The Real Lesson of Vietnam

[Nbadan]

It's time to put to bed once and for all the chicken-hawk spin that the domestic Vietnam War peace movement was largely responsible for the inevitable deaths of millions of Cambodians under the Communists and Pol Pot. The current justification the draft-dodger in charge has given for keeping the troops in Iraq.

Fact is, if Nixon hadn't extended the war and pushed the Vietcong into power in Cambodia in the first place, the massacre by the Communists in Cambodia would not have been inevitable...

Bush's "Killing Fields" and the Real Lesson of Vietnam
Posted August 23, 2007 | 01:52 PM (EST)
Read More: Breaking Politics News, Pol Pot, U.S. Congress



George Bush's invocation of the "killing fields" in Cambodia to try to bolster his failing argument for an indefinite continuation of the Iraq occupation was a reference to the extreme right's decades-old rant that U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam caused the bloodbath in Pol Pot's Cambodia.

That argument makes a hash of the history of the Vietnam era, but maybe it's a good thing that he has brought it up now. The media and the blogosphere need to go back over how the killing fields actually came about. The fact is, more than three decades after the end of the U.S. military involvement in Indochina, there has still not been a real debate about the relationship between U.S. policy in Vietnam and the human consequences for Cambodia.

The heavy-breathing right-wing crowd has long blamed the anti-war movement, Congress and anyone else who supported the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam for the unnumbered dead in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge regime. That argument has been used as an ideological cudgel to keep intellectuals and the media in line, so the next time the United States goes to war and it turns sour, they would be afraid to demand an end to it. Now it's time to drive a stake through it once and for all.

What Bush and his extreme right-wing allies don't want Americans to remember is that it was the American war in Vietnam that made the Khmer Rouge such an irresistible power in Cambodia. Before the U.S. ground troops poured into Vietnam in 1965, there was no armed struggle by the Cambodian Communist movement. It was only because of the spillover of the U.S. war between 1965 and 1969 that they were given the opportunity to contest for power.

U.S. B-52 attacks and ground operations against the Viet Cong base areas in South Vietnam pushed the Viet Cong troops across the border into the jungles of Eastern Cambodia. That, in turn, destabilized Cambodia's economy, as the Viet Cong troops purchased an estimated 40 Cambodia's rice exports on the black market. That in turn led the Cambodian military to use force to get rice from peasants at artificially low prices. The Communists in Cambodia quickly took advantage of that situation to launch an armed uprising.

Even after four years of war in Vietnam, however, the Khmer Rouge were far from being able to contest for national power in Cambodia. In 1970, they had an estimated 2,400 to 4,000 guerrillas, few of whom had modern weapons.

This is where the story is full of bitter irony. Had Richard Nixon chosen to negotiate a quick end to the war, the Vietnamese troops would have left Cambodia, Sihanouk probably would have remained in power and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge would probably have remained a footnote to history. Instead, however, Nixon opted for four more years of war, and in order to gain time politically, he invoked the threat of a "bloodbath" in Vietnam if the United States were to withdraw prematurely.

That was a completely phony issue for which Nixon and Kissinger did not have a shred of evidence. But Nixon's decision against peace in Vietnam set in motion another new dynamic that made the postwar massacre in Cambodia inevitable.

When Sihanouk's right-wing opponents ousted him from power in March 1970, it may or may not have been with the explicit encouragement of the Nixon administration. The full story has yet to be written on that question. But Nixon did nothing to try to reverse a process that could only result in Cambodia being completely engulfed in war.

After just two years of extremely heavy bombing by the United States of the vast Khmer Rouge zone of Cambodia, that movement had exploded to some 50,000 troops and was able to go on the offensive. By then, nothing except a massive number of U.S. ground troops in Cambodia indefinitely could have stopped the Khmer Rouge victory.

It was the Nixon's geographical escalation of the Vietnam War itself -- not of the success of the antiwar movement or Congressional fatigue with war - that produced that outcome.

So the real lesson of the Vietnam-Cambodia war is that U.S. elective war is profoundly destabilizing, and that destabilization has a terrible human cost, which may spread beyond the country where the war began.

But there is a further lesson from that war. When Nixon began crying "bloodbath" in 1969 the Vietnam War was already four years old. It was his fateful decision to continue and escalate that war that brought about the Cambodian catastrophe. The longer American wars of occupation are continued, the worse the human and political consequences.

Now history appears to be repeating itself. Once again, after four years of war, a president is crying "bloodbath" even as he appears to be headed toward the geographical escalation of the war. Only this time the escalation will be far more dangerous than was the escalation into Cambodia in 1970.

Gareth Porter, Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/bushs-killing-fields-a_b_61577.html)

[PixelPusher]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good "we were stabbed in the back" myth.

[UV Ray]

I'm not sure it's fair to discount what was then the very real possibility of a bloodbath given the atrocities of previous communist regimes, regardless of Nixon's motives.

[Nbadan]

Fair enough, but countless numbers of leftists were also killed in South and Central America...

[UV Ray]

Fair enough, but countless numbers of leftists were also killed in South and Central America...


Then you would disagree with the article where it claims that a bloodbath was a completely phony issue without a shred of evidence.

[Nbadan]

Then you would disagree with the article where it claims that a bloodbath was a completely phony issue without a shred of evidence.

No, I would disagree as to the causes of the bloodbath. The U.S. exacerbated the problem by not ending the war sooner......had Nixon withdrawn a few years earlier, then maybe Pot Pol never comes to power in Cambodia........

[Holt's Cat]

The real lesson is that it's three decades later and it still dominates our presidential politics. What else is McCain's campaign built on? It was alive and well in '04, '00, '96, '92, and '88.

Maybe sooner or later the US will get over it.

[Nbadan]

...maybe, but the comparisons to our current situation in Iraq are undeniable....

[UV Ray]

No, I would disagree as to the causes of the bloodbath. The U.S. exacerbated the problem by not ending the war sooner......had Nixon withdrawn a few years earlier, then maybe Pot Pol never comes to power in Cambodia........

I was referring exclusively to Vietnam and the article's reference to a BB being a phony issue. Few would dispute that the VW contributed to destabilization in Cambodia.

There was irony in the fact that the brutal Pol Pot government was extinguished by the very government the US most feared in a post war regime change, the communist Vietnamese.

[Wild Cobra]

The 20/20 hindsight and possible revisionist history can be debated at lengthy over that war. Could have, would have, should have… does it really matter now? What should not be denied is the clear correlation to congress defunding the war leading to our pull-out. The after effects were disastrous to those we left behind, and we were winning.

Do we want a repeat in Iraq?

[ChumpDumper]

The 20/20 hindsight and possible revisionist history can be debated at lengthy over that war. Could have, would have, should have… does it really matter now? What should not be denied is the clear correlation to congress defunding the war leading to our pull-out. The after effects were disastrous to those we left behind, and we were winning.

Do we want a repeat in Iraq?We shouldn't pretend to care about the people of Iraq.

We don't.
we were winning.Was that before or after we got the leader of the country we were "helping" assassinated?

[UV Ray]

No, I would disagree as to the causes of the bloodbath. The U.S. exacerbated the problem by not ending the war sooner......had Nixon withdrawn a few years earlier, then maybe Pot Pol never comes to power in Cambodia........

Then you would agree with the article where it claims a BB was a completely phony issue?

[ChumpDumper]

Then you would agree with the article where it claims a BB was a completely phony issue?It's more a matter of causation. The oversimplification is that withdrawal = bloodbath.

[Wild Cobra]

We shouldn't pretend to care about the people of Iraq.

We don't.
Speak for yourself.

Now I uderstand you a bit better...

I am one that does care about them.

[ChumpDumper]

So you care about the people of Darfur too? Or do you still not know where it is?

[UV Ray]

Re-education camps were most likely a compromise by a country that was economically drained and relying heavily on other nations. If no one was watching, I have little doubt that withdrawal would have equaled bloodbath.

[UV Ray]

We shouldn't pretend to care about the people of Iraq.

We don't.

True statement...and its mostly lip service when it comes to our own military.

[L.I.T]

I'm constantly surprised by the comparison's between the Iraq and Vietnam; in the annals of American imperial history there is one example of failed nation-building that is even more stark: the Philippines.

We forget, but they occupied the Philippines with the intent to create a beacon for democracy in an unstable region wracked with "dictatorships" and authoritarian governments. Sounds eerily familiar eh? And if you really want to find another parallel Google "Samar" and the taking of Manila in 1898.

[inconvertible]

we must destroy the villiage, in order to save it.

[boutons_]

"does it really matter now??"

sure it does.

VN was full of lessons, lessons ignored, to all our detriments, by the neo-cunt/PNAC/AEI/Repug guys who didn't fiight in VN and who bullied the US into Iraq for a "regime change", to obtain a new, friendly regime that would was supposed to let US/UK oilcos into Iraqi oil fields.

[Wild Cobra]

I remember many years back, it was said we entered Viet Nam to show the soviets we are bold enough to do anything to stop communism. I have no idea if that's what was going on in president Kennedy's mind, but could it be so? Could that be why he santioned regime change obver there?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol The regime he helped overthrow was the pro-US regime!

[clambake]

kennedy said his first day in the oval office a WH staffer approached him and asked the pres. "what are we going to do about vietnam"?

kennedy said that was the first time he'd ever heard that word.

[clambake]

if you'll remember, when he took office there about 500 or 600 "advisers" in VN and he immediately increased troops to about 20K.

Diem was not the answer in kennedy's eye. I wonder if Al-Maliki has boned up on American History?

[ChumpDumper]

The real lesson of Vietnam is that once we change a regime, we really do own that problem for the long haul. The Bush administration was completely negligent in its planning for the post-invasion occupation and reconstruction.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol The regime he helped overthrow was the pro-US regime!
Yes, did I say I agreed with it?

Eisenhower had the ball before Kennedy was president. The Geneva Convention divided Viet Nam in 1954. This division was suppose to be temporary as a vote was to take place in 1956. The USA did not sign the agreement. The President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, declined to hold elections, in violation of the agreement as well. He was placed by the USA, some may say a puppet, does it really matter? He turned out not to be anyway. Once he allowed elections to be held for South Viet Nam, they were rigged and he won with something like 98%. His people didn't really like him He was a considered and elitist, and too friendly with the French who occupied them.

There is consensus among historians that the major conflicts starting in the late 50's was Diem's policies rather than Minh's. He would not negotiate with the north at all. Kennedy authorized the coup on the assumption the two sides could reconcile their differences with someone else in charge.

In all fairness to Kennedy, Eisenhower called things wrong too. He feared the proposed 1956 election would have the communists winning. The policies they put in place in the north later revised such opinions as corruption and communism started the collapse of their economy. In hindsight, had the North and South had a joint election, democracy would likely have won out over dictatorship.

[Wild Cobra]

The real lesson of Vietnam is that once we change a regime, we really do own that problem for the long haul. The Bush administration was completely negligent in its planning for the post-invasion occupation and reconstruction.
Good. We can agree then that we need to stay there rather than pulling out?

[ChumpDumper]

He was placed by the USA, some may say a puppet, does it really matter?Of course it does.

And thanks for Cliff Noting the wikipedia article about Diem, but I already knew all of this.

Partition Iraq.

[clambake]

did you say "likely"? another "wild" exaggeration. so the chinese and soviets would have just stepped aside? jeez....

[ChumpDumper]

Good. We can agree then that we need to stay there rather than pulling out?If we can set up a situation where there can be true self-determination, fine. We have yet to do that.

[Wild Cobra]

kennedy said his first day in the oval office a WH staffer approached him and asked the pres. "what are we going to do about vietnam"?

kennedy said that was the first time he'd ever heard that word.
That cannot be true. Kennedy was a senator since 1957, and a representative since 1947. He had to know what was happening in Viet Nam, or at least some items we were involved in over there. If he didn't, he was completely derelict as a senator, and should have never been elected to any government office.

I even doubt that he made such a lie. Can you source that?

[clambake]

That cannot be true. Kennedy was a senator since 1957, and a representative since 1947. He had to know what was happening in Viet Nam, or at least some items we were involved in over there. If he didn't, he was completely derelict as a senator, and should have never been elected to any government office.

I even doubt that he made such a lie. Can you source that?
he didn't know about the advisers. no one knew outside of the circle.

[Wild Cobra]

If we can set up a situation where there can be true self-determination, fine. We have yet to do that.
Agreed. Public timelines will not help. All I keep saying is that as long as progress is being made, we should not consider leaving until things stabilize, and Iraq can govern without our help.

Timelines are important, but should be kept secret between the governments. Making them public gives the terrorists and insurgencies the best timelines to plan attacks.

[clambake]

Agreed. Public timelines will not help. All I keep saying is that as long as progress is being made, we should not consider leaving until things stabilize, and Iraq can govern without our help.

Timelines are important, but should be kept secret between the governments. Making them public gives the terrorists and insurgencies the best timelines to plan attacks.
how do you keep a secret with a govt. that is seen as a failure by our govt.?

[ChumpDumper]

Agreed. Public timelines will not help. All I keep saying is that as long as progress is being made, we should not consider leaving until things stabilize, and Iraq can govern without our help.There has been no political progress.


Timelines are important, but should be kept secret between the governments. Making them public gives the terrorists and insurgencies the best timelines to plan attacks.Feh, neocons use to say "no timelines ever!" and "no benchmarks!" You'll change your mind in the spring when troop levels start drawing down.

[Wild Cobra]

he didn't know about the advisers. no one knew outside of the circle.
That wasn't my point. I never implied he was in the circle. In fact, with all the talk about Iraq, who ever is the next president will learn things on day one that they never knew before.

You pointed out the contention:


kennedy said that was the first time he'd ever heard that word.

He at a minimum had to know "that word." He also had to know about the 1954 agreement as well, unless you would like to claim he was an uninformed democrat?

Did you mean to imply something other than Kennedy was ignorant to Viet Nam? That's what your posting implied to me anyway.

[clambake]

it's what he said. feel free to define his intellectual capacity. he was dropped into something he didn't know about, and had to make choices from the outset.

[Wild Cobra]

There has been no political progress.
That's right. Be a 'glass half empty' type. Is it either a 100% progress or pull out type thing with you?

Feh, neocons use to say "no timelines ever!" and "no benchmarks!" You'll change your mind in the spring when troop levels start drawing down.
There have always been internal benchmarks, and probably timelines too. They just shouldn't be made public.

I may or may not change my mind. Only the future will determine that. Planning to be defeated is not in my character.

[Wild Cobra]

it's what he said. feel free to define his intellectual capacity. he was dropped into something he didn't know about, and had to make choices from the outset.
Well, I can assure you that you either did not supply the right context, or you misquoted what he said. There is no way president Kennedy didn't know some basics about Viet Nam.

[clambake]

There have always been internal benchmarks, and probably timelines too. They just shouldn't be made public.
tell me about those. how many have got benched?

[ChumpDumper]

That's right. Be a 'glass half empty' type. Is it either a 100% progress or pull out type thing with you?There has been no political progress. I notice you didn't dispute that.


There have always been internal benchmarks, and probably timelines too. They just shouldn't be made public.If the surge is working so well, why not?


I may or may not change my mind. Only the future will determine that. Planning to be defeated is not in my character.Whatever this administration says, you'll say you thought all along.

What does your "character" have to do with this? And you are personally risking defeat? Have you re-enlisted?

All talk.

[PixelPusher]

That's right. Be a 'glass half empty' type. Is it either a 100% progress or pull out type thing with you?

The result of this oh-so-glorious surge isn't a "glass half full/empty" proposition; It's and empty glass with a lot of condensation on the outside.

[ChumpDumper]

"To pour men, material and money into the jungles of Indochina without at least a remote prospect of victory would be dangerously futile...no amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy which is everywhere, an enemy of the people, which had the sympathy and the covert support of the people."

--JFK to the US Senate, 1954

"This is the worst one we've got, isn't it? You know, Eisenhower never mentioned it. He talked at length about Laos, but never uttered the word Vietnam."

--JFK to his national security adviser, Walt Rostow, 1961

[clambake]

"To pour men, material and money into the jungles of Indochina without at least a remote prospect of victory would be dangerously futile...no amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy which is everywhere, an enemy of the people, which had the sympathy and the covert support of the people."

--JFK to the US Senate, 1954

"This is the worst one we've got, isn't it? You know, Eisenhower never mentioned it. He talked at length about Laos, but never uttered the word Vietnam."

--JFK to his national security adviser, Walt Rostow, 1961
you know chump, it's pointless trying to prove anything to neocon hacks.

[Wild Cobra]

you know chump, it's pointless trying to prove anything to neocon hacks.
What are you trying to prove?

I am only saying that president Kennedy knew "that word" Viet Nam! I don't know how much he knew about it. He had to know some basics since it was one of three countries in Indochina. The French occupation was well known. The Geneva Convention of 1954 was something he had to know at least a few details of. That is why I say he was derelict if he didn't know! I contend he did know some basics, because I don't believe president Kennedy was that ignorant.

Why are you guys trying to twist my point?

Why must I repeat these things? What words will be understood?

[ChumpDumper]

I was clarifying that he knew quite a bit about Vietnam in general, but didn't know what a problem it was for the US in particular as evidenced by Eisenhower's failure to mention it during the transition.

Kennedy was doomed to escalate in Vietnam after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Then he made the US own Vietnam by allowing the overthrow and murder of Diem.

We already own Iraq, and more people are going to die regardless. The question is now this: Is there any political solution that could be seriously sustainable in the long term that would actually allow us to leave? It looks more and more that a unified democratic Iraq is an oxymoron.

[clambake]

What are you trying to prove?

I am only saying that president Kennedy knew "that word" Viet Nam! I don't know how much he knew about it. He had to know some basics since it was one of three countries in Indochina. The French occupation was well known. The Geneva Convention of 1954 was something he had to know at least a few details of. That is why I say he was derelict if he didn't know! I contend he did know some basics, because I don't believe president Kennedy was that ignorant.

Why are you guys trying to twist my point?

Why must I repeat these things? What words will be understood?

you're the one that brought it up, what was on kennedys mind. i thought you might like to know what was on kennedy's mind about VN

[johnsmith]

I see Clambake the political forum troll is on the loose again.

[clambake]

I see Clambake the political forum troll is on the loose again.
thank you