From: lbaum@atc.boeing.com (Larry Baum)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during V
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:27:19 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services

In article <JOT.92Oct7234350@teak09.cray.com> jot@teak09.cray.com (Otto
Tennant) writes:
>There are several issues unstated here.
>
>First, was the US involvement in South-East Asia something we should
>have done?  (Echos of JFK's Inaguration Speech:  "We will fight...";
>you left-wing types should be able to quote it better than I.)
>
>The answer to this is clearly "YES".  The consequences of our failure
>to do it right are obvious.  The Democrats will have to answer for the
>millions dead in Cambodia, at least.  Lots of people, Republicans and
>Democrats, Americans, Britains, and others will have to answer for the
>trials of the "boat people."
>
>Second, what responsibility did young men owe to LBJ's war?  That's a
>tough one for me to answer; I was 4-F.  Yet it is reasonable to look
>at the goals of the anti-LBJ crowd.  They favored communism, and, as
>such, are beneath contempt.

I was going to let this pass, since I really don't want to spend the rest of my
life re-arguing Vietnam, but on reflection, this stuff needs to be answered.

The answer is no more clearly YES now than it was 2 decades ago.  The domino
theory that was supposed to justify the war has never been borne out: Thailand,
the Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, ... have never toppled.  The domino
theory was never expressed in terms of Cambodia and Laos, where US national
interests were much less involved.  But let's talk about Cambodia.  When
Richard Nixon took office, Cambodia had a rerasonably stable government under
Prince Sihanouk.  It is true that there was little he could do to stop the flow
of supplies and men thru the Ho Chi Minh trail, but the internal situation was
pretty much under control.  The Khmer Rouge were little more than a nuisance
similar to the guerrilla movements in the Phillipines that have been going on
for decades now with little hope of success.

For whatever reason, Nixon definitely widened the area of US involvement with
massive bombings of Cambodia, including areas far beyond the Ho Chi Minh Trail
and the infamous "invasion of Cambodia".  This greatly increased the influence
of the Khmer Rouge.  Furthermore the US supported the overthrow of Sihanouk and
his replacement by the dictator, Lon Nol.   This too increased the popular
support of the Khmer Rouge.  I am not saying that the eventual outcome is what
Nixon had in mind.  But the results in Cambodia are in no small part due to the
series of mistakes that comprised our Vietnam policy.

Your assertion that the people who were against the war "favored communism" is
despicable and weakens your whole argument.  By 1969, the number of Americans
who thought our Vietnam policy (Nixon's policy) was wrong was at least 40%;
check out the polls for yourself.  To insinuate that those millions favored
communism is disgusting.  

The principal reason that the answer to the question "was the US involvement in
South-East Asia something we should have done?" is not YES is that we never, at
any time, had any realistic idea of how to accomplish our objectives in
Vietnam.  We did not understand the culture, we did not understand Vietnamese
history, we did not have a clue as to how to win.  What happened in Cambodia is
a perfect example of how our lack of understanding of the effects of our
military strategy on the indigenous population.  

If we had had some realistic ideas for accomplishing our objectives, then
perhaps we would have been right to do what we did.  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52497 alt.politics.elections:17349 alt.politics.bush:9519 alt.politics.clinton:11028 alt.politics.perot:2298