Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10    5/3/83; site cornell.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!ddw
From: ddw@cornell.UUCP (David Wright)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Dems, Reps, Vietnam, and Isolationism
Message-ID: <4971@cornell.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Aug-83 14:05:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: cornell.4971
Posted: Sat Aug  6 14:05:49 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Aug-83 22:34:40 EDT
Sender: ddw@cornell.UUCP
Organization: Cornell Computer Science
Lines: 135

From: ddw (David Wright)
To: net-politics

Arrgghhh!  How long do political myths last?  Here we have Daniel Cobb
(orca!danc) flaming about Democratic isolationism in the face of the USSR
and how this caused us to "lose in Vietnam".  (His article was nominally
on the differences between Democrats and Republicans but actually about
Vietnam and Central America, as is this reply.)  [Numerous errors in
spelling, punctuation, etc. from Cobb's submission corrected and missing
words inserted.]

   And when the domino theory proved correct with the loss of Cambodia and
   Laos, they pretended again not to notice.  There was no revenge taken by
   those who warned us of the consequences, but the Democratic Party was silent.

This is a fine example of putting the cart before the horse.  It is far from
clear that Cambodia and Laos would have fallen if not for the US.  This is
particularly true in the case of Cambodia, which was doing all right until
the B-52's started bombing the hell out of it, and Sihanouk was forced out
and replaced by the hapless Lon Nol.  In fact, it's been argued that the
slaughter of the population by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was simply getting
a jump on something that would have happened anyway due to the enormous
devastation of Cambodian cropland by US B-52's.  (I hate to say "us" or
"our side" since I'd rather not identify with the incompetents who ran
the war.)  Not that this justifies the Khmer Rouge, but it does show the
state to which Cambodia had been reduced.

Now, a quotation from "War and Politics" by Bernard Brodie (I strongly
recommend this book):

 "To return now to the specific application of the 'domino theory' to the
  situation in 1964, we must note, first, that it required a good deal of
  presumption about the infallibility of one's predictions -- especially
  on the part of people who were unaware even of their ignorance on the
  role that Peking was playing in Hanoi's decisions -- to predict that if
  South Vietnam fell to the Communists, states X, Y, and Z would also
  inevitably fall; X, Y, and Z often being filled in by the names of nations
  rather far away.  That South Vietnam itself was going to fall was fairly
  obvious in 1964 and early 1965 -- for reasons that should have argued
  strongly \against/ our intervention, that is, that the government was
  collapsing out of its own inadequacy.  That Laos would then go too was
  also a pretty safe prediction, but Laos contains only about 3 million of
  the most primitive people in Indochina.  Cambodia at that time was under
  Prince Norodom Sihanouk, who had made some shrewd accomodations to the
  Communists and it was not at all necessary to write him off.  No doubt
  the basic consideration was that Ho Chi Minh's regime was quite demonstrably
  inspired far more by the nationalistic urge to achieve the reunification
  of an independent Vietnam than by a desire to spread Communism abroad.
  Their slogans for resistance to American 'imperialism' had to be primarily
  nationalistic rather than Communist, or they would never have elicited
  such sacrifies from their people.  And if it be argued that this betokened
  merely a cynical displacement of symbols, one would have to explain why,
  if it were a war primarily to spread Communism, the Chinese did not play
  a bigger role in it, especially in terms of sharing the awful rate of
  casualties."

Back to Cobb:

   And now the Soviets or their proxies are in Central America, where the 
   strategic threat is real and certain, and the Democrats are screaming about 
   another Vietnam.  THEIR Vietnam.  It is simply by refusing to fully face
   the issue and support positive action, that they insure another Vietnam.

It's hard to see that we're more threatened by a Soviet presence in Nicaragua
than we are by one in Cuba, which is after all closer to the U.S.  I'm not
happy with the way things have been going in Nicaragua lately (further left
all the time) but they feel under the gun (ours) and who else is going to
back them up except the USSR or its proxies?  Civil liberties do not thrive
in times of war, and that includes this country.  In El Salvador and Guatemala,
there are two sides, neither wearing white hats, and particularly in the
former we've boxed ourselves into a situation where we're supporting the 
side that \might/ hang on, whereas if we'd stayed neutral or backed the other
side our situation would be better (the government of El Salvador wouldn't
last twenty minutes if we were backing the guerillas).  My point is not that
there's anything we should be doing differently, just that we've gotten our-
selves into another fine mess that we may not have a good way out of.
   
   Some don't understand what our strategic interests are in Central America.
   The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries currently maintain a military
   force level in Europe that is nearly 3 times the force levels maintained 
   by NATO.

I've seen this claim before; it depends heavily on how you figure things.  For
example, the manpower levels of NATO and the Warsaw Pact are about the same,
or NATO may be a bit ahead.

   Their numbers of tanks and heavy artillery pieces far exceed ours.
   They maintain these levels at the expense of their people (because of the 
   staggering costs involved) and without justification, because they are
   far more than what is required for defensive purposes.

Oh, yeah?  By whose judgement?  Yours?  Maybe their equipment is terrible and
they figure they need a lot of it because it breaks down all the time.

   If war did break out in Europe, NATO forces would need immediate resupply
   from the US.  This resupply would take place from the East Coast, which is
   well within reach of Carribean Basin warplanes.  Even if their effort to
   interrupt the supply was only partially successful, there could be
   disastrous consequences in Europe.  The same scenario could occur in the
   Middle East for our Rapid Deployment Forces, because they are planned to
   be resupplied in the same way.  

As mentioned above, Cuba is more of a threat here than Nicaragua.  And what
do you propose we do?  Invade Cuba?  Blockade Nicaragua?  (This last is a
lot harder than blockading Cuba, since Nicaragua is not an island, and in
any event it's a lot harder to justify.)
   
   The strategic threat here is real and obvious, and yet the Democrats sit
   by, mumbling Vietnam.  
   
Which is a good thing to do.  Are we getting involved in a war that we cannot
win?  If so, the best thing to do is cut our losses and get out.


To return to the nominal subject of this note, it's difficult to say that
either party has been particularly stationary with respect to the USSR.  
It was a Democratic administration that sent in the troops in Korea and in
Vietnam.  Eisenhower did not send troops into Vietnam (for reasons upon
which we can only speculate; there are as many theories as there are
commentators).

To close with an anecdote:

  During McNamara's tenure as Secretary of Defense, one of his pet
projects (didn't get funded) was a large landing craft that could discharge
vast amounts of equipment fast.  Someone sourly commented at the time
that the trouble with this kind of "go anywhere, do anything" equipment
is that the owners develop a tendency to start going places and doing
things.

                                 David Wright

                       UUCP:     {vax135|decvax|ihnss}!cornell!ddw
                       ARPA:     ddw.cornell@udel-relay
                 CSnet,ARPA:     ddw@cornell