I'm reading Vietnam: An epic tragedy, 1945-1975, by Max Hastings. In many ways it's more instructive than other histories I have read of the Vietnam war. It begins with the Vietminh rebellion against French rule, and the gradual takeover of the war by the U.S., which is helpful context. Hastings ranges over all of the parties: the North Vietnamese government, society and army; the South Vietnamese puppet government, its army and society; U.S political leaders, military leaders, and the military in Vietnam; civilian profiteers; China and the Soviet Union; and the U.S. public, both pro and anti-war.
The partition of Vietnam, that set up the U.S. war, happened about when I was born in 1954. Right now I'm about halfway through the book, which takes us to 1967 or so (Hastings's account isn't rigidly chronological, he tends to wobble around two year intervals), when I was 13 and just old enough to have some political awareness. A couple of years later, I remember that I was handing out fliers opposing the war, when a guy said to me "Do you want to be a communist slave? Get wise to yourself."
I'm struck by the parallels with Afghanistan. The tale of both U.S. occupations is one of self-delusion and folly. There was no actual U.S. national interest in either. The communist regime ultimately prevailed in Vietnam and that was all that happened. This was a terrible misfortune for some Vietnamese, good fortune for few, and made little difference to most except for the blessing of the end of the war. It did not cause Americans to become communist slaves. In fact Vietnam is now a significant trading partner of the U.S. and a tourist attraction. The Taliban likewise have no interest in the U.S. now that its soldiers are gone, although I wouldn't recommend going there as a tourist. The U.S. military and political leadership had no understanding of either country and their military and political tactics were utterly ineffectual.
War, however, in both cases, was horrific, mostly for the Vietnamese and Afghans, but also for the U.S. infantry, though there were far fewer of the latter and they generally suffered less. Americans, at least since WWII if not before, have a tendency to see everything that happens in the world as somehow being about them, and to think that they can fix it for themselves. We really need to get over that.
2 comments:
You haven't mentioned anything in your post today, Cervantes, about the United States government making shit-tons of money for Raytheon, General Electric, Grumman, and other weapons manufacturers. Does the author of the book say anything about this as a primary motivator for having the wars, or is this, at least in your mind, the primary reason for the wars in Afghanistan in Vietnam?
In addition, if I want to get really dark, and/or cynical, could the wars be intended as an effective means of decreasing populations of minorities in the United States, and perpetuating the myth of soldiers defending our freedom in foreign lands?
... and to think I thought Max Hastings was William The Conqueror's official biographer until I read Bill Fairclough's epic noir spy thriller, Beyond Enkription in #TheBurlingtonFiles series as part of my MI6 induction program. It’s a must read for espionage cognoscenti.
Post a Comment