Third Party & Independents: Archives

Dirt is always sexier and gets higher ratings than boring old economics or geopolitical positioning.

Kerry was a hero in Vietnam, but reasonable people disagree about his exact exploits. He was mistaken about his time in Cambodia and may have come up with the details of this memory after watching “Apocalypse Now”. Kerry himself made Vietnam the center of his campaign. His response to critics should be something like, “I served in the company of heroes in Vietnam, but the reason you should vote for me is – fill in blanks – during my subsequent service in the U.S. Senate.” The media is not doing its job by concentrating on Vietnam, but both pro and anti-Kerry like it that way. The anti-Kerry folks want to get some dirt on him. The pro-Kerry camp prefers to talk about Kerry’s record in Vietnam than what he did after he came back. We should have a kind of statute of limitations and concentrate only on what happened in the last ten or twelve years. After all, “what have you done lately?” is the key question.

As we move further and further away from the Vietnam War, perhaps one day, maybe in the 2008 election, it will not come up during a campaign. Eventually we will get so far removed from it, no one will be able to claim the Vietnam moral highground.

Jack, thanks for such a reasoned and level-headed post. We could all learn from such an example, myself included!

Still, it is interesting to see how it all comes down to this being a referendum on the Vietnam War itself. One one side there’s those of us who think that Vietnam was a good war that we should have (and even could have) won if it wasn’t for those traitorous and self-serving hippies… and on the other side are those of us who think that the Vietnam War was wrongheaded, poorly managed, and spiralling out of control until the anti-war movement helped talk some sense into the America body politic.

I suspect that many Americans are in the middle on this issue. Does anyone know of any polls regarding these questions about what Americans think about Vietnam? Do most Americans think it was a good war or a bad war — or something in the middle? Do most Americans detest or deify the anti-war movement — or is it something in the middle?

-Cf

Jack-
I don’t know. You ever heard of Berniques creek? Google it.

CF said: “One one side there’s those of us who think that Vietnam was a good war that we should have (and even could have) won if it wasn’t for those traitorous and self-serving hippies…”

There is a lot in this sentence that begs questions. But let’s first dispel a gross untruth. The Hippies did not have control of DoD, the office of the President, or even Congress. The Hippies were very unpopular across this land as much for their free dealing in sex and drugs as their stance on the war. The Hippies did not bring an end to the Viet Nam war, the President, Congress, and the DoD, were completely, entirely, and wholly responsible for bringing an end to that war. Did the media and the Hippies with their demonstrations have some influence on some government office holder’s decision to withdraw from Viet Nam? Perhaps, but, their influence was marginal at best.

Now, if the war was winable, why wasn’t it won? The answer was geopolitical considerations like China’s preceived willingness to enter the war if the U.S. extended the war beyond N. Viet Nam’s borders. Also, the fear that use of nuclear weapons would bring the USSR and China into the war against the US with a possible nuclear holocaust being the result.

Part of the reason we did not win the war is well known to Viet Nam vets, lack of credible intelligence. Patrols were sent to get body counts, and they weren’t to return without them. So, they were invented, fabricated, and in the end, some of the patrols never went to their designated patrol areas. The intel coming back was almost completely unreliable. Westmoreland was also deceiving the President and Sec’t of Defense.

How can anyone call Viet Nam a good war? What is the definition of a good war? It was a civil war whose side we aided was so corrupt, they could not be relied upon to fight their share of the war and too often worked at odds with our efforts. How can a war whose premise was proved false, be called a good war. The premise was to stem the spread of Communism. We left Viet Nam, the Communists took over S. Viet Nam, and the spread of Communism never took place. The premise was wrong.

And how can the loss of 58,235 plus 1,300 MIA’s based on lies perpetrated by the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Administrations be called a good war? It was a horrible war. The military lied to the Whitehouse and Congress, the President’s lied to the people (as presidential tapes now evidence), and the premise of the war was false (though it can be argued, at the time the premises appeared true.)

Except for the numbers of losses, so much of this sounds recently familiar, does it not? Two polls taken in 1966-67 showed the American people supporting hippies rights to demonstrate publicly amounted to only 58% only if they were peaceful demonstrations. Their right to assembly and speech was barely supported by a majority, their views were NOT supported by a majority.

So it was not the Hippies (myself being one then and now) that put us in that war, kept us in that war, or pulled us out of that war. Those were administrative and pentagon decisions which were made against a backdrop of a decade of violence both overseas and here at home, with the murders from Malcolm X to Robert F. Kennedy, the Kent State tragedy, and the riots in our major cities.

Our leaders decided we could not afford to win that war, since winning through expanding the geographical boundaries of the war, or use of nuclear weapons, or wholesale waste of innocent civilians, women, children and the aged, in the North of Viet Nam, would cost us more in the long run than declaring victory over Ho Chih Minh.

What I find interesting is that Kerry’s service, or lack of it, and Bush’s attendance, or lack of it, seem to matter more to people who haven’t served than it does to us that have.

Weird, huh?

One one side there’s those of us who think that Vietnam was a good war that we should have (and even could have) won if it wasn’t for those traitorous and self-serving hippies…

I was also one of those hippies and I resent the implication that those of us demonstrated against the war were tratorious or self serving. We love this country as much as those who fight.
Does anybody see a comparison between the “patriots” who find any contrary view traitorous? Those who rail on the Bill of Rights and “free” speech, then accuse those who question them unpatriotic?
The “love it or leave it” crowd never went away they just got older.
We traitorous hippies tried to establish an idea that killing people, evil or not, wasn’t the way to solve the world’s problems. That’s not even a liberal idea. The difference now is that fewer people want to listen.

I wonder if we’re going to see (because we ought to) a generational backlash here.

As a twenty-something, I’m pretty fed up with the self-centered sixties generation who continues to see the entire world and every political debate and election in the light of their forty year old squabbles over Vietnam.

Can we talk about the war going on NOW, the one that began on our own soil, or must we forever listen to Geritol-sipping hippies recycle rhetoric from the summer of love? On behalf of all those who are going to bankroll your social security checks, can we please fast-forward to 2004 and declare a moratorium on all these senile mutterings about Vietnam?

Martin, those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it. The parallels between the war in Iraq and Viet Nam exist and it would be wise of the younger generation to review the history.

Impetuous youth, every generation in power has distrust of it, and every new generation of youth distrusts the decisions of the generation in power (lacking the historical context which shaped those decisions).

Your generation will have the reins in about 15 to 20 years, and they will have the same admonitions for their up and coming generation. It is how “what goes around, comes around” is maintained, until some new generation simply lays waste to it all and lets evolution start all over again.

That is why space offers such hope. There must be intelligent life elsewhere, because, one day, there will be none left here. That is a scientific certainty.

Martin says

On behalf of all those who are going to bankroll your social security checks, can we please fast-forward to 2004 and declare a moratorium on all these senile mutterings about Vietnam?

This is one of those rare moments when I am inclined to agree with you. I can understand why Kerry was trying to inoculate himself against a “soft on defense” rap. But this is degrading into a contest of who can get the most prominent veterans (or to put it more crudely, the most severed limbs) on their side.

According to this new poll , Bush and Kerry’s military service (or lack thereof) is yet another issue that people are divided down the middle on, and probably won’t change the outcome of the election. But no one wants to let the other side have the last word, so we are doomed to keep rehashing this…

Here’s a chilling thought for you Martin — there’s going to be bunch of Gen X Iraq War veterans running for office one day.

Martin, those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it. The parallels between the war in Iraq and Viet Nam exist and it would be wise of the younger generation to review the history.

I basically agree, but I fear that the probability of the current spat (which I have admittedly participated in) turning into an intelligent discussion of the Vietnam War are approximately nil. Except on these pages, of course. :)

By the way, I hope that the irony of my “chilling thought” was clear. I think that Iraq War vets will have an important contribution to make. I’m just afraid we’ll hear more discussion of “who heeded the call of his country” and who protested at home (or both), who shot accidently shot a civilian, who hung out with Michael Moore (the new Jane Fonda), etc.

Martin,
As a fifty somthing I hear a lot about the self-centered sixties. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We truely cared for each other and tried to leave the world a better place for those who will come behind us.
I don’t see where wanting clean air, clean water and a peacefull world, is self-centered. Or perhaps we can all benefit from your twenty something years of experience? Grow up.

Rocky:

I’m sure you’d agree that not all of the “hippies” were as truly loving and caring about society as you were. I look at the opposite side of that too. For instance, there are “environmentally aware” people like Barbra Streisand who own palatial mansions in the formerly pristine Rockies who now want building restrictions and moratoriums. Why??? Because they got theirs and they dont want anyone ruining their good views.

We all want clean water, clean air and a peaceful world. I dont know anyone who doesnt. The question becomes how to get it. And thats where a lot of the divergence comes in.

Both Republicans and Democrats want a safe world where people are prosperous and happy. But how do we achieve that. Is appeasement the right way?? Is military might the right way?? Are strict environmental controls that restrict busines too much a good thing>?? Are loose environmental controls that help business but hurt the environment good?

A great example of this fine line is the forest fires out west. The right thing to do, of course, is to thin the forests enough to prevent the fires, but not so much as to hurt the forest. As with a flower garden, pruning is a good thing. But the environmentalists say the pruning goes too far, and the business people say it doesnt go far enough. Both have the same desire—-no fires. But vastly different ideas of how to accomplish it.

So it is with many other issues in this world.

Joe,
Let’s agree to disagree. I know that there were bad seeds in the sixties, just as there are now, but then the vast majority were as idealistic as I was.
I think there should be a balance in our approach to the war on terror. There will be times when we should go in and kick ass, but that said, we need to do it right and we should take these challanges one at a time. If we’re going to be nation builders we need to remain focused on the task at hand.
There will also be times when we need to be diplomatic. I’m sure that we will not always be able to rely on Shri Lanka and Liechtenstien for peace keepers (that was supposed to be a joke).
We need the larger nations of the world on our side. Yes, we need France and Germany. There will come a time when we can’t go it alone. Yes we bailed France out during WW2, I think it’s time we stopped asking for their thanks for that. Without France’s help during the Revolution, this country would be very different.
Now on the forrests. If you look at an old growth forrest, there is space between the trees. The reason the forrests are thick with growth now is we clear cut, plain and simple. The regrowth is all the same age. That combined with the Forrest Service’s policy of suppression at any cost has put our forrests in the state they are in. Now we have to thin. This shouldn’t cost the public anything. The industries that harvest, should pay for the right to harvest.

I can’t help but be light-hearted on this thing, so bear with me. When I was watching the Kerry testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee of that disgusting stealth-Communist, J. William Fulbright, I wonder, am I the only person who caught that Kerry’s voice sounded exactly like that character Thursten Howell the Third on Gilligan’s Island?

The more sanctimonious he got, the more I had to chuckle!