Need help with Vietnam era history, because the RW is using it as a talking point

[beachmom]

I continue to read absolutely everywhere, from the right wing, that our pulling out of Vietnam led to a) an incredible amount of deaths of the South Vietnamese and b) the mass murder of the people of Cambodia at the hands of the Khoumer Rouge (sp?). They said there was a domino effect of communism in the area and millions died.

I thought that Cambodia was not all that related to the Vietnamese, but that after the killing fields, Vietnam actually invaded the country and stopped the genocide themselves. But I will admit my history of this time and place is very poor, and apart from reading a whole history book, I thought some of you might know.

I just want to be able to counteract these talking points if they are false.

Obviously, they are using these talking points to scare people away from the idea of pulling out of Iraq.

[rockymountaindem]

1. Here's my take

Yes. The pullout cost many South Vietnamese lives. That's because they were attacked by North Vietnam, and many people died as a direct result of the fighting. Then, of course, there were many reprisals and ideological cleansings. But here's the kicker:

What else were we supposed to do? I, for one, can't figure it out. We dropped three times as many bombs on N. Vietnam during the war as we did on Japan and Germany combined during WWII. That didn't bring us victory. We killed probably close to 2 million N. Vietnamese. That didn't bring us victory. We attacked their hideouts in Cambodia, which the Nixon administration proclaimed as a great success, only to need to re-invade Cambodia for the same reason two months later. That didn't bring us victory. Launching a huge anti-communist propaganda offensive didn't bring us victory. Neither did the fabled "battle for hearts and minds". The one thing we didn't do was to put mines in Haiphong harbor. That might have finally strangled the N. Vietnamese military and government. Of course, we did not drop mines there because of the large risk of damaging or sinking a Soviet merchant ship. I think we made the right decision with that, because a showdown with the USSR would have been a big problem (obviously), and it would have been quite bad for Detente, a policy which showed a lot of promise at the time.

When we left, we gave the South the worlds 4th largest air force, and scads of vehicles, artillery, communications equipment etc. Combined with our years of advice, this should have been a potent fighting machine. It turned out not to be because the government we were supporting was weak, corrupt, and the majority of the men in S. Vietnamese uniform decided it wasn't worth defending with their lives and bodies. Would the people who make the arguments to which you refer be happier if we had kept US troops there indefinately, suffering even more casualties, only to bring more stalemate. What more could we have done? Sometimes you just have to call it quits. I mean, we gave it a good try between 1964 and 1973. I mean, those were nine great, successful years, right neocons? :sarcasm:

[beachmom]

2. But what about the genocide in Cambodia?

Did the U.S. pullout of Vietnam lead to the killing fields in Cambodia? I just think that's a stretch, but would like definitive info on whether the two events were causal.

[ProSense]

3. The only way to win in Vietnam would have been

to kill everybody! Then there would have been two or three memorial walls for troops KIA. Or worse: three walls and still the bloody aftermath.

The aftermath is the problem with starting bogus wars based on lies: they result in quagmires.

[beachmom]

4. So what I'm hearing from you guys is yes, the genocide

in Cambodia was the result of a regional "domino effect"? I'm not trying to get cute here, but deal in the facts. I thought that Pol Pot was a communist but then went in a very bizarre direction on a killing spree, and Communist Vietnam itself had to put a stop to his horrible crimes.

[TayTay]

5. This requires research

Begin: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/timeline/index.html

[beachmom]

6. Call me lazy, but I was hoping people who lived during that time

would remember, so I wouldn't have to do research (it's complex). But thanks for the link. I'll take a look.

[ProSense]

14. This site is great, but

even it can't seem to shake the RW out of their denial. Iraq wasn't like Vietnam before 2003, but the similarities are there now. Why? Bush triggered a civil war in Iraq with the potential for a devastating regional conflict. His escalation plan (and guessing about as to whether or not the U.S. should takes sides) is nothing short of moronic!

[karynnj]

9. Completely the opposite

Prince Sihanouk walked a tight rope trying to preserve Cambodia's neutrality. The US violated Cambodia's neutrality continuously. (That's what's behind the RW attack on Kerry saying his swiftboat went into Cambodia.) We bombed Cambodia and Laos because we said that Ho Chi Mihn was sending troops to South Vietnam through those countries.

Nixon's announcement in May 1970 that the US was initiating an invasion of Cambodia sparked protests at most colleges in the country. (This is when Kent State happened) I remember watching that speech at IU with a huge number of fellow students - there was absolute shock when Nixon announced this. From 1968 on, there had been talk of peace and ending the war. I would have been less shocked if Nixon had announced that he had accepted some terms of peace, than announcing we were invading a neutral sovereign nation.

From all I ever heard, this is what shattered the authority of Sihanouk and ultimately allowed the atrocious Khmer Rouge to come to power. It is also notable that after the Khmer Rouge came to power and created the killing fields - attacking anyone with wealth, education or power in the pre-khmer rouge world, it was the Vietnamese who fought them to get them out of power - not the US or the UN.

I would say the Khmer Rouge were responsible for all they did - not anyone else. The only guilt of the US was in destabalizing a fragile government and creating enough hatred that a disfunctional band of thugs took power.

[karynnj]

8. Fantastic answer

I can think of nothing to add, other than to say that the longer we stayed the more we expanded the area affected. The strikes into Cambodia destabalized Cambodia. Prince Sihanouk had struggled to maintain neutrality. The Khmer Rouge gained support in response to our actions. (I've seen the RW blame Kerry for those too)

It wasn't our leaving that caused that problem - but the fact that we didn't respect the neutrailty of Cambodia.

From the Q & A section of his Senate testimony, Kerry didn't expect peace when we left - but sounded much the same as Rockymountain.

We also did a last shot intensive bombing of North Vietnam in December 1972, after Nixon won re-election. I wonder if that didn't increase the hatred for the people who in the North Vietnamese opinion cooperated. I doubt the RW can see it, but we rained death and destruction over that country for years. The impact of all the agent orange we dumped there is likely still being seen - our soldiers, who have had problems were there mostly for 1 or 2 years.

In Tour of Duty, the plight of the 40 some villagers saved who were hiding in the free fire zone and were essentially starving was probably not uncommon. We created a nightmare. That created intense hatred - which led to more death and destruction when we were gone.

In Iraq, I assume the reason for Senator Kerry's repeated urgent comments on the rapidly closing window of opportuity to make things better was that we needed a political solution BEFORE it became a civil war. Bush wasted the nearly 3 years before the civil war began - that is as unforgivable as his invading in the first place.

Now that Iraq is in a civil war, it is harder for all of the sides to find a way to work together. People who have lost family and friends will have a very difficult time accepting the factions that killed them.

In Vietnam, it was a civil war when we entered. We, under Eisenhower, had stopped an election that was suppose to occur per the treaty with France that could have unified the country. We stopped it because Ho Chi Mihn, who had been a leader of the resistance against France, would have won. Our goal at the time was to stop the spread of communism - but by 1968, it was clear that our policy could not succeed.

In Iraq, I'm not even sure what our policy has been - but it is clear that we may not have any leverage with any side in this fight. This makes it very unlikely we could fix anything.

[beachmom]

10. Thanks, Karynnj for all of your insights

I knew those idiots were twisting things, but I always think it's best to research it and find the truth.

[beachmom]

7. Okay, guys, this is perfect:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/8/newsid_2506000/2506533.stm


I KNEW the Right was full of s***:

The Khmer Rouge's reign of terror began in 1975 in the aftermath of the American bombing of Cambodia, which had increased the guerrillas' initial popular support.
For the next four years Leader Pol Pot oversaw the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people, by execution, forced labour and starvation.

In 1979, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were forced from power by the invading Vietnamese.

Pol Pot officially resigned the leadership in 1985 but appears to have retained considerable influence.

Pol Pot was convicted of treason by a "people's tribunal" in 1997, and was sentenced to life under house arrest.

He died in April 1998.




So it was NOT the pullout of American forces that caused the rise of Pol Pot. It was the terrible bombing campaign that radicalized the population that led to the Khmer Rouge and the genocide. Now right wingers will respond that we ceased bombing them, and should have finished them off, but I strongly disagree with that assessment. We bombed the hell out of them, and the damage was done in the "hearts and minds" category. We would have had to perpetuate genocide to change the outcome. Obviously, that was not going to happen.

Secondly, Communist Vietnam went to WAR with Cambodia, so they were hardly accomplices to the genocide. It was their 1979 invasion of Cambodia that ended the genocide. This is an example of a region taking care of their own problems. Of course, Russia and China were involved, with Russia supporting Vietnam and China supporting Cambodia, but none of this had to do with America pulling out. It would have happened either this way or some other horrible way. Endless war creates these kinds of disasters.

[karynnj]

11. Should have read the whole thread before responding

This is what I remember. This also suggests why the RW went after Kerry's honest statements on Cambodia. The Senate speech (where they make a huge issue of Kerry saying Nixon was President in Dec 1968) was using Cambodia to explain his personal and his philosophical objection to the US invading a neutral country's soverignity.

In Tour of Duty, Kerry is very clearly angry in his journal, but does not spell out that they crossed the border - which would have been a very stupid thing to do in a journal he had with him in Vietnam.)

[beachmom]

12. That whole Kerry/Cambodia thing had to do with getting

dates mixed up. At the worst, he was mistaken about being in Cambodia (it's not like there's a big sign in the Mekong Delta that says "Welcome to Cambodia"). But he doesn't lie, and would certainly have no need to here.

[karynnj]

15. True - also he was NOT claiming it as a great and glorious thing he did

In the Senate speech, the point was that crossing into Cambodia was wrong. Nixon clearly DID go into Cambodia - that is not even in debate. Kerry was speaking almost 20 years after the fact - the emotion he felt was very likely 100% true, even if some details were off.

[beachmom]

13. Speaking of which -- what an IDIOT Bush is:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/17/32736/774



I swear to God, this is something Kerry's not so polished alter ego would have written.