24 September 2003
Vietnam Remembered
Redux
This series was originally written in 1979-80, ten years after my return from Vietnam. At that time I was a recovering liberal, and becoming increasingly more aware of the betrayal of the left.
It’s now been almost 33 years since I left that steamy cesspool of a country, and my political reeducation is now complete. I was raised a democrat and, like most in my age group, spent considerable effort espousing liberal causes. I gloated over the downfall of Richard Nixon, voted for Jimmy Carter, and then witnessed the near destruction of our nation at the hands of bumbling liberals. In 1980, I voted for Ronald Reagan, and have consistently voted republican ever since.
As Winston Churchill said, "If you’re not a liberal when you’re 20, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative when you’re 40, you have no brain." I understand that quote now.
Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. And with more than three decades to think about it, here’s how I now view the American involvement in Vietnam: (1) We had good reasons for going, (2) we had poor reasons for leaving, and (3) we should have won the war – except, as I’m constantly being reminded, it wasn’t a war but a "police action".
Vietnam had its antecedent in the Korean Conflict. Up through WWII, when we wanted to fight, Congress declared war and the Commander-in-Chief executed the process through the armed forces. Notice I did not say police forces!
In general, our wars were prosecuted by generals (pun intended). But no more. During the Korean Conflict President Truman overruled, then fired one of the most brilliant and successful generals in American history.
The outcome? Please note that we did not win in Korea. After more than two years and tens of thousands of American dead, we achieved a stalemate at a geographical point in space roughly identical to where the war (er, conflict) began – at the 36th Parallel. And that’s where it stands to this day, with both sides glaring at each other across a barren no-man’s land, pregnant with the possibility of renewed conflict. A quite different outcome than the recently completed WWII, and fought by many of the same warriors.
The difference? In WWII, as in most previous American wars, we sent the best war machine money could buy to kill the enemy and break his machines of war as fast and as efficiently as they could be killed and broken. For the most part the politicians stayed out of it and the generals prosecuted the details. In Korea, however, the war was more political, and battlefield tactics were as likely decided by administration bureaucrats as by warriors.
And Vietnam was more of the same – only worse!
By then, the communist north correctly viewed the Americans as soft. Political concerns always trumped strategic ones.
Not convinced? Consider the following:
Our politicians decided it would be inhumane to bomb population centers, so throughout the war Hanoi and the port of Haiphong were beehives of military activity, staging areas where military men and supplies were assembled and readied for the journey south. For ten days in 1972, Nixon allowed unfettered bombing of the northern population centers, and it brought the North back to the bargaining table – at which time we stopped bombing the population centers and the North stopped negotiating seriously.
Our politicians decided it would be inhumane to bomb near dams, schools, and hospitals – so the North Vietnamese set up their anti-aircraft guns on dams and on the roofs of schools and hospitals.
Our politicians decided we could not impose on the sovereign soil of Cambodia or Laos, so the North Vietnamese supply line into the south went through Cambodia and Laos.
Our politicians decided our fight was to be confined solely to South Vietnam, so no effort was ever mounted to invade North Vietnam, where the real enemy was to be found.
Getting the picture? We weren’t allowed to fight a war in any traditional sense; therefore, our effort was doomed before it began. Please recall how quickly we disposed of Saddam Hussein, who possessed the fifth largest standing Army in the world. And Hussein’s military war machine was far superior to anything North Vietnam had.
The difference is that we waged all-out war on the Iraqis, first in Kuwait and more recently in Iraq itself. But we fought a "police action" in Vietnam. If you don’t get anything else from this article, please get this: Soldiers don’t make good policemen. If all you are interested in is keeping the peace, don’t send an army. They suck at it. And if you want to defeat someone militarily, first make the decision to do so, then hand the job over to the generals and get the hell out of their way!
Instead of a police action, had we prosecuted a war in Vietnam – a real, no-holds-barred, shoot-‘em-in-the-face WAR – there would be a united, democratic Vietnam today. And oh, by the way, the lives of countless, faceless Cambodians would also have been spared as a happy consequence.
Instead, we spat upon the returning Vietnam veterans, as if it was their fault that the situation was in the crapper.
If you agree with this article and really want to do something that will make you feel good about yourself, here’s a suggestion: Every time you meet a Vietnam veteran, tell him "welcome home", and thank him for his heretofore thankless service to this nation.
God bless America.
SIDE NOTE: Shortly after finishing the original series, I went back into the army and spent a career as a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter pilot. I wish I could do it all over again.