Robert -
I couldn't have said it better. Thank you.
- Don DeBar

----------
> From: Robert G Goodby <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Subject: Chomsky and John Paul Vann on the War
> Date: Sunday, April 27, 1997 9:35 AM
>
> On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Tony Hollick wrote:
>
> >     This is where I risk unpopularity (a contrarian speaks).  As Robin
Ramsay
> > says, I may be the last supporter of American intervention in Vietnam
in
> > Englnd.
> >
> Well, this at least is a hopeful sign;).
>
> >     It may well have been a mistake for America to get involved in
Vietnam in
> > the first place, as Pentagon psywar genius and JFK adviser Paul
Linebarger
> > (aka SF author "Cordwainer Smith") argued.  But this intervention
started
> > with Office of Strategic Services officer Archimedes Patti, who
actively
> > helped Ho Chi Minh and his cohorts into power in Hanoi, on the grounds
that
> > they were in favour of 'national self-determination.'  But North and
South
> > Vietnam were always distinct cultures and different societies.
>
> I would argue that US intervention didn't start with an individual--Patti
> or anyone else--but was part of a larger policy of "containing" the
> aspirations of third world countries for genuine independence, a
> necessary response for a superpower whose prosperity and power is
> contingent on the extraction of cheap resources from poor countries...I
> think to say that the war was a "mistake", or that it was brought about
> by the actions of a single obscure individual, mystifies what was really
> systemic and predictable about the US response, and prevents us from
> understanding why it is repeated elsewhere. The outcome of the war
> may have been affected by many tactical mistakes by "the best and the
> brightest", but it was not a departure from policy......
> >
> >     Once in power, Ho Chi Minh 'came out' in favour of Stalinist
communism
> > (not a doctrine favourable to anarchism, BTW).  This led America to
consider
> > involvement in South Vietnam.  Edward Lansdale had just defeated the
HUK
> > insurgency in the Philippines, and installed Ramon Magsaysay as a
'reformist'
> > leader.  He was directed to involve himself in South Vietnam -- a very
> > different situation.
> >
> This is I think a gross oversimplification. Ho's appeal for support to
> the USSR and China was made only after decades of rebuff by the west,
> particularly the US. Ho was shunned during the formation of the League of
> Nations, and after WWII when the US preferred to re-impose French rule on
> the south. We will never know how things might have been different if the
> US and the west generally had not for decades resisted the notion that
the
> Vietnamese should actually rule themselves. AS far as the US-organized
> massacre of the indigenous resistance in the Philipines, and the repeat
> (albeit on a much more massive scale) in Indonesia a few years later,
> this is precisely the point: we have here a clear pattern of the US using
> massive force to prevent indigenous, independent political movements from
> coming to power in southeast Asia. Not a series of "blunders" or
mistakes".
>
> >
> >     Foremost among the critics of the way the War was being fought was
John
> > Paul Vann (a professional Marine soldier, and a close friend of Daniel
> > 'Pentagon Papers' Ellsberg). If you read only one book this year,
please read
> > Neil Sheehan's 'A Bright Shining Lie', a brilliant, moving history of
John
> > Paul Vann and the War he fought (fought in both senses).  18 years in
the
> > research and writing.  John Paul Vann was a working class social
democrat,
> > who genuinely liked Asians, and wanted to see social democracy succeed
in
> > Vietnam.  In this cause, he fought the NVA, the VC (skilled and
dedicated
> > fighters), the US military, the US Government, and the corrupt South
> > Vietnamese politicians and military.
>
> >I agree, Sheehan's book is certainly worth reading. It conveys a
> wonderful sense of the banality and moral degeneracy underlying the US
> presence in Vietnam. It also begins, as I recall, with an impressive
> summation of the US role as global empire and hegemon--suggesting that
> this is what explains our presence in Vietnam, not "mistakes" or one
> misled OSS agent. I think your depiction of Vann is off-base. He was a
> highly intelligent and complex character, by all accounts--as well as
> abusive, manipulative, sexually compulsive, etc....and an
> unfailing servant of an immoral and unjustifiable policy. The fact that
> he criticized the war on tactical grounds doesn't make him a hero. As NC
> has pointed out repeatedly, this just makes him a "liberal".......
>  >
> >     As we now see, the present Vietnamese Government concedes John Paul
> > Vann's case.  Vietnam is becoming -- and will be -- a liberal democracy
with
> > a market economy.  Americans are welcome there (CIA Director and Saigon
> > Station Chief Bill Colby set up an investment group recently).  The
Vietnam
> > that John Paul Vann fought for is becoming a reality.  The tragedy is
that it
> > took a disastrously-conducted war, the destruction of American
liberalism,
> > and the deaths of several hundred thousand people, as well as two
decades of
> > pointless immiseration for the Vietnamese, before this happened.
> >
> Yes, this is the tragedy. Only after Vietnam (particularly the south, our
> supposed protectorate) was smashed--over a million killed, the land
> soaked with carcinogenic chemicals, untold numbers of mines sown
> throughout the countryside (which the US refused to provide maps for
> after the war's end) and the infrastructure in ruins did "this happen".
> Again, we'll never know whether things might have turned out better for
> Vietnam had this genocidal war not been launched. Liberal democracy with
> a market economy?? Translation: Vietnam now gets to host the sweatshops
> of US based transnationals. It's move to "liberal democracy" is
> accompanied by the lowest manufacturing wages in Asia, well below what's
> needed to feed a family. Democracy? It's still a one-party state as far
> as I know, following the authoritarian lines laid down in Indonesia and
> elsewhere where US/corporate interests have prevailed. But, darn it all,
> these people never learn--yesterday's news told of massive unrest in the
> Nike sweatshops in Vietnam.
>
> Hopefully, we've still got some Agent Orange stashed away. Defending
> liberal democracy and free markets requires eternal vigilance.
>
> Robert Goodby
>
> [log in to unmask]