Republicans Opinion on Vietnam

[J-Mann]

I would not have supported the Vietnam War (though I most certainly would have supported the troops as well as served had I been drafted).  It was a horribly run political war that should not have happened, though the government was in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position.  The US needed to appear to be supporting democracies in East Asia, but too aggressive (ie: successful) of a war against North Vietnam would have invited direct retaliation from the Soviets, possibly leading to nuclear war.  We couldn't just leave South Vietnam to the Communists, but we couldn't afford a successful war, either...if that makes any sense (trust me, I'm not entirely sure that it does).

My dad, who was drafted in 1965, has always cursed the government for running the Vietnam War the way they did.  He laments that there were a lot of bombs dropped on a lot of jungle, killing a lot of monkeys, when all they would have had to do to win was to bomb Hanoi.  But Vietnam was more political and more about attrition, and we lost.  I suppose that I agree with the principle behind the war, ie: taking a stand against Communism in East Asia.  I don't agree one bit with how the war was run, though such conduct was quite possibly unavoidable so as not to risk a larger scale conflict outside of the theater of Vietnam.

Vietnam veterans understand that dilemma, but they sure as hell don't like it.  It was sad that the American public lost faith in the war and then lost faith in the soldiers.  John Kerry had every right to give the testimony he did, and though I think he's nothing more than a political opportunist, it probably took some balls to say what he did.  But what he said further alienated his fellow soldiers.  That's what they remember.  That's what hurt them, that a fellow soldier would turn his back on them.  Perhaps Kerry's goal was noble: to end the war and bring troops home.  But he unnecessarily harmed his fellow soldiers in doing so.  He could have, and should have, chosen his words more carefully.

[J-Mann]

J-Mann, I find your assessment very interesting.  But what is striking to me is that while you agree with the end result, motives, and overall direction of Kerry's actions you criticize the execution.

I'm sorry but to me this is kind of like attacking the general who knowingly sacrifices a platoon to save a division.

I don't particularly agree with the end result, motives, and direction that Kerry took either.  His stated goals appear noble (sacrifice the platoon to save the division), but my personal feeling is that Kerry is just an opportunist, and he was riding the political winds of the time.  And the general who sacrifices a platoon to save the division still gets criticized for his action, whether it's right or wrong.

But you make a valid point: there are probably many out there who agree with Kerry's motives but lament the way he went about things.  Their feelings about him are conflicted, just as feelings about the Vietnam War are conflicted.  But I think in retrospect, the feelings of betrayal outweigh any good that Kerry's testimony may have wrought. 

[J-Mann]

Vietnam and now Iraq are the biggest reason against allowing reporters in combat. We as a nation are such weaklings that we can't take war, so we end up losing the will to fight. The media is just a tool of the anti-war lobby to get us out of war.

Not so fast...the media was a great tool of the government during the first Gulf War, not to mention wars earlier than Vietnam.  Problems abound with public rejection of conflicts like Vietnam and Iraq, but the media being inherently anti-war is not one of them.  The public rejects what it sees on television today because it isn't presented to them as everything else is: simple, fast, and with a happy ending.  Collectively, this nation has the attention span of the average five-year-old, so naturally we turn against conflicts that aren't cut, dried, and over in a month.  Would you feel that the media had done its job any better if it were the mouthpiece of the government?  I don't like all of what is presented on the nightly news and the ideological slants some stories and reporters take, but I don't like everything my government has done, either.

As for Kerry, I really didn't care much about Vietnam, except that he never refuted them or came out against them. Obviously, he thought he did the right thing by protesting, but really we could have been out of there quicker if the country just let the military do its job.

And there's the catch - the one that I mentioned in an earlier post.  Had the military been allowed to do its job, North Vietnam would have presented no real challenge.  The retaliation from the Soviets would have.  Vietnam put our political leaders in a terrible spot, one that I hope I would never have to be in.  Not getting involved in Vietnam would have meant ceding that ground to Communism; something that we were unwilling to do at the time.  But fighting a war meant treading carefully so as not to incite large scale action from the Soviets or the Chinese.  Very regrettable, but possibly unavoidable.