Let's just cut to the chase.
What does Iraq have to do with Bergdahl? I certainly didn't mention it.
Go back and re-read your post. We should not have been there to begin with, in either country. We accomplished nothing, in either country. We were there because of a neoconservative principle. Do we need to go over this again? What it has to do with your original post is that you mentioned going to war twice and why Afghanistan was justified.
Hey, gouri. Vietnam is over. How we got in there, how we got into Afghanistan and Iraq....I don't care.
That much is obvious.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, because you clearly are all geeked up to bash 'Murica, and probably Bush while you're at it, but that's not what this thread is about. Or at least, it's not what it was about until you started posting.
So you think what I'm saying amounts to "America bashing?" What the fuck do you know about patriotism anyway, bro? You are no more a patriot than me dude...
Sheesh, haven't you fulfilled your quota of gratuitous 'Murica bashing yet? Or are you about to launch into slavery, the Trial of Tears, and the Spanish-American War?. Just can't get enough of shitting on the country, eh?
So we should avoid all topics that might make America look bad? That's your definition of patriotism? Really?? Because mine is wanting to make our country the best country on Earth. That includes not invading other nations or spending more than half a trillion dollars on "defense."
A fair bit of what your saying I have no quarrel with, but -- I mean this literally -- you are ignorant of the military details of this topic, and I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with someone who doesn't know their actual military history.
Like I said, you have no idea what I know. Just as I have no idea what you know. You think your argument is so good that it does not need to be put out there. We should just take your word for it? From my vantage point, you admittedly know very little. For some reason, you think the military situation on the ground dictated the political machinations behind the war; when most scholars would argue that the reverse was true. You also assume that I don't know the major events of the Vietnam era, even though I've already told you that I do -- because for some reason, if I did, I'd certainly agree with
you, right?
The withdrawal of American ground troops was already ongoing.
No one is arguing that it wasn't bro.
Shit, Nixon began the drawdown his very first year in office. But I really don't want to get into it with you regarding VC battalion strength, training cadres, NVA intervention, and how all that was shifting during 68-75. I've forgotten more about that than you'll ever know.
Because you say so? I don't want to get into a pissing contest over who is more knowledgeable than who; even though it seems to be a pretty popular thing to do on the internet. Suffice it to say, considering my education level, I don't know why you would make a comments like this. In academia, this is just something that isn't said. A professor doesn't say "because I'm your professor," he explains his position and argues it. With something so subjective as this, and you wanting to be deemed an irrefutable expert, it just seems odd.
Just put your information on the table so that I can pick it the fuck apart piece by piece.
For anyone else who cares, air power became increasingly important post 1968 because the military situation, including the quality of the ARVN, changed significantly during that period. We continued very strong air support even after our major ground elements were gone, and promised as part of that treaty to continue that support for the ARVN.
Again,
you are confused. We did not "promise as part of that treaty to continue (air support) for the ARVN." That's
wrong. Nixon pledged to Nguyen Van Thieu, secretly, that he would respond with American military support if the Peace Accords were violated.
The entire premise of your argument is flawed on this basis. An American retaliatory response was never credible, feared, or treaty obligated. The North Vietnamese had prepared for a 2-year Final Offense
prior to the Church Amendment the prevented an American response. South Korea was doomed to fall, either internally or externally.
In any case, the larger point --which was the only reason I brought up Vietnam at all -- remains true. The presence of U.S. airpower tactically, and Linebacker II's bombing of Hanoi (for which some also wanted to impeach Nixon) still gave us more leverage than we'll have in Afghanistan.
Again,
you don't know what you're talking about. Linebacker II gave America
nothing at the negotiating table. We LOST the negotiations..
The only point the North Vietnamese conceded was that President Thieu could remain in office prior to a unified South Vietnamese election in which he was
assured to lose. Nixon, Kissinger, Tho, and Thieu all knew this. It's why Thieu was furious with the Accords, because it meant a virtual surrender and the end of South Vietnam.
The only reason talks were delayed at all was because Thieu wanted assurances that he could, if needed, remain in power to represent anti-communist Vietnamese. He wanted America to back his government by any means necessary, including by force, and enforceable by the terms of the treaty. He wanted the withdrawal of some 150,000 NVA troops from South Vietnam, and a division of borders along ideological lines to protect Saigon.
America's primary point for the Christmas Bombings of Hanoi, which you are right many wanted Nixon impeached for, had nothing to do with breaking the North Vietnamese, but convincing Thieu that Nixon had the political capital to wage war at will - that he would defend South Vietnam if the treaty was broken, whether such text was a part of the treaty or not.
This is what you seem not to understand. We gained
nothing from the Linebacker II bombings. You ignore all of the political reasoning and look at the massive effect on the city of Hanoi and the 1,000+ dead Vietnamese. You are missing the forest for the trees. Of all of Thieu's points that Kissinger presented to Tho,
none of them were accepted.
None. The treaty the Americans signed was virtually the same as presented to them in 1968/69.
The North was willing to wait out the Nixon administration. Nixon instead from November to January of 1972 is doing everything in his power to end the war.
That's why Linebacker II happened, and
Nixon is on fucking tape admitting it. On December 28th, 1972, Nixon tells Kissinger to go back to Tho, come back with a signed agreement between only the two parties and that he would promulgate the terms to the Thieu; regardless of their conditions. Again, it's why we agreed to the treaty as proposed with almost no changes.
All Linebacker II accomplished was damaging the President both politically and internationally. It convinced Thieu to accept the North's terms, and America effectively surrendered and left. There was no legal (treaty) obligation to defend South Vietnam, and the Senate barred any such action thereafter. Thieu's resignation speech is entirely about this very point, that he was duped. He read a private letter addressed to him from Nixon where Nixon promises to use force if the North invades.
Again, to sum this all up.. No, American air power was not going to enforce any such treaty, nor would it have stopped an invasion from the North Vietnamese.
I'd encourage anyone who cares to read up on and if possible, talk to both Vietnamese and U.S. military vets who were familiar with the military situation from 1970 or so on.
I think reading some books on Vietnam in general, rather than focusing solely military strategy is probably more important. I wouldn't have this conversation with a Vietnam vet out of respect, whether he is right or wrong. I don't know what can be learned from that other than the personal aspect of war. How that has anything to do with Nixon's personal decisions with respect to waging war are two completely different and unrelated things.
Hey, back to the topic! I agree 100% with your point about lack of leverage. Now, that leads to the Administration justifying in part this trade by saying they hope it will get peace talks moving. But that's the whole point. Those peace talks will be worthless, except possibly as something the Admin can waive around to claim it obtained peace. But the actual value of that to anyone but those politicians is zero, which means it should have been of zero value in terms of this prisoner exchange. And THAT is the point. So when the Administration tries to justify this horrible deal by saying it was an effort in a broader peace process, they're either being incredibly naïve, or incredibly disingenuous.
Yeah, that's not the Administration's justification for a prisoner exchange. Sorry.. I don't know why you think it is...
My issue is that you seem to have an understanding of some of political events, but not the military ones. And it lead to you making overly broad statements. I know/knew a lot of Vietnam vets, including a fair number of ARVN.
I live in Southeast Asia.. Does that mean I will learn their experience via osmosis? You think I don't know vets? Every one of my uncles who was old enough went to Nam. My favorite uncle is FUCKED after he came back. As a young kid I watched my mother and step-father hold him while he
flipped out. FIVE MINUTES EARLIER he was teaching me to play Mike Ditka's Power Football on the Genesis.
He and many others have told me their stories of the war, none positive or supportive of the war. But those stories haven't done anything to help me better understand the larger scale of events. If anything you can get caught up in them and lose the truth.
The ARVN was a complete shitpile for much of the 60's. By the 70's, it had improved quite a bit, and had a lot of dedicated, competent officers and men willing to fight for their country.
This is nonsense. Those same soldiers were deserted by there commanding officers in droves.. Corruption was rampant, and political views and ideologies quite murky to say the least.
They still had to put up with a lot of political interference, some bad troops, and a generalized fear of many southernors regarding the north.
...
But with virtually no U.S. ground support at all, they managed to stop the biggest ground offensive since the Chinese crossed the Yalu in the 1972 Easter Offensive, and managed to recover some of the ground they'd lost. They didn't do that by being a bunch of cowards who just threw down their weapons and ran.
Bro... maybe you didn't know.. But that's exactly what they did when the North invaded after the U.S. withdrawal. On March 25, 1975 more than
100,000 South Vietnamese troops fled after two days of shelling from 35,000 approaching North Vietnamese forces.
So when you disparage a bunch of men you'd never met for being unwilling to fight, including guys who aren't carrying all of their limbs anymore, and others who gave their life, I conclude you don't know what you're talking about.
Maybe you should be more focused on my argument, rather than me as a person or what I do or don't know. You are so focused on me the individual that you can't simply respond to my statements. I "can't know what I'm talking about" if I don't agree with you. I'm "bashing America" and "shitting on my country" if I hold different views of different events than
you do.
I don't like to have conversations like this.. but the point remains.
I thought that some of the generalizations you made about the South Vietnamese military and the military situation were wrong, and frankly insulting to those ARVN's.
I understand you made some close Vietnamese friends. That's cool.. But how does anything that I've said disparage them?
But perhaps I was wrong to assume I had more knowledge in that area than you.
You were, because for whatever reason you think your background will speak for you. It does not.
You have a Masters in History, I have Masters in Physics and Mathematics. Cool... Does that mean I can't dispute something you say about history, and you can't dispute something I say about physics?
No... Logically, considering you are a lawyer, the arguments should speak for themselves; rather than resting on the laurels of the person saying them -- especially over the internet where we are both just text on the screen.
