The comments to my critique of Matt Bai’s New York Times Magazine profile of Sen. John McCain appear to have settled into a debate over the Vietnam service records of the candidates for the presidency in 2004. This was perhaps to be expected, for reasons revealed below. However, inasmuch as “The Big Picture(s)â€Â and its follow-ups are conncerned with… the big picture, it might be useful to take a second look at the subject while removing the personalities.
Many people view the current conflict in Iraq — and perhaps the broader war against international terror movements like al-Qaeda — through the prism of Vietnam, to a greater or lesser degree.
Despite the probability of over-simplification, I will divide these people into two basic groups.
The first group learned from Vietnam that the US lost a war of insurgency and always will lose wars of insurgency. They believe that the US cannot win “hearts and minds” and that it is impossible to win against an insurgency with any degree of popular support, because it is impossible to distinguish friend from foe. Many in this group still believes that Walter Cronkite was corrrect in claiming that the Tet Offensive proved that the US was “mired in stalemate,â€Â  even though the New York Times now concedes that Tet “was a military defeat for the Communist guerrillas and their North Vietnamese sponsors.â€Â
The second group learned from Vietnam that the US largely defeated the Viet Cong, but ultimately lost the war because our larger geopolitical enemy was willing to support the proxy NVA, while the US cut off support to South Vietnam. The second group believes that the US started their involvement in Vietnam with poor counter-insurgency doctrine, but that this changed under Gen. Creighton Abrams. The second group recognizes that there have been may wars of insurgency throughout history, guerillas and insurgents are not invincible, most insurgencies fail (though they generally take time to fail) and that while Vietnam holds valuable lessons for counter-insurgency doctrine, the differences between Vietnam and Iraq may be as much or more important as any similarities.
The first group generally believes — most evidence to the contrary — that it has greater intellectual depth and nuance than the second. Again, this is itself an over-generalization that ends up sounding overly snarky. For example, some of the better-informed members of the first group might argue that South Vietnam was doomed to fail because of internal corruption (and then draw a parallel to the current Iraqi government).ÂÂ
But Matt Bai — like virtually all of the establishment media –never gets that far in any treatment of these topics. The media, despite the occasional concession, is in the first group and has little background or education by which to evaluate the argument of the second group. Nor are they ideologically inclined to get that background or education.
The hackery in Matt Bai’s piece exists on several levels. Bai raises the theme that the life experiences of those past and present Senators who fought in Vietnam affects how they view the conflict in Iraq, which likely is a nugget of truth. However, Bai does not consider the degree to which the pre-Vietnam biographies of these people affected their views of Vietnam and Iraq. Nor does he really consider the degree to which the post-Vietnam biographies affect their views. Bai reports that McCain studied the Vietnam war and criticism of US counter-insurgency doctrine at the National War College, as well as McCain’s view of Vietnam. But there is nothing in Bai’s piece suggesting that he attempted to evaluate McCain’s thesis before summarily dismissing it in favor of the convential narrative of the first group.
Bai’s apparent pre-existing ignorance thus precluded him from asking McCain any meaningful questions about how his study of Vietnam has affected his view of Iraq throughout the duration of the latter (including McCain’s criticisms of US tactics in the early part of the insurgency).ÂÂ
Worse, Bai’s ignorance precluded him from asking tougher questions of McCain. For example, given that McCain believes Vietnam was ultimately lost in the US (and particularly in the US Congress), Bai might have asked McCain whether he foresaw that an insurgency could emerge after the US toppled Saddam. If he did (or when the insurgency appeared), did McCain understand that the degree to which that US public opinion was divided on the Iraq invasion in the first instance might determine the success of the mission? Does he believe that the Bush Administration — or John McCain — did enough to educate the American people as to what a reasonable timeframe for defeating an insurgency might be? Why did US counter-insurgency doctrine have to be given a major overhaul by Gen. Petraeus and others? Was it all due to lessons learned in Iraq, or did the US military give insufficient attention to counter-insurgency doctrine after Vietnam? These are questions that might have educated and informed readers, rather than inclining them to once again wallow in the quagmire of Boomer recriminations over who did what in Vietnam.
Conversely, Bai’s unthinking acceptance of the conventional narrative of Vietnam allows that narrative to escape scrutiny for what it portends in the broader war against international terror networks (and ultimately the danger of homegrown terror cells). If the US cannot win a war of counter-insurgency, is the US similarly unable to defeat other forms of asymmetrical warfare like terrorism? If the US simply lacks the patience necessary to win asymmetrical warfare, won’t our enemies be emboldened to wage it more theaters, ultimately in the US? In a few decades, will the domestic security of the US resemble that of Israel? Some on the Left may well have thoughtful responses to those questions, but the debate over such questions never moves forward as long as political and journalistic hacks remain stuck in their own ideological narrative.
There is a saying that Generals always fight the last war. The irony here is that our Generals, such as Petraeus and even Creighton Abrams, adapted their counter-insurgency tactics, but their critics on the Left are still fighting against them based on the Left’s (often incorrect) assumptions about Vietnam. Who is fighting the last war here?
BTW, I know that this is OT, selfish and wrong, but I want to plug my new post at the Pub.
“Why did US counter-insurgency doctrine have to be given a major overhaul by Gen. Petraeus and others? Was it all due to lessons learned in Iraq, or did the US military give insufficient attention to counter-insurgency doctrine after Vietnam? ”
A lot of military thought is done sub-rosa.
See the history of thinking about armored warfare as it evolved between WW I and WW II.
Wow, you people are clueless on two MAJOR points.
I can see how Bush got it so wrong, seeing how superficially you people think.
The Vietnamese were not Muslims… the Vietnamese were fight in for Vietnam, Muslims fight for religion, not country.
The Vietnamese could have cared less is America was a stanch supporter of Israel.
The South Vietnamese hated America’s various puppet governments, the CIA’s meddling and ultimately folded like a house of cards when ask to defend that (corrupt) government… the history is there.
thanks for stopping by, David.
One more thing, the Vietnamese could have cared less that America is a Christian nation.
Ever hear of radical Buddhist-fascist suicide bombers?
(I know you people, you’ll find some obscure link, like a bottle of old Drano that proves WMD in Iraq.
Muslims over there think of the Christian Crusades like it was yesterday.
Neo-cons span for history goes back about oh, one week.
Remember those six years when you people controlled the three branches of governmwant… how’d that work out for you?
You people all live in Bushworld.
David, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
David- you forgot to mention that Vietnamese people and Muslims wear very different styles of hats.
“If the US cannot win a war of counter-insurgency, is the US similarly unable to defeat other forms of asymmetrical warfare like terrorism?”
The first group will answer that in the affirmative. Witness the witless, “war on a tactic” arguments. They don’t even have to spend a lot of time thinking about it–it’s an article of faith. Which is why you get unthinking acceptance of the conclusions that stem from it, such as in Bai’s article.
For David, GEN Petraeus didn’t simply pick up either of the two preceeding versions of the Counter Insurgency manual from the 70’s and the 80’s and blow the dust off. A whole new manual was written. Why do you suppose that would be?
“The South Vietnamese hated America’s various puppet governments, the CIA’s meddling and ultimately folded like a house of cards when ask to defend that (corrupt) government… the history is there.”
Please, learn some history before posting again.
Your ignorance is…embarrassing.
Yeah, but what of the ways in which they are similar?
-Neither is a big fan of having dogs as pets.
-Some of them pee standing up.
-They are staunch supporters of a womans right to choose, every last one of em.
That’s all I got.
David, actually it is you who are clueless. Having talked to quite a few people who were in Vietnam in the period in question, the truth is that the Vietnamese in the main just wanted to be left alone. Most didn’t give a damn who was ruling what in Saigon, since those people had very little impact on most people’s lives. Nor did they give a damn about North Vietnam, to the same extent; just “leave us alone” is all they wanted.
And had the North Vietnamese and their VC puppets done just that, none of that entire mess would have ever happened. Hell, the VC were basically out of the picture by the late 1960s, having been destroyed by the US. (So much for it being impossible to destroy an insurgency; of course, we knew it was possible because the Brits did it in Malaysia.) From then on, it was the North Vietnamese Army we were fighting, because North Vietnam, being a Communist country, had the usual Communist imperialist drives and therefore just “had” to conquer the South, which the Democrat Party ultimately allowed them to do.
Come back when you have a clue, sonny…
Excellent follow up, Karl. What a great post.
If the US cannot win a war of counter-insurgency, is the US similarly unable to defeat other forms of asymmetrical warfare like terrorism? If the US simply lacks the patience necessary to win asymmetrical warfare, won’t our enemies be emboldened to wage it more theaters, ultimately in the US? In a few decades, will the domestic security of the US resemble that of Israel? Some on the Left may well have thoughtful responses to those questions, but the debate over such questions never moves forward as long as political and journalistic hacks remain stuck in their own ideological narrative.
Important questions indeed. I would disagree that journalistic hacks stuck in their own narrative can keep this conversation from moving forward. The Supreme Hacktackery is kind of losing its influence. The fact that we keep talking about stuff they deem “pedestrian” “boring” “fringe” or “totally last year” much to their extreme annoyance (oh those stupid webrubes and talk radio dimwits!) is testament to their diminished ability to set the tone for the national conversation.
David has such intellectual depth that, in response to a rather lengthy series of posts arguing in part that the Left and the establishment media crudely compares Iraq to Vietnam without recognizing the differences, concludes that I think Vietnam should be used as a crude analogy to Iraq without recognizing the differences.
Karl,
S’OK – he’s so dim that he doesn’t remember Tom Daschle being Majority Leader six years ago. Remembering what the weather was like yesterday probably pushes his synapse to critical load.
Has anyone notice (yet) the right-wing can’t seem to defend their “intellectual” positions without making some personal attack?
Americans are tiered of your poor history skills, your denial of fact (as on global warming) and your never ending hatred and venom for those not towing your right-wing bs.
Too bad guys, this is not Hannity’s America.
tired
Once you people are out of office, you can go back to being the mostly harmless but annoying cranks you’ve historically been.
enough is enough.
“Too bad guys, this is not Hannity’s America.”
No it is not. Hannity’s America is on Fox News Sundays at 9pm eastern.
David,
You are right, I hate it when people don’t tow my b.s. Do you need a special vehicle to tow b.s.? Do you use chains or ropes for that kind of work?
I only ask b/c your knowledge is clearly very large.
Not a lot of introspection going on there, David. Speck in our eyes and a log in your own as it were.
You attack, you assert, then project that onto the other commenters here when they respond to your ranting with humor or dismissal. It is all you deserve.
You’re a cartoon character, and a poorly drawn one at that.
And, is enough really enough? Or, would just a little more do?
Um, David?
Dude, I don’t think fact means what you think it means. Look up assertion, and get back to me, m’kay?
And, dude, waltzing into a site and making a bunch of unsourced opinions does not make you teh history maven. It merely makes you a spittle flecked troll. I know, you are your own authority but, dude, chill out.
What, dude, you mean like during the eighties? That was were totally awesome, dude!
Hey, everybody! David says we are a people! That’s so cool.
Another question for David,
If Iraq and Vietnam are clearly dissimilar as you state, and the media and democrats are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and using the “Vietnam lessons” as their guidebook on how to approach Iraq, will you thus be voting for a republican as the democrats are clearly wrong?
Or, is intellectual consistency not a major virtue?
Still scratching my head over “six years” – doesn’t this moron know that Pelosi and Reid have held majority leadership positions for the last session of Congress? Is he relating their failure to fulfill ae single election promise made prior to their taking over the majority to some sort of Republican “control” over the Democrat Party?
What a peculiar person.
He also said we’ll be out of office soon. Pretty perceptive of him; the work day’s almost over.
Congrats, David, that is absolutely the most clueless response to a post I have ever seen. That was freekin’ epic, dude.
Actually, I think I can figure out the chain of “thought” he’s using. See…
Before the Gulf War, we were told it would be another Vietnam.
Before Afghanistan, we were told it would be another Vietnam, not another Gulf War.
Before OIF, we were told it would be another Vietnam, not another Afghanistan.
So, essentially, all military conflicts are Vietnam until the left needs them to be something else.
He also said we’ll be out of office soon. Pretty perceptive of him; the work day’s almost over.
Yeah, but I haven’t found anyone to tow my b.s. home yet.
David who?
I can’t leave without my b.s. What’ll the wife think if I came home without my b.s.?
10#
Comment by N. O’Brain on 5/15 @ 1:10 pm #
“The South Vietnamese hated America’s various puppet governments, the CIA’s meddling and ultimately folded like a house of cards when ask to defend that (corrupt) government… the history is there.â€Â
Please, learn some history before posting again.
Your ignorance is…embarrassing.
From Wiki (or do you prefer Conservipedia?),
“The CIA was in contact with generals planning to remove Diem. They were told that the United States would support such a move. President Diem was overthrown and executed, along with his brother, on November 2, 1963. When he was informed, Maxwell Taylor remembered that Kennedy “rushed from the room with a look of shock and dismay on his face.”[48] He had not approved Diem’s murder. The U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, invited the coup leaders to the embassy and congratulated them. Ambassador Lodge informed Kennedy that “the prospects now are for a shorter war”.[49]
Following the coup, chaos ensued. Hanoi took advantage of the situation and increased its support for the guerrillas. South Vietnam entered a period of extreme political instability, as one military government toppled another in quick succession. Increasingly, each new regime was viewed as a puppet of the Americans; whatever the failings of Diem, his credentials as a nationalist (as Robert McNamara later reflected) had been impeccable.[50]”
8#
Comment by MayBee on 5/15 @ 1:08 pm #
“David- you forgot to mention that Vietnamese people and Muslims wear very different styles of hats.”
What does external appearance has nothing to do with ANYTHING Maybee?
The Vietnamese were fighting for control and NATIONALISM… Muslims in the ME are fighting for nutty Islamic theology and a 14th century Islamic WORLD.
See the difference Maybee?
Hats have nothing to do with internal motivation and internal beliefs.
Maybee I’m happy to discuss this further it the differences are not clear and you find it confusing, k?
Once you people are out of office
Oh, I am not giving my office up.
Wait a minute….
[…..]
THE VIETNAMESE WERE NOT MUSLIMS???!!!???!!! HOLLA!!!!!!!!!!
I luvs me my David history lessons.
David, Maybee was making fun of your pointing out lots and lots of irrelevant thingies by pointing out an even more irrelevant thingy.
But I am curious — do you think the Iraqis are not fighting for nationalism?
psssssst
Methinks yon david has a wee problem recognizing the sarcasm. Isn’t he cute in his humorless ignorance? And wiki, too! Isn’t that precious? Shhhhhhhhhh. Don’t say anything…
The first group, of which the media can be said to be a part, have always used their experts to confirm their own judgments of the issue before them, no matter what the facts are on the ground. They do not care if their experts turn out to be wrong, just as long as their experts’ opinions are in line with their own. This occurred, often, with regard to Vietnam.
The second group have experts, too. Experts like Sir Robert Thompson, the man who actually won the British version of Vietnam – Malaya (the Malayan Emergency wasn’t really like Vietnam in most ways, except that it was a complex modern insurgency, which Vietnam was. Thus Thompson was qualified enough to determine how the Americans were faring in Vietnam, and to offer advice). Thompson pronounced the war won by the United States in ’71, ’72 (See: Lewis Sorley, A BETTER WAR). Experts like John Paul Vann, who called it as he saw it, and was an initial critic in the early days of the conflict, always agitating for changes to the war effort and never being heard until way later on. Then finally the changes came with Abrams, and Vann died in 1972 believing the war had been won, a sweeping change from his early beliefs in 1962.
Who would you believe, Walter Cronkite or Thompson/Vann? Which group would you rely on for a judgment on Vietnam, and on Iraq (Pelosi/Reid vs Petraeus/Michael Yon)?
It’s pretty obvious who we’re better off listening to.
I guess David is trying to say is that because the U.S. was involved in a coup against the corrupt government of S. Vietnam, that all of the S. Vietnemese wanted to become communist and join N. Vietnam and that is why we lost the war. That explains the millions murdered by the V.C. and the boat people.
while in Iraq, the muslims remember the crusades like it was yesterday, which is why Iraq is not like Vietnam.
And, because Iraq is not like Vietnam, we are going to lose there as well and therefore should elect a democrat who equates Iraq to Vietnam and will take all of the troops out of Iraq to ensure a quicker loss.
It all makes perfect sense.
Damn. I’d kill for an office today. What is it with people holding large, loud meetings in their cubes?
Sorry, not the millions murdered by the boat people – it helps explain why millions of people fled Vietnam after the N. Vietnamese took over.
“Damn. I’d kill for an office today. What is it with people holding large, loud meetings in their cubes?”
Can you call in any air support?
Can you call in any air support?
Is that what we are calling flatulance now?
David, Duuuuuude! Also from righteous Wiki:
You know what I’m seeing, Duuuude? That Diem, he wasn’t so righteous and, in fact (did you look up that word yet, dude?) was considered pretty hienous by the SV dudes and dudettes.
Too many bong hits, dude, too many,,,
Too close.
Close air support? Turn on the video, please!
Nobody told me they were going to be letting middle school out early today.
So David, did that totally hawt cheerleader pass that note to you that she asked me to help her write?
“Is that what we are calling flatulance now?”
No that’s canned David.
You guys lay off David.
HE’S READ WIKI’S SOUTH VIETNAM ARTICLE. WOOT!
I’m stumped. Anyone else got an answer for that, or should we all just terminate our internet connections in shame?
David – I have a house full of Vietnamese people that would question what planet you live on.
David’s first post on this thread begins with:
“Wow, you people are clueless on two MAJOR points.”
Then complains:
“Has anyone notice (yet) the right-wing can’t seem to defend their ‘intellectual’ positions without making some personal attack?”
Someone has a projection problem.
d’oh… make one snarky comment to data2dave’s spew and forget to set the name back with ANOTHER Dave.
And the beards, David. You forgot the beards.
And Kyoto.
What is it with people that assume the moniker of dave?
Good catch there, Karl. Stole my line ;-)
And Blackwater, but not Halliburton. And, Exxon.
But not Katrina.
“Why did US counter-insurgency doctrine have to be given a major overhaul by Gen. Petraeus and others? Was it all due to lessons learned in Iraq, or did the US military give insufficient attention to counter-insurgency doctrine after Vietnam? â€Â
The answer is that after Vietnam the Army did not want to refight another similar war, so the experience was shoved down the memory hole. Instead, it renewed its focus on fighting the Soviets in Europe, albeit with a brief diversion in El Salvador. The Powell Doctrine was specificially intended to sharply define the character of future wars that the U.S. would prosecute – the problem being that the military does not set policy and Powell had no authority to lay out just where and under what conditions the Army would have to fight.
In its defense, the military at least some respectable reasons for its reticience. Counterinsurgencies are messy affairs that play to our weaknesses, rather than our strengths – they are long-term, manpower intensive, and heavily political – which are all major problems for us due to the manner in which we as a country currently carry out warfare. They also are heavily affected by indigenous political currents and circumstances, of which foreign counterinsurgents, especially, have little long-term control.
It should be said, however, we are attempting to carry out something much bigger simple counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are insurgencies in these countries, but defeating them is only part of our mission in these countries, as it is currently stated. In fact we’re actually carrying out wider nation-building missions in both theatres, with all the potential problems that implies.
And oh yeah – David?
You’re a dumbass.
moar funny pictures“>David haz BEEG
pikcha
No insult here, David, just a question you seem to be ignoring.
GEN Petraeus didn’t simply pick up either of the two preceeding versions of the Counter Insurgency manual from the 70’s and the 80’s and blow the dust off. A whole new manual was written. Why do you suppose that would be?
FTR, acquiescing in the South Vietnamese junta’s removal of Diem was the worst thing we did to the country’s circumstances. It destabilized the country, removed a charismatic and strong leader, and led to a revolving chair of military rulers who contributed to large swathes of the country going to pot.
He was not a popularly elected leader, but a marginally effective one. We’d be lucky to have an Iraqi or Afghani version. But David and his buddies would bitch about him, too.
“…they are long-term, manpower intensive, and heavily political – which are all major problems for us due to the manner in which we as a country currently carry out warfare.”
and domestic politics.
Link failure. Now is the Big picture
David, can you say non sequitur?
Sure you can.
Hey Sarah, did you see that Lori Drew has been indicted?
MlR,
I’m not entirely certain about the Diem issue myself. I’m not so sure that Diem would have continued to be a marginally effective leader, or that the country would have remained fairly stabilized under Diem, given the man’s penchant for making enemies. Some have said that Diem remaining in control would have led to a better ending, and some have said that Diem should have never been in power in the first place. I think this definitely is an area I’d like to do some more research on. But if I had my druthers, I would probably prefer Thieu over Diem.
However, the assassination/subsequent coup was a clusterfuck of the biggest order. That’s for sure.
As for your comment at #57, spot on. I agree. Victor Davis Hanson is most illustrative on this point, as the American way of war clearly adheres closely to what Sherman or Patton did, not small wars like Vietnam.
Ironically enough, a deep enough research effort into the history of America’s small wars since the late 1700s would find that we were more successful than not.
“and domestic politics.”
Yes, for better or worse, this is a distinict feature of the American way of war, and is part of the reason we have difficulty fighting heavily political wars because the debates abroad and at home tie each other in knots.
Frankly, I only recently came to the epiphany, while reading a history of the Mexican-American War, that the only prolongued war efforts in this country’s history that received relatively unanimous domestic political support were World Wars I and II. Because they were relatively recent, however, many people see them as the norm. Korea, Mexican-American War, Spanish American War, Revolutionary War, War of 1812 – all had major domestic anti-war movements, some of which actually bordered on treasonous. Vietnam wasn’t the odd man out, in this respect. In general, we are not a warlike, Spartan nation and easily drift – overall, I consider that an extraordinarily good thing, but it doesn’t make for tough military policy.
Explaining the World Wars, my guess is the reasons were Wilson’s proto-dictatorship for the former, and the combination of Pearl Harbor and the fact we were fighting alongside the Soviet Union (which brought many of the potential rabbel-rousers on board for the latter effort).
Pablo, hey, no, I had not. Thanks for the tip.
Say it!? It’s his first language!
“I’m not entirely certain about the Diem issue myself. I’m not so sure that Diem would have continued to be a marginally effective leader, or that the country would have remained fairly stabilized under Diem, given the man’s penchant for making enemies. Some have said that Diem remaining in control would have led to a better ending, and some have said that Diem should have never been in power in the first place. I think this definitely is an area I’d like to do some more research on. But if I had my druthers, I would probably prefer Thieu over Diem.”
Yep, Diem was not a perfect character, by far. But neither are most wartime leaders. It was said of Churchill that his grasph of battlefield tactics was frozen in the Boer War (although he was better at big picture strategy). I’m not a Thieu-hater either, the problem being in my opinion, however, that it took a number of years to get to Thieu, during which time South Vietnamese domestic policy drifted for the worse. But yeah, there’s still a lot of stuff to be researched about those years, it’s only recently, as the previously political hack hiostiries are being slowly displaced by real balanced histories, that this issues are getting serious treatment. If you haven’t already read it, I strongly suggest Mark Moyer’s recent book for the pro-Diem argument. Among other things, he found that Kennedy actually didn’t even authorize the assassination or coup. His Administration dithered on the issue, and it was only after the Ambassador (and Liberal Republican) Henry Cabot Lodge gave his permission freelance and without authorization that it was carried out.
“As for your comment at #57, spot on. I agree. Victor Davis Hanson is most illustrative on this point, as the American way of war clearly adheres closely to what Sherman or Patton did, not small wars like Vietnam.”
If you want a long treatment, I suggest Russell Weigley’s The American Way of War.
“In genearl, we’ve always done firepower-laden Crusades well – operations not so much.”
“Ironically enough, a deep enough research effort into the history of America’s small wars since the late 1700s would find that we were more successful than not.”
Yes, Max Boot wrote a good book on the subject. Americans in the field improvise real well – in my opinion the problem is when these efforts are thrust in the national spotlight and get tied up in domestic politics. So long as it’s in the background, as the Phillipines and Colombia current are, we can do it as good as anyone.
Sorry for all the typos, I’m writing from work. The current problems take precedence over past ones. ;0)
“In genearl, we’ve always done firepower-laden Crusades well – operations not so much.â€Â
Aside from the fact that’s my quote, not Weigley’s, that should be…
“delicate operations not so much.”
“Shhhh! Be vewey vewey quiet. I’m huntin’ stwamen!”
-david
WWI also wasn’t, for the American experience, a long war. From Declaration on 6 April 1917 to Armistice on 11 November 1918 is only 19 months, but 1st Division dind’t begin arriving in France until June and the first US offensive wouldn’t be until May of 1918, that’s lkess than 7 months of combat.
The general public wasn’t aware of the Polar Bear Expedition which would extend that another year.
I GOTS to get my handds on the Marine Corps “Small War Manual”.
They been doing this shit for a long time.
hands.
You don’t want to know what I do with my handds.
No’B: In .pdf format– http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/sw_manual.asp
“WWI also wasn’t, for the American experience, a long war. From Declaration on 6 April 1917 to Armistice on 11 November 1918 is only 19 months, but 1st Division dind’t begin arriving in France until June and the first US offensive wouldn’t be until May of 1918, that’s lkess than 7 months of combat.”
A very good point.
Frankly, I would have avoided the entire thing. Hard to imagine a victorious Imperial Germany being much worse than the almost complete collapse of all previous polictal authority East of the Rhine, with all the demons that came out of that. But Wilson had his messiah moment, Europeans thought he was a God, so…
Most of the evils we’re still dealing with today have their roots in WWI or were exacerbated by it.
…and he couldn’t bring himself to disagree with them.
Thank you, sir!
I was a bit dissapointed in the 7000th posting of the Wiki VietNam apperachik Lefty propoganda piece.
– David of “repeat and rinse” fame failed to do the “Wars never solved anything !!!1111eleventy!!!” screed.
– It just doesn’t ring with the rich feel of Fantabulism without the screed.
“….even though the New York Times now concedes that Tet “was a military defeat for the Communist guerrillas and their North Vietnamese sponsors.â€Â
– Well yeeehhaaa. It would have been over the top fabulist, even for the daily cartoon shit-sheet from the Left, since Min himself said they were ready to sue for peace after TET.
– To this day the moron Konrads think all the bullshit of the 60’s-70’s they engaged in had a huge effect on the endding of that war.
– Wrong. We got out when we went operational with fully deployed MAD.
– But fuck it. They cling to their illusions like Linus and his blanket, and no one really gives a shit anymore except the people, and their loved ones, who gave it all for the right of the hippie generation to act like complete treasonous assholes.
Can I punch out early and go home? Dave said it was OK.
-….Oh…..and avoid the draft.
“But Wilson had his messiah moment, Europeans thought he was a God..”
Meh. I wouldn’t go THAT far. Methinks it was more like the Europeans were thinking “let’s see if we can get these Yankee goobers to come over here and bail our collective ass out of this self-made mess”. Maybe we were involved in World War I for less that two years, but Europe had been in it for three years, and the body count, at least in terms of the flower of young European manhood was beyond imagining.
Maybe Wilson had his messiah moment (he certainly had a crack at it after the war with his “League of Nations” notion), but I can’t imagine any Eurotrash assholes past, present or future, thinking very highly of us or our leaders, no matter how much American blood and treasure is expended pulling their chestnuts out of the fire…
– That 50,000 people would be so horribly effected by a 7.1 earthquake, something the Peoples party of China tried to cover up by citing the strength as 9+ in early press releases, is a epic scandal in this day and age.
– Another fine example of the Lefts Utopian Socialism clusterfuck ideology in action.
When discussing the public’s support of American wars, the American Civil War is also an interesting topic.
Which is why I often refer to modern “disenters” as Copperheads.
George B. McClellan graduated second in his class at West Point.
@ #87: Heh. Someone remind me where Ulysses S. Grant graduated.
MIR and RTOT:
Though I grew up during the Vietnam War, I am woefully ignorant of its history, causes, battles, etc. Could either of you point to a book I would be best served by reading?
During the war, I was fully indoctrinated by hippie parents–5th grade black arm bands the day after Kent State, VW micro-bus with daisies, the whole nine yards.
From wiki:
“He graduated from West Point in 1843, ranking 21st in a class of 39.”
If you want a good Grant book, read “The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant” by J. F. C. Fuller.
Fuller thought Grant was a genius, too.
The “too” refers to my opinion.
Good book, anyway.
Cowboy,
Street Without Joy and Hell In A Very Small Place by Bernard Fall are great starting points, at least for the French experience in Indochina. Also, read The Last Valley by Martin Windrow, which deals in even greater detail about Dien Bien Phu.
Sounds almost like a … a C student.
Cowboy –
Books to recommend on the Vietnam saga:
Lewis Sorley, A BETTER WAR – it’s about America’s final years in Vietnam, and how Creighton Abrams turned it around. A big part of my research into the Vietnam War and a big staple of the revisionist school of thought concerning Vietnam.
Mark Woodruff, UNHERALDED VICTORY – covers the war in whole and argues that we won the war on the ground. Has additional information on the North Vietnamese effort to use the antiwar movement as a weapon against us.
Rick Atkinson, THE LONG GREY LINE
Robert Timberg, THE NIGHTINGALE’S SONG (John McCain is a central character in this one)
Neil Sheehan, A BRIGHT SHINING LIE (I disagree with Sheehan, but it’s a great account of John Paul Vann in Vietnam)
Harry Summers, ON STRATEGY
Douglas Kinnard, THE WAR MANAGERS
Peter Braestrup, BIG STORY (about how the media screwed up the reporting of the Tet Offensive)
Larry Berman, NO PEACE, NO HONOR
Larry Engelmann, TEARS BEFORE THE RAIN
etc…
a good number of books out there.
Bison,
Good call on Atkinson’s and Woodruff’s books. Forgot to mention those. Enjoy, Cowboy!
(Good list Bufflao Six!)
Include.
VIETNAM by Stanley Karnow
I couldn’t agree more on Sheehan. If you only read one book, find Summers.
Wesley “Little Mac II” Clark graduated first in his class.
Grant was 21st out of 39.
Wesley “Little Mac II†Clark
HAH!
That’s what I like about this site, erudite people with twisted senses of humor.
Hell, some of you even get my jokes.
What is it with people that assume the moniker of dave?
I think this might have something to do with it.
(mostly) good thread! good to see other history geeks are on PW. I am not alone!
Have to agree with Cave Bear #83, but also point out that the Number #1 priority of the victorious European powers of WW I was to get back to business as usual with the pre-war colonial policies & etc. Plus there were all those former German colonies in Africa, the Pacific, and the Far East to haggle over and divide up. Wilson’s 14 Points kind of went against that kind of thinking. The French and British were heavily in debt to US banking interests, limiting their ability to grow their post war economies. On top of that, all the European powers called upon their colonies to provide troops for the war effort: from Africa, the Carribean, India, IndoChina, Austrailia, Canada, to name a few, provided thousands of warm bodies for the conflict in Europe. The surviving veterans who returned home were not too keen to bail their European overlords out of the debt mess, and began to ask themselves what the Empire had done for them lately. (This is similar to the situation in north America in the 1750s and 1760s, after the successful British/American colonies war effort against the French and their native American allies). Post WW I, the nationalistic struggles, sometimes peaceful, usually not, of these soon-to-be-former colonies of Europe wrote much of the history of the 20th century and even continues today.
Interesting to note that a young “nationalist” from the French colony of Indochina (later known as Vietnam) attended the Versailles peace conference at the end of WW I, to petition the French for recognition of his homeland as an independent nation. He didn’t get too far. He even appealed to US President Woodrow WIlson, citing the 14 points. Again, he got the cold shoulder. His name was Ho Chi Minh. History casts a very interesting arc sometimes.
You have to distinguish between the people on the street, and the cynical leadership.
See, for example, the first paragraph of this. As for European ungratefulness, this was the first time that the U.S. had got substantively involved in European affairs. Anti-Americanism was around amongst the leadership and intelligentsia classes, but an American President was more of an oddity to a person on the street. In this case, an oddity speaking of rainbows, butterflies, independence for all, peace forever, etc, etc.
Wasn’t until the 1960s that large portions of Western Europe began to realize we were a nice, dependable dog they could kick to boost up their self-esteem. Frankly, I still think that getting heavily involved in European affairs may have been one of the biggest mistakes we ever made.
As for books, Cowboy. Some good suggestions above, though I’m not a Sheihan fan. I’d second Sorley and Summers, in particular. I’ll also add:
Why We Were in Vietnam by Norman Podhoretz, for arguments concerning the U.S. involvement.
Mark Moyer’s Triumph Forsaken, for the early years of U.S. involvement.
Streets Without Joy by Bernard Fall, for the prior French experience.
In conjuction with Summers and Moyer, you can also read The Army and Vietnam by Andrew Krepinevich, for a more critical view of the Army’s performance, especially during the early years of our involvement.
Aaaaaaaaaah, lay off poor David, he can’t help it he’s a dumbass. He has probably never had a conversation with a Vietnam vet or one who was actually there during Tet. He probably knows very few people who were even alive during the Vietnam War and those who were are undoubtedly the ones who thought they were helping the effort by supporting the enemy. Isn’t that who is educating the kids out there today? Or maybe he just gets all his information from people on TV who think the Cole bombing happened under Bush’s watch.
Thank you all for the book suggestions! I’ll be checking my library today. I think I’ll start with Summers.
Cowboy:
Absolutely indispensable book: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam, by Col. H. R McMaster. Between this book and Sorley’s you span the entire era. Col. McMaster is a super military historian who has gone on to distinguish himself as a commander in Iraq.
I actually served with Col McMaster (not in Iraq, before that when he was a LTC at Fort Irwin (NTC)). He’s a really good guy, as well as being a good commander and good historian. I recommend his book as well.
– GB.
Off topic, but did anyone see that hilarious exchange between Chris Matthews and some dimwit radio talk show host the other night about Israel, Chamberlain, and appeasement?
I loathe Chris Matthews, but he was pretty fucking funny for that five minutes of his pathetic life.
Typical Matthews ambush journalism, anything to deflect from the real topic. Funny how he only does it to Republicans, hmmmm?
A pair of Jokers doesn’t beat much, really.
BMoe, but the guy was an idiot for not at least knowing what the fuck he was talking about. It is not an ambush when you are dumb enough to make comparisons to someone that you know nothing about. On national television. On a talk show.
Didn’t he at least entertain the possibility that he might be queried? What a tool.
Like I said, I am no huge fan of Tweetie, but that was good stuff. Maybe people will actually consider doing a teensy bit of homework before the go on TV to bloviate. But I doubt it (and that goes for both sides of the political aisle).
Just saw that Colonel McMaster will soon be Brigadier General McMaster.
“Just saw that Colonel McMaster will soon be Brigadier General McMaster.”
That’s overdue. His post-invasion tour in Iraq was literally the laboratory for the new COIN manual and the Surge.
McCain apparently wants to start a new Cold War with Russia and China, undoing decades of diplomacy. His idea of kicking Russia out, and excluding China from the G8 group of industrialized nations (that comprise the majority of the world’s production and industry), was called by Newsweek: “the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years.â€Â
So, McCain’s vision includes increased tension with China, a country whose economy is growing at triple the rate of the US and is poised to overtake the US in superpower status, and Russia, one of the largest producers of oil and home to the majority of unaccounted for nuclear weapons. Now… that’ll keep safe, don’t ya think? More of the same arrogant bullshit isolationist antagonist foreign policy. Is that what we need? Bush has played right into the hands of the terrorists. A gov’t report verifies this.
“…we live in an interdependent world in which we cannot possibly kill,
jail or occupy all of our potential adversaries. So we have to both fight terror and
build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists.” – Bill Clinton
economy is growing at triple the rate of the US and is poised to overtake the US in superpower status
Yeah, I remember when Japan was in that position.
Hint: it didn’t happen.
Yeah, I remember when Japan was in that position.
Hint: it didn’t happen.
Wake up. Haven’t you noticed whats happening to the dollar? Maybe if America doesn’t elect a war monger isolationist president, WE won’t get kicked out of the G8.
William,
Are you saying we should or should NOT elect a “war monger isolationist president”? Or neither?…Or both?
*singing* one of these things is not like the other… One of these things is not the same
Well, we’ll be just fine when non-warmongering President Obama invades Pakistan. In a non-isolationist manner, of course.
Haven’t you noticed whats happening to the dollar?
Sure. Excellent news if you’re in the export trade.
Your point?
Pssst, William! The word you’re looking for is not “isolationist.” It’s “unilateralist.”
Try to keep your polemical jargon straight, m’kay?
*singing* one of these things is not like the other
I think he’s talking about Civil War II or something like that.
Or maybe he’s just a fuckin’ tard.
Is that out for PlayStation yet?
I’ve been waiting for the version where the Yankees ride dinosaurs.
Civil War II: Electric Boogaloo
BMoe, but the guy was an idiot for not at least knowing what the fuck he was talking about.
The guy was an idiot. Period. He is a third tier, bush league nobody who has no business on a national news show. How would you feel if Hannity got some no-name Rosie O’Donnell wannabe on his show and then fucked her like that? It ain’t like the Republicans nominated that dude to appear, Matthews invited him. If Matthews wants someone well schooled in history to debate, he should invite someone who knows his shit, instead of some slick talking idiot and then act all outraged about it.
I am quite sure Limbaugh would love a chance to talk to Matthews on prime time, but there is no chance in hell Chrissy would go there.