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.

    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.

    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.

    America vacillated beteen supporting proxies, and taking an active part
in modernizing South Vietnamese society.  As the North's efforts to invade
the South grew, and as the Civil War in the South intensified, the Pentagon
embarked upon a disastrous strategy.  They calculated that they could
'out-kill' the VC and the NVA if only they could lure them into set-piece
battles.  So they started placing conscript units in harm's way.  Elements in
the Pentagon would never have stood for regular forces being treated in this
way.  When the VC or NVA grouped and attacked, American forces could respond
with overwhelming firepower.  This became known as the 'Meat Grinder'
strategy.  Not a pretty sight...

    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.


    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.

    And that John Paul Vann did not live to see his dream come true.


    Tony Hollick