And you underestimate the 'U.S. public'. The majority of the public was against the war in Vietnam because, back then, the Vietnamese were not seen as a threat. They weren't over here attacking us, so the war didn't make much sense to many of us.
You are right! The American public was against the war in Vietnam! They didn't want their sons to die in the jungles over there. Protests after protests against the war were staged, and the north Vietnamese exploited this fact to the hilt when negotiations to end the war were held in Paris in the early 1970s.
The American fighters in Vietnam were, for the major part, unwilling fighters. They were recruited from a bunch of spoilt kids. (Recall that the war came on the heels of the free love hippie era with its mantra of "Make Peace Not War" and peace signs were ubiquitous).
Many able-bodied young fellas were unwilling to fight in Vietnam. Among them were former world boxing champion Mohammed Ali (one-time Cassius Clay). Many others fled to Canada (to Alberta (including Paradise Valley) and British Columbia and to Ontario) whilst others "sidestepped" into the National Guards (suspects in this include Anthony Quayle (one-time Vice Prez to Dubya's dad) and Slick Billie) or enrolled as graduate students in the universities or joined the Peace Corps.
Across the land, lots of graduate students in the universities were dismayed by the fact that despite America's overwhelming hi-tech superiority and firepower and its best trained soldiers, the Marines, relatively little progress was achieved against the enemy. The enemy proved to be highly elusive and resourceful, and the Americans were often "screwed"/betrayed by their South Vietnamese "allies". (I tend to believe the Americans may be "screwed" again in Afghanistan.)
What did the Americans do in Vietnam? They carpet-bombed and napalm-bombed almost indiscriminately and defoliated/dehumanized forests using cancer-causing Orange Agent regardless of whether innocent folks were killed. Why did they do this? Oh, the might-is-right syndrome or desperation led them to kill the enemy by any means. It was also The-end-justifies-the-means syndrome. After all, the Viets were Communists, a big threat to the free world and so must be eliminated out at all costs.
However, folks back home gradually realized that the Gulf of Tonkin incident which had initiated American involvement was, to begin with, probably "manufactured" by the top brass and the administration to justify American intrusion. There was constantly an underlying sense that the war was unjust. In fact, pressure to end the war forced Nixon to eventually send Kissinger to Paris to negotiate with his Viet counterpart, Duc Tho, for an "honorable end" to the war.
And what did the Americans get in the end for meddling with other people's business and for under-estimating its "enemy"? They got their ass kicked, all right! Why didn't they talk of using a nuke then? They dared not because of home and world opinion and besides the Soviets and the Chinese were watching. Now that the Cold War is over, the U.S. apparently feels it alone can wield the nuclear big stick with impunity. I suppose that if the Viets were as "sophisticated" as present day American boys and their country had military firepower, they would have mouthed mantras like the ones being mouthed here today:-
"Kill all the scum bastards/cowards/slime by any means;
They invade our country, they are our enemies, so show them no mercy;
Either you are with us or you are against us."
How many people died in the twin towers? A few less than 3,000 by latest count which is miniscule compared to the carnage of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims and the wholesale destruction of vast swathes of land to say nothing of the lingering cancers borne by the Viets. Right justifies might, eh?
Why is there overwhelming support for the war in Afghanistan? IMHO, it is because "they" are Muslims and folks in the West in the West are mostly Christians --- a sort of carry over from the days of the Crusades. No matter how much anyone would deny it, that is the bloody truth! Dubya got that idea, all right, at the beginning of the war. (Ditto for Rushdie, famed author of "Satanic Verses"). But Dubya's advisors told him to retract it in order to win popular and worldwide support. After all, honey attracts lots of bees, eh?
Today we are exposed to so many frauds and deceptions that we have to be extremely critical and perspicaceous as to what to believe what we are told.
For example, a week ago the local news had it that about 400 American soldiers had to be withdrawn from the battle front because they had become battle-weary and need to be replaced with fresh troops and that hundreds of Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters were "body-slammed" and killed. Today, I read from a respectable non-American paper (quoting local Afghan military commanders) that the troops were withdrawn because they were unsuitable for fighting in that Afghan terrain, especially at this time of the year, that the troops' sense of self-preservation was more of a hindrance than a help, and that there was no evidence that hundreds of the enemy were slaughtered, as claimed. Could it be possible that the Pentagon feels, at times, duty-bound to slant reports or propagandize for the sake of maintaining high morale all around?
----------------------- |
