America's Proxy War: Vietnam

[Grantler]

The 1954 battle of Dien Bien Phu marked the end of French colonial ambition in Vietnam. The Vietnamese, led by future Nationalist and Communist regime head Ho Chi Minh and General Vo Nguyen Giap, systematically bled the French of all ability to defend their colonial outpost. On May 8, after nearly two months, the French succumbed. But more importantly, the incident at Dien Bien Phu demonstrated to the world that war would be everything but conventional in the jungles and river valleys of the Vietnamese homeland. The Vietnamese also illustrated that invaders would not be dealt with as is do done in the Western world as 70% of the French taken captive died in prisoner-of-war camps. This was an antecedent for any nation wishing to test the nationalist spirit of the Vietnamese people. Unfortunately, the United States, mired in its confidence of the ‘Domino Effect’, believed in their moral and technological superiority so much that they too would attempt a crusade into Vietnam.

The domino effect took hold in 1962 a year after John F. Kennedy’s famous, “We shall pay any price”, speech. The situation between the two countries was becoming tense as the Soviet backed Communist regime of Ho Chi Minh was increasingly supporting the actions of the National Liberation Front, or Vietcong, against the South. The thought of Vietnam falling was spiteful to American leadership. It was vastly believed in the White House and Pentagon that the fall of South Vietnam, then led by intolerant President Diem, would mark the beginning of a transition that would see other Asian countries fall like dominoes to the forces of Communism. The events that followed were what the Americans including President Lyndon B. Johnson would call the defense of democracy and capitalism, also known as the “Great Society”. The method of defending this society would be the Vietnam War.

As Commanding General William Westmoreland put it, there was no prior experience for what he had seen in Vietnam and what he did as a result was merely trial and error. From the second Gulf of Tonkin incident through the Rolling Thunder air campaign against the North, and on to the night time assaults against the Ho Chi Minh trail the Vietnamese were willing to die. The entire war was an exercise in taking and then retaking meaningless land. The Vietnamese were not in the war for the land, they fought for their heritage and their free will. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara knew it, Richard Nixon knew it, and most certainly Martin Luther King knew it. The Vietnamese did not want to be another city on the hill or part of Johnson’s “ Great Society.” And, even though the 1968 Tet Offensive was a massive North Vietnamese defeat it opened the eyes of the American GIs and public who realized that you could not distinguish between friend and foe and therefore winning the war was out of reach.

This transition into Vietnam was not something that transpired overnight. Years of Cold War build up created the American incursion into Vietnam. Yet, the Cold War ceased in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union and so to with it went the proxy war. Why then is the current Operation Iraqi Freedom or as it is more commonly known, the War on Iraq, so similar in nature to the proxy war in Vietnam that occurred three decades before? By examining American policy and ideology it is possible to draw similar connections between the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

As was discussed earlier, the Vietnam War pitted American Capitalism against Soviet Communism. The similarity to the War on Iraq lies in an understanding of American foreign policy or more distinctly economic imperialism. It was argued in the preamble to both wars that America desired to free a people from tyranny. In Vietnam it was Communism. In Iraq it is terrorism. The term has changed but the reasoning is still the same: America must defend its economic interests.

I am not suggesting that America is wrong for becoming involved in either conflict. What I am presenting is the idea that the combination of American morality, technology, and capitalism is a dangerous combination. What can be created out of such an amalgamation is a military industrial complex that needs to be fed. In the case of Iraq you can also throw into the mix the need to secure oil for future generations of Americans – and Canadians and the British. The list can go on and on. The truth of the matter is that Iraq stood in the way of economic stability in the free world. Mix this together with the fact that Saddam Hussein was the most despotic and ruthless leader in the Middle East and a justifiable military action under the name of terrorism is not hard to gain support for in America.

In Vietnam much of the same occurred. Asia was the door to American cheap labour. Multi-national corporations were drooling at the opportunity to export cheap jobs to Asia that could bring down prices across the board and increase profits for shareholders. The so called domino effect would close off this market and deliver it to Communism. Much worse, it would have been a Communist region defended by nuclear weapons. The similarities just begin here.

Just as Westmoreland and Johnson found out before, General Tommy Franks and George W. Bush found out in Iraq that war is different when you are invading someone’s home. What we are seeing in Iraq is reminiscent of the suicide attackers in Vietnam who would gladly die to expel the United States whether the Americans are making their nation a healthier one by being there or not. Some people do not with to be part of the “Great Society”.

It is my opinion that while American ‘imperialism’ may be brought about by a faulty ideology it is still a desirable ideology that people the world over could benefit from. Therefore, while the wars in Vietnam and Iraq were conducted wrong I find that the motivation behind each is acceptable in the greater scope of humanity’s evolution toward a single comprehensive ideology.

[August1991]

A good English Canadian high school essay.

[Grantler]

It wasn't an essay, just a rundown of Vietnam followed by how I think that it stands with regard to today's world.

[Grantler]

I have a question though.

Does this take a shot at English speaking Canada? Does it take a show at English speaking Canada's education system? This could turn into a good topic discussion.

[caesar]

Grantler; August is very anti Canadian. He seems to think the USA can do no wrong and Canada no right. I do believe he is from Quebec; probably French; yet does not realize how little respect the Americans have for anything with a French flavour. The American authorities tried to make France and the French people the reason that they were not able to get world support for their unwise illegal invasion of Iraq.

August likes to demean others who do not share his narrow view point.

[Grantler]

Thank you for telling me caesar.

I would have to state that August seems to be part of the Canadian problem.

It is hard to be a country when you have people who do not even recognize it as such.

[Tawasakm]

Thank you for telling me caesar.

You are a little quick to accept his/her's assessment and then conclude:

I would have to state that August seems to be part of the Canadian problem.

Why don't you debate with August for a while and then see what you think. Making hasty judgements concerning others can be a mistake that robs us of insights.

Or in other words why don't you form your own opinion of Augusts leanings through the exchange of ideas over time?

[Grantler]

Well August did not have to take a quick swipe at my writings without commenting on the conclusions. Look at what was said about English Canada as well. It is not an intellectual response in the least.

First impressions...they are what they are.

[August1991]

Well August did not have to take a quick swipe at my writings without commenting on the conclusions.  Look at what was said about English Canada as well.  It is not an intellectual response in the least. 

First impressions...they are what they are.

I guess my warped sense of humour got the better of my intellectual pretensions.

Your essay struck me as a well-written high school paper (it even has a defendable thesis!) Probably submitted somewhere in Ontario.

Why English Canada? Because of the way you discussed the US:

I am not suggesting that America is wrong for becoming involved in either conflict. What I am presenting is the idea that the combination of American morality, technology, and capitalism is a dangerous combination. What can be created out of such an amalgamation is a military industrial complex that needs to be fed.

There's this big thing next door and what the hell is it and what is it doing?

I think that no left-wing American would write quite like that, nor would a European.

[PocketRocket]

I think that no left-wing American would write quite like that, nor would a European.

I have to agree, AUGUST. I also have to agree that it was very well-written.

And again, I must agree with several points from the original post. There are definitely similarities in both the motivation for the two wars, and the way in which the ongoing battle are being waged.

I don't think America is making too many friends with this war. Too bad, really. Aside from Canada (pardon my nationalist bias), the USA is my favorite country.

[Grantler]

Who can't love America!

It buys all of our junk.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

Although I don’t essentially disagree with your conclusions, I do object to the America-centric way you portray the Vietnam War throughout the essay. Keep in mind that it was a war between North Vietnam and South Vietnam that the United States later intervened in militarily. The North and the South had millions of people engaged in a conflict that they both believed was worth dying for long before the United States (and China) intervened. Both regimes suffered violent internal revolts from those Vietnamese people who opposed their rule. Communist revolts in the South, however, were aided by the North whereas the peasant rebellions that broke out in the North were not assisted by the South. During the war against the French, Ho Chi Minh found it extremely difficult to gain communist converts in the South and complained of the strong “individualism” of the Southerners and their belief in a market economy. Although it was once thought that, “Ho Chi Minh was increasingly supporting the actions of the National Liberation Front,” Hanoi has since admitted what was already strongly suspected. The NLF was its own creation, with one of its purposes being to give the insurgency in the South a more indigenous character. By the early-1960’s, most of the guerrillas fighting the Southern government were infiltrators from the North. By the late-1960’s, most were conventional troops from the North Vietnamese Army. To help maintain North Vietnam’s internal security, 350,000 Chinese troops were stationed there. It might be said that they were engaged in a “crusade” to train Northern troops, man antiaircraft weapons, assist in locating Southern spies that had been infiltrated into the North, and repair infrastructure damaged by American bombing. Thanks to these troops, the North was able to infiltrate ten of thousands, and eventually hundreds of thousands, of professional NVA troops into the South without any concern about maintaining a domestic defense. The start of NVA infiltration into the South was one of the primary triggers of the intervention of American combat troops, who came to number 500,000 by 1968. However, one must keep in mind that the United States was no more invading the home of the Vietnamese people than China was. Both were engaged in largely defensive roles. Ho Chi Minh was on several occasions forced to be subservient to China’s wishes in order to maintain its support. Diem was much more defiant towards the United States than Ho was towards China, although his post-1963 successors were more malleable to American demands. After the conquest of the South, Northern commanders later recalled their disappointment at finding how hostile the population was towards them. Wartime propaganda had indicated that the Northerners would be welcomed as liberators, but in fact the majority of the Southerners did not want to be part of Ho’s “national democratic revolution.” Already 200,000 had died fighting it, although 300,000 more were to die after 1975 during the North’s pacification of the country. This provoked a mass movement of one million refugees that the war itself could not. The Vietnam War was indeed a proxy war, but don’t forget that there were two proxies; both of whom were fighting for their heritage and free will. The final tragedy of the war, however, belongs to the Southerners.

On another note, I think the primary reasons why the United States intervened with military force in Vietnam were to avoid losing its ally in the South and to prevent a waning of confidence in America’s ability to defend its allies. Australia, for instance, lost considerable confidence in their collective security pact with the United States after America suddenly withdrew economic and military assistance from the South in 1974 despite promises not to. Also, there was in fact a relatively small scale domino effect after the end of the Vietnam War. South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia all fell at the same time. Moreover, the communist movements that came to power in Angola, Mozambique, and Nicaragua during the late-1970’s were all directly inspired by the success of the war in Southeast Asia. These successes in turn helped to embolden the roughly simultaneous communist takeovers of Grenada, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan.

[Dougie93]

The Domino Theory well predates the Kennedy Administration, it was inherited from Eisenhower, who invoked the falling of the "dominoes" in Asia at a news conference on 7 April 1954

Although, as Tokyo eluded to, the overriding policy which led to direct American military intervention in Indochina was the Truman Doctrine.

It's also intellectually lazy and inaccurate to assert that the "Vietnamese" writ large rejected the Great Society Shining City, it was a civil war, the Vietnamese were deeply divided, but the Americans had plenty of takers on that, the Roman Catholic minority, Viet Minh defectors who became disillusioned by the totalitarian brutality of the Communist dictatorship in Hanoi, and there was an urban rural divide wherein the  cities were with the Americans and Saigon alone represented about a third of the population of South Vietnam.

Also, by 1962, Ho Chi Minh had essentially been deposed by an internal putsch, the actual leader of North Vietnam against the Americans was Le Duan, the Stalin of Indochina. 

Also should be pointed out that the Communist alternative to the American Great Society Shining City was a total and unmitigated catastrophe, destroying the Vietnamese economy to the point of inciting famine, and the country did not begin to recover until Le Duan died in 1986 and a movement of NVA veterans agitated for reconciliation with the Americans and associated resumption of trade.

Canadian Content; while approximately 30,000 Americans fled to Canada to avoid service in Vietnam, almost exactly the same number, 30,000 Canadians went the other way, enlisting in the US military to serve in Vietnam voluntarily.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Dougie93