The November 16, 2009 Newsweek cover blurb reads, “How We [Could Have] Won in Vietnam.” The issue includes Jon Meacham’s opening editorial titled, “Rethinking the Lessons of Vietnam.” In that assessment, Editor Meacham struggles with the same “what if” postulates that his contributors, Evan Thomas and John Barry, find entangling in their article, “The Surprising Lessons of Vietnam, Anatomy of a Quagmire”…
Thirty-four years after that war’s end, the American view of Vietnam remains narrowly chauvinistic. From this vantage, the U.S. has emerged the “victim,” with 58,000 dead as proof. (In fact, “kill ratios” at Southeast Asia were at least 50:1 in favor of U.S. forces over adversaries.) The U.S. debate remains firm. Hawks still argue that U.S. troops were not allowed to fight the war aggressively enough—despite the fact that millions of U.S. troops deployed and countless aircraft were active in that theater, using the most sophisticated technology in military history against a Third World adversary.
Others argue that pacification of South Vietnam’s civilian populace did not run its course, nor did the U.S. clandestine effort to assassinate the opposition’s leaders. Add the final cryptic, that the American public lacked resolve, referring to a society that had judged the war on the nightly news for more than a decade, growing numb and ever more skeptical. Dismissively accounting for the Vietnamese people, hawks still describe the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces as blind followers of a manipulative communist leadership at Hanoi.
The U.S. released four times more tonnage of bombs over Vietnam than the total tonnage dropped by all belligerents in World War II. U.S. forces maimed and liquidated an estimated 1.5-million enemy soldiers, plus a million or more bystander civilians, through the systematic bombardment of jungles, rice paddies and irrigation levees—plus the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong. American leadership at the time, including both the Johnson and Nixon Administrations, assumed that people lose their will to fight after suffering such losses, yet the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese continued with resolve.
As for blindly following orders from Hanoi, the NVA soldiers, doctors, nurses, trail building crews and transport truck and bicycle operators sent down the Ho Chi Minh Trail into South Vietnam often broke into platoons and smaller groups. Personnel were scattered over several hundred miles of malaria-infested jungle, strafed continuously each day by American fighter jets and fixed wing gunships, and bombed continually by American B-52s flying out of bases at Thailand and the Philippines. Ponder the degree of commitment and morale needed to persist under such conditions, all to access a life-threatening battlefront and engage the U.S. and South Vietnamese armed forces.
The official U.S. position on the Vietnam War remains skewed. The original pretext of engagement at Southeast Asia was the “domino theory,” which asserted that all communist aspirants were the same. Within that view, U.S. foreign policy backed a variety of corrupt yet ”anti-communist” leaders who typically lacked a base among the populace. Under such conditions at South Vietnam, U.S. pacification programs deteriorated into burning hamlets, defoliating jungles with Agent Orange and assassinating local leaders who supported the Viet Cong or Hanoi. The death toll and environmental damage escalated as the U.S. fought on with ineffective support from the nationals within South Vietnam…Similar methodologies can be seen in the current strategies at Iraq and Afghanistan—without deliberate, ongoing military force, the American “victories” have limited popular support and dissolve in the wake of U.S. troop withdrawals.
Rather than Newsweek’s politico view, which reflects a host of American cultural assumptions, it would be wise to consider Vietnam from a Vietnamese viewpoint. A nation fighting for independence or liberation from colonial oppression or occupation can readily rally a popular base—with resolve. America did so in its war for independence against the British Empire. No amount of force or coercion shifts such a people. For Vietnam, the original oppressor was France, ousted in the first Indochina War. American intervention began less than five years later.
During the Vietnam War, winning the “hearts and minds” of the populace became an element of the American war strategy. Lack of success in that endeavor led to an expansion of the war, including the wide scale aerial bombardment of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
So what Vietnam lessons apply to Afghanistan and Iraq? Or Iran and Pakistan? One place to start is an understanding of the region’s cultures, history and local economic conditions. Lifestyles, values, religion and social expectations differ from culture to culture. A test question for Afghanistan might be, “Why is America’s cultural presence—or military occupation—any more welcome than the Soviet invasion in the ‘80s?”
In the Middle East, the Iranian Revolution was the reaction of a populace that opposed the Anglo-American backed government of the Shah. Iran went from an oil-producing Western capitalist ally to an Islamic theocracy financed by its oil production. In the Reagan Administration’s zeal to undermine Iran, Saddam Hussein received U.S. support in his war against the Iranians. To thwart Reagan’s “Evil Empire,” Soviet Russia, the U.S. found a proxy to fight the Russians at Afghanistan. The Taliban became a useful tool, both armed and funded by the United States…Many analysts believe the Russian stalemate at Afghanistan two decades ago contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Islamic, militant Taliban continues to assert itself at Afghanistan, today fighting U.S. forces.
How can we understand the hearts and minds of Middle Eastern people without a fundamental understanding of Islam and regional cultures? Are all Muslims the same—like the 1950s and ‘60s assumptions about communists? In the case of communism, Soviet Russia is gone, and China has emerged as a major U.S. trading partner and primary shareholder in the U.S. Treasury.
Communism proved to be a regional, culturally defined doctrine. Capitalist (“free market”) democracy comes in many forms, too. Is free market, democratic Denmark the same as the U.S.? Denmark has made the largest commitment to environmental protection and green energy of any Western, Eastern or communist nation while providing national health insurance for its people. What does that say about American democracy and capitalism? While Denmark has been busy with progress, the U.S. taxpayers recently saved capitalism from a greed inspired collapse. American capital interests have since recovered while the middle class now suffers from a stalled economy, high unemployment, home foreclosures and soaring health care costs spurred by a corrupt, profit-motivated private health care industry…Not all capitalist democracies are the same.
Before the U.S. plunges headlong into Afghanistan, it would be wise to understand the cultures, history, motives and will of the regional peoples. That includes Pakistan, for any military escalation will surely involve Pakistan, where the Taliban is clearly present and creating mayhem daily.
So, who are these Taliban elements? During a Cold War effort to undermine the Soviets at Afghanistan, the United States supported the militant Taliban. Having unleashed the Taliban’s Islamic jihad more than two decades ago, the U.S. now attempts to stabilize that country and establish some semblance of democracy and human rights. A former ally, the Taliban, has been responsible for gross violations of women’s rights, subjugation and murder of opponents and harboring Al Qaeda.
Parallels do exist between U.S. policies at Vietnam and Afghanistan. In each region, the U.S. has backed a corrupt government without a popular base. President Hamid Karzai’s brother is a drug lord and power player within the government. Suspicion surrounds the recent presidential election. The U.S. “allies” at South Vietnam were also corrupt and money-driven; those who were not assassinated or overthrown by coup left the country with considerable wealth.
Winning the hearts and minds of any people begins with understanding. Understanding means a cultural dialogue and free sharing of values and objectives. Lately, war has become America’s first instrument of foreign policy, a precedent set with the preemptive strike on Iraq. Colonization, military occupation, collateral damage and civilian casualties rally support for insurgency. Violence protracts and lingers….Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan—each country has a voice.
The next time Newsweek or the U.S. State Department grapples with why the United States lost at Vietnam, and how that insight might help mold the American strategy for Afghanistan, a dialogue with the Vietnamese people and their leadership would be beneficial. On that note, thorough research might include Laotians, Cambodians, Iraqis and Afghanis who have known firsthand the sound of U.S. boots and armament on their soil…For a resonant story line or comprehensive foreign policy paper, there is no substitute for firsthand experience.
***********************************************************
Indra’s Net
While Indra’s Net speaks to WWII and the Vietnam experience, it also speaks to the larger issue of war. War is once again the central theme of American foreign policy, and my blog welcomes earnest viewpoints and founded facts that illuminate the impact of contemporary wars and ways nations can ameliorate political and cultural differences—and defeat terrorism—short of wide-scale military conflict…Take in the novel. It’s up for discussion.—Moses Ludel
“…this ambitious novel spreads its net across the marches of history, reeling in gold nuggets of intriguing fictional action…One of the best things about this novel is the author’s firm grasp of history, especially as experienced from the viewpoint character Dinh…the comprehensive novel reads like a history book without the boring bits…An engaging, satisfying, and richly lengthy read.”—****Holly Chase Williams, ForeWord CLARION Reviews.
Featured at the New York and Los Angeles BookExpo, Beijing and Frankfurt Book Fairs…Available through all major book outlets and independent bookstores in soft cover edition and Amazon Kindle book.
