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]