia. Not only this but it threw the Communist Asian allies against each other which resulted in the Sino-Vietnamese War. Not that they were good friends to begin with.

Go ahead and dispute this, this was the point of the thread. To discuss if it was worth it. What were the positive and negative effects of the Vietnam war? To determine if the Vietnam war was in our interest.

[Betsy]

The USSR did have some excellent scientists and engineers who developed ideas and inventions on their own. Of course they were hampered by the communist system and did steala lot from the west but they certainly did not just steal every single thing.

It was observed that the Space Race with Russia was "their German scientists vs. our German scientists." Also, the space program was a GOVERNMENT operation in both countries. In all areas of science NOT controlled by the government, the US was vastly superior.

The reason is that, in Soviet Russia, excellent scientists and engineers were not FREE to develop ideas and inventions on their own. To see why -- with gruesome details -- see "Science Under Slavery" by Harry Binswanger in the December 1986 issue of The Objectivist Forum.

[Yes]

Edwin Locke's view of the Vietnam War.

I agree with Locke and Rand regarding Vietnam.

It was a senseless war based upon misguided foreign policy.