- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 46,485
- Reaction score
- 22,688
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Vietnam was a country of peasant, that was long colonized and exploited, more history than needed for this post, but in the period in question, it was a colony of France in the earlier 20th century, then of Japan in WWII, then France again - with US actively pushing France to re-colonize and assisting, eventually paying 90% of France's war costs.
The people of Vietnam weren't that political, they were farmers. But they didn't like the colonizers, and supported the fighters for independence - with Ho Chi Minh becoming the leader. He had fought for independence since he wrote an unanswered letter to President Wilson, and when Japan was expelled after WWII, he issued a declaration of independence based on the US, asking the US to support independence.
The US refused, supported France re-colonizing, until Ho defeated France, when they created a new plan, dividing the country and installing a US puppet, Diem. Diem ruled, with his wife, called the 'Dragon Lady' and her brother, who were guilty of a very harsh and largely unpopular rule. Buddhist monks famously burned themselves alive in protest of him, which his wife laughed at as a 'monk barbeque'.
It's not surprising the people of Vietnam did not feel special loyalty to this US puppet regime essentially continuing to colonize them. The US had promised elections, but cancelled them when Eisenhower estimated Ho would get 80% of the vote. The US public was mystified at the lack of South Vietnam's cooperating with our war, because they thought we were fighting for their freedom against hated communists.
In Afghanistan, the US invaded for our own reasons and overthrew a disliked government, the Taliban, and could set up a better government. Instead, the US installed a hugely corrupt - criminal - government hated by Afghans, who felt no loyalty to it. For 20 years, the US poured money into the corrupt government who defrauded the US and had a hard time 'winning the war', while the American people thought we were there to help them.
In both cases, the US installed and supported terrible governments that rightly lacked popular support, guilty of broad corruption and abuses, while telling the American people they were good governments representing the people and we were supporting their freedom against a terrible enemy.
In both cases, the wars had some good, but a lot of bad, costing the US a fortune in lives and money, with presidents 'not wanting to lose' until finally leaving claiming 'peace with honor' everyone saw through.
In both cases, these lessons were not widely understood by the American people, and nothing was done for accountability or to prevent repeating the same mistakes. Instead, there were popular misunderstandings that fit people's opinions - 'it's because of the politicians', 'it's because the military's hands were tied', 'it's because the people there didn't care and appreciate the help', and more, including just saying 'it was a mistake' and losing interest.
It's remarkable how inept in backing corrupt regimes, how needless, how harmful these wars were without our country better understanding them. Even with heroes like Daniel Ellsberg risking life in prison to get the truth to the American people, who were largely uninterested. I'd say the problems were awfully similar between them - each the longest US war in history at its time. We couldn't learn this one post info in 10-20 years of war?
It's not as if there weren't clues, and truthtellers. But the public largely responded to them along partisan lines, questioning their patriotism, viewing them as disloyal reporters if they heard them at all. Most media did not highlight the story of the 'real situation', instead reporting on 'human interest stories', details about battles, political debates about 'surges' and other plans to 'turn the war around'.
Both wars ended with claims the forces we'd built up would remain in power for years to come, but immediately fell in chaos, both with the American people glad to see them over, but not having learned much. You have to think about how US troops feel about risking their livers in such wars, looking to some good to come out of it while they served. It's not WWII, as much as presidents try to say otherwise.
A glaring unlearned lesson is, what if the US had worked with Ho Chi Minh instead of against him, a friend to the independence of the Vietnamese people? What if the US had installed a good government in Afghanistan the people supported? What if the US had installed a good government in Iraq after overthrowing Saddam, instead of Paul Bremer?
But we haven't learned the lessons, mostly.
The people of Vietnam weren't that political, they were farmers. But they didn't like the colonizers, and supported the fighters for independence - with Ho Chi Minh becoming the leader. He had fought for independence since he wrote an unanswered letter to President Wilson, and when Japan was expelled after WWII, he issued a declaration of independence based on the US, asking the US to support independence.
The US refused, supported France re-colonizing, until Ho defeated France, when they created a new plan, dividing the country and installing a US puppet, Diem. Diem ruled, with his wife, called the 'Dragon Lady' and her brother, who were guilty of a very harsh and largely unpopular rule. Buddhist monks famously burned themselves alive in protest of him, which his wife laughed at as a 'monk barbeque'.
It's not surprising the people of Vietnam did not feel special loyalty to this US puppet regime essentially continuing to colonize them. The US had promised elections, but cancelled them when Eisenhower estimated Ho would get 80% of the vote. The US public was mystified at the lack of South Vietnam's cooperating with our war, because they thought we were fighting for their freedom against hated communists.
In Afghanistan, the US invaded for our own reasons and overthrew a disliked government, the Taliban, and could set up a better government. Instead, the US installed a hugely corrupt - criminal - government hated by Afghans, who felt no loyalty to it. For 20 years, the US poured money into the corrupt government who defrauded the US and had a hard time 'winning the war', while the American people thought we were there to help them.
In both cases, the US installed and supported terrible governments that rightly lacked popular support, guilty of broad corruption and abuses, while telling the American people they were good governments representing the people and we were supporting their freedom against a terrible enemy.
In both cases, the wars had some good, but a lot of bad, costing the US a fortune in lives and money, with presidents 'not wanting to lose' until finally leaving claiming 'peace with honor' everyone saw through.
In both cases, these lessons were not widely understood by the American people, and nothing was done for accountability or to prevent repeating the same mistakes. Instead, there were popular misunderstandings that fit people's opinions - 'it's because of the politicians', 'it's because the military's hands were tied', 'it's because the people there didn't care and appreciate the help', and more, including just saying 'it was a mistake' and losing interest.
It's remarkable how inept in backing corrupt regimes, how needless, how harmful these wars were without our country better understanding them. Even with heroes like Daniel Ellsberg risking life in prison to get the truth to the American people, who were largely uninterested. I'd say the problems were awfully similar between them - each the longest US war in history at its time. We couldn't learn this one post info in 10-20 years of war?
It's not as if there weren't clues, and truthtellers. But the public largely responded to them along partisan lines, questioning their patriotism, viewing them as disloyal reporters if they heard them at all. Most media did not highlight the story of the 'real situation', instead reporting on 'human interest stories', details about battles, political debates about 'surges' and other plans to 'turn the war around'.
Both wars ended with claims the forces we'd built up would remain in power for years to come, but immediately fell in chaos, both with the American people glad to see them over, but not having learned much. You have to think about how US troops feel about risking their livers in such wars, looking to some good to come out of it while they served. It's not WWII, as much as presidents try to say otherwise.
A glaring unlearned lesson is, what if the US had worked with Ho Chi Minh instead of against him, a friend to the independence of the Vietnamese people? What if the US had installed a good government in Afghanistan the people supported? What if the US had installed a good government in Iraq after overthrowing Saddam, instead of Paul Bremer?
But we haven't learned the lessons, mostly.