If you read my two prior blogs addressing this subject you will understand where I’m going with my discussion of Barbara Tuchman’s analysis of the Vietnam War.
If you missed them, here they are:
The Vietnam War Revisited
The Vietnam War Revisited – Part 2
The blogs contain links to other pertinent blogs about the basically misunderstood conflict. That background knowledge is required to appreciate the historian’s theme, the folly of the war. I found the author’s opinions spot on and her well researched data factual. I’ll try to summarize her insight with attribution and add some of my personal observations
In my last blog, I made the point that the DC politicians, mostly LBJ’s administration, mismanaged the war by instituting self-imposed military restrictions that doomed attaining a definitive victory from the get-go.
The ill-advised administrative restrictions and lack of a sound, winning strategy led to a war of attrition. The “longest war” resulted in the loss of over 58,000 of our military due to the prolonged engagement in guerilla warfare in hostile terrain against a committed enemy. In the final analysis, Washington, DC civilian leadership failed our troops. Our troops did not fail them or us.
Tuchman referred to this as “misgovernment” and characterized it in four categories. TYRANNY- Russia and China historically. Syria and North Korea currently are examples I’d point out. EXCESSIVE AMBITION- Germany’s ‘master race’ inciting two world wars in Europe. Japan’s quest in the Pacific for an Asian empire. DECADENCE- The Roman Empire decayed from within, never conquered. FOLLY OR PERVERSITY – Pursuing policies contrary to self- interest or not qualifying as existential threats. Fundamentally, Vietnam falls into this last category.
Three criteria define folly- The policy must be perceived as counter-productive in real-time, not in hindsight. And it must be judged by the values and morals of that time, not in contemporary terms. Hindsight is always 20/20 and it is unfair to use present day standards to second guess others’ decisions in another time frame. Secondly, a feasible alternative course must have been available. Third criteria – The policy must be that of a group, not a tyrant, and persist beyond any one political lifetime.
Folly is timeless and universal, independent of era or locality or type of regime- democracy, dictatorship, or monarchy. Self-deception plays a large role in government, characterized by preconceived or fixed notions. The tendency to ignore or reject any contrary signs becomes overwhelming in decision making. In other words, not letting the facts prevail because of commitment to a predicated idea or group thought.
Refusal to benefit from experience is a hallmark of this type of faulty government. The French failed in Vietnam and lost an estimated 75,000 troops in their prolonged Indochina war. After defeat in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu, they left their colony in Vietnam.
Why did we think it would be any different for us against an enemy who defeated them and repulsed invasions by the Chinese over the prior millennia?
Santayana’s famous quote rings loud and clear on the subject of the Vietnam War: “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”
Like all follies, our involvement in Vietnam was conditioned by the beliefs, attitudes, and politics of the time. JFK committed to an active policy in 1961 when doing nothing might have served us well. In all fairness, the prevailing mindset that “monolithic communism” posed a serious threat to a Southeast Asia takeover influenced him as did established Eisenhower/ Truman policies predating him.
The prevalent concept dictated that if Vietnam fell, other Southeast nations would topple like dominoes. In the backdrop of the Cold War anxiety the “Domino Theory” prevailed and became the pretext for our involvement.
At the time, 1961, JFK was climbing a wall of worry following the infamous, failed Bay of Pigs Cuban invasion. He chose to make a stand in Vietnam.
Was this decision judicious? Did he not have an alternative? I’ll look into that aspect in the next blog, part IV.
Hysteria has a bad look. The Cold War and the threat of mutual nuclear destruction fostered the mindset.
Interesting in learning more? Read my historical novel, RECALL.
Interesting reading, put into words are what my thoughts have been for years.
We have learned nothing as can be seen by how we are moving today.
Iraq proves we learned nothing. Too bad W got squirreled away in the Texas ANG. He had not ducked VN, he might have learned the limitations of bombing, and killing people we are trying to win over to our side.