Republicans Opinion on Vietnam

[Wakie]

Just a question for my Republican friends who held Kerry's protesting the Vietnam War against him, how many men had to die before you would admit that Vietnam was a worthless mistake?

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

From what I see, Republican attacks on Kerry boiled down to two things, both fallacious:

1-Kerry's testimony toward Congress on the atrocities committed. The distortion is that Kerry was smearing all vets by claiming this. Totally untrue. Kerry wasn't implying that all vets were engaging in these activities, just that they were taking place. He wasn't pointing the finger at anyone. The alternative as I see it is simply to ignore or cover up all such atrocities, not the best course of action.

2-The he had been involved with Jane Fonda before. This is about as valid of an attack as the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands. Kerry opposed Fonda's visit to Vietnam and advised against it.

I guess more guilt by association attacks can be covered by the fact some members of Vietnam Veterans Against The War were far more radical than Kerry and had more radical activities planned. But Kerry was a moderate, and oppose these. Kerry is in no way resposible for any of the objectional activites of Jane Fonda or some of the more radical factions of the anti-war movement, so I see all attacks on him as either deliberate distortions or lame guilt-by-association smears. Kerry did nothing wrong, and is a hero for trying to end the deaths of unwilling American kids to defend an evil dictatorship.

[The Duke]

I do not disagree with Kerry's assesment of the war, but I do disagree with the manner in which he made his views known.

[Wakie]

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.

[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. 

[qwerty]

I recently had the opportunity to discuss this with my uncle who is a Vietnam veteran, he was awarded a purple heart and a gold star. He served 19 months, four times as long as John Kerry. He said yes, there were the occasional war crimes but they were never on a day to day basis as Mr. Kerry claims. He never saw anyone touting the fact that they had cut off an ear or anything like that.

His general view is that Mr. Kerry made up stories just to get himself in the papers. Unfortunatley, he did it at the expense of the morale, trust, and digity of his fellow veterans.

[Wakie]

His general view is that Mr. Kerry made up stories just to get himself in the papers. Unfortunatley, he did it at the expense of the morale, trust, and digity of his fellow veterans.

Well, an interesting point here.  Have you or your uncle ever actually read or heard Kerry's entire testimony?  If not, make it a point to do so.  In it he talks about having come from a meeting (which it is documented he WAS at) with veterans who told the type of stories he describes in his testimony.  He cites the testimony from this meeting as his proof.

So I don't think you can say he "made it all up" but rather that he just repeated what others had told him.  That's certainly not a shocking thing for a 26-y/o to do.

If you check out his testimony and his interviews from the time, Kerry's biggest argument about the US being involved in "war crimes" is the use of "free fire zones" which are CLEARLY a violation of the Geneva Convention and were widely used in Vietnam.

[The Duke]

His general view is that Mr. Kerry made up stories just to get himself in the papers. Unfortunatley, he did it at the expense of the morale, trust, and digity of his fellow veterans.

Well, an interesting point here.  Have you or your uncle ever actually read or heard Kerry's entire testimony?  If not, make it a point to do so.  In it he talks about having come from a meeting (which it is documented he WAS at) with veterans who told the type of stories he describes in his testimony.  He cites the testimony from this meeting as his proof.

So I don't think you can say he "made it all up" but rather that he just repeated what others had told him.  That's certainly not a shocking thing for a 26-y/o to do.

If you check out his testimony and his interviews from the time, Kerry's biggest argument about the US being involved in "war crimes" is the use of "free fire zones" which are CLEARLY a violation of the Geneva Convention and were widely used in Vietnam.

1. The meeting in question is the "Winter Soldier Investigation", and most of the 'veterans' turned out to be liars.

2. Free fire zones are not violations of the Geneva convention.  They are often misrepresented as being zones where you can shoot anything you want, this is not the case.  The Court Martial of Rusty Calley over the My Lai incident demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that behavior within FFZs had to conform to the Geneva Convention.

[Wakie]

His general view is that Mr. Kerry made up stories just to get himself in the papers. Unfortunatley, he did it at the expense of the morale, trust, and digity of his fellow veterans.

Well, an interesting point here.  Have you or your uncle ever actually read or heard Kerry's entire testimony?  If not, make it a point to do so.  In it he talks about having come from a meeting (which it is documented he WAS at) with veterans who told the type of stories he describes in his testimony.  He cites the testimony from this meeting as his proof.

So I don't think you can say he "made it all up" but rather that he just repeated what others had told him.  That's certainly not a shocking thing for a 26-y/o to do.

If you check out his testimony and his interviews from the time, Kerry's biggest argument about the US being involved in "war crimes" is the use of "free fire zones" which are CLEARLY a violation of the Geneva Convention and were widely used in Vietnam.

1. The meeting in question is the "Winter Soldier Investigation", and most of the 'veterans' turned out to be liars.

2. Free fire zones are not violations of the Geneva convention.  They are often misrepresented as being zones where you can shoot anything you want, this is not the case.  The Court Martial of Rusty Calley over the My Lai incident demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that behavior within FFZs had to conform to the Geneva Convention.

1) But did he know that at that time?  No.  He's only repeating what others told him.  Not a shocking thing for a 26 y/o to do.  He never presents their stories as his own.  He just repeats what he has been told.

2) The only way a FFZ is allowed is if an area is civilian free or if the civilians there "take a direct part in hostilities".  It is pretty well documented that FFZ's were overused throughout Vietnam.

[PBrunsel]

The Tonkin Gulf Resoultion was a campaign resolution to take the wind out of the sails of a right wing candidate like Barry Goldwater in 1964. I doubt LBJ thought much would come of it, he said as much himself.

[Jake]

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.

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.

[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.

[Jake]

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.

I'd rather have the media report the news. A marine shooting an insurgent isn't news, taking us inside Fallujah isn't news. It undermines the war if we show Americans dying or wounded, or if we show things that put the soldiers in a bad light. What would have happened if during the Second World War the media had been allowed to show whatever it wanted. Religious nuts would be screaming about us knocking down the Monte Cassino monastery, people would be marching in the streets after the bloodbath at Tarawa, and if advance plans had been let out about the proposed invasion of Japan, people would've freaked out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what I'm saying. America can win any war it wants, as long as the populace is behind us. WW1, WW2, Korea, etc. all won because we had the people behind us. As soon as the media decided to report things negatively, Vietnam, Kosovo, Gulf War II, etc were failures or hard to win.

[Wakie]

I'm shocked that you guys think Vietnam was "winnable".  Even Robert McNamara has subsequently said that it was an unwinnable war.  And even if we had "won", what would we have won?  Communism still collapsed.  Do we get an extra puppet government of South Vietnam (similar to South Korea)?  Oh great, another country where we are forced to maintain a massive military presence and dance around its neighbor to the North who, feeling alone in the world and threatened by the strongest nation on the planet, wants to develop nuclear arms.  Just great.  Now add in all the additional soldiers who would have to die to "win" Vietnam.  And for what!?!?

[??????????]

If we had taken the Goldwater approach to Vietnam we would have won. By all standards of warfare we actually did win Vietnam. What happened is we lost the confidence to fight and just quit. This is due to the fact that the media had way to much influence and they really shouldn't have even been there. You can apply that same standard to this current conflict. Get the media out! We need to bring back WW2 policy regarding the free movement of media in warzones.

[Akno21]

If we had taken the Goldwater approach to Vietnam we would have won. By all standards of warfare we actually did win Vietnam. What happened is we lost the confidence to fight and just quit. This is due to the fact that the media had way to much influence and they really shouldn't have even been there. You can apply that same standard to this current conflict. Get the media out! We need to bring back WW2 policy regarding the free movement of media in warzones.

Why do you want to fight a war for freedom if you won't let your own citizens have freedom? The people of the USA need to know how the war is going, military secrecy is rarely a good thing. It's the people's choice about whether to stay in the war, and it's the media's job to report to the public about what is going on.

[??????????]

If we had taken the Goldwater approach to Vietnam we would have won. By all standards of warfare we actually did win Vietnam. What happened is we lost the confidence to fight and just quit. This is due to the fact that the media had way to much influence and they really shouldn't have even been there. You can apply that same standard to this current conflict. Get the media out! We need to bring back WW2 policy regarding the free movement of media in warzones.

Why do you want to fight a war for freedom if you won't let your own citizens have freedom? The people of the USA need to know how the war is going, military secrecy is rarely a good thing. It's the people's choice about whether to stay in the war, and it's the media's job to report to the public about what is going on.

Every move of the military is in NO way the business of the American people. It is NOT the peoples choice to go to war or not. Its the federal government. Media needs to stay out of warzones.

[Lunar]

I think the best solution to have avoided that lose-lose situation in Indochina was to paint the South Vietnamese administration as only slightly better than the communists (which was true).  Basically have some high ranking administration official stand up there and say "good riddance to a thug regime."

While it wouldn't have been hard to win the war (we were winning - the North Vietnamese took 2 million casualities to 50,000 US and I think 500,000 South Vietnamese), it would not have been worth the casualties on both sides and the costs to the US.

[CARLHAYDEN]

While (as usual) their is much validty to your post, the problem with the war in Viet Nam was that (a) it was badly fought due to micromanagement of the conflict by American politicians (Johnson primarily), and (b) the American media primarily reported the war from the perspective of the Communists.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The solution was simple:

-announce that Ho Chi Minh was the legitimate leader of Vietnam and was denied his post through rigged elections(which he was)
-pull out and announce it's because we won't support a non-democratic nation.

We're supporting democracy therefore.