Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Geopolitical considerations don’t have much to do with whether someone’s a good general or not. I believe, Vo Nguyen Giap was a good general. He was neither a tactical nor strategic “genius”, simply a good general who did what he could with what he had at hand.

I call him good because we were the 9000lb gorilla. We were tactically superior; we had fire, mobility, support and supply superiority and controlled the airspace. We were operationally superior in that we could go where we wanted, with what we wanted, when we wanted.

In the face of the disproportionate scale of superiority (and consequent casualties), Vo Nguyen Giap was able to maintain the organization and morale of his troops for yet one more ‘push’. THAT is the mark of a good general. Probably his only claim to tactical/operational fame, is his decision to break down his artillery and manually hump it to the heights above Dien Bien Phu. Sure surprised Hell out of de Castries, yeah?

Served two tours, first in II Corps in Pleiku and Kontum, second in III Corps in Long Khanh, Binh Duong and Long Anh, spanning 1969-1971. Been there, saw it. Have a second navel in my right thigh and some nice dueling scars just left of my left eye.

Don’t like him, don’t hate him, don’t think much about him, but he was a player and believed in what he was doing. His nation honors him as a hero, okey doke. I understand why. But he sure as heck wasn’t some kind of military genius. He was a “good” general. And I respect that..

[ed] There's some people, whose troops I did my best to kill, whose funeral I would I would not consider myself dimished by attending. So a digital white rose to the %L*I of Vo Nguten Giap.
Ciao. JWE

quote:

But by the early 80s for a mid-grade military officer to still believe in the Domino Theory shows a lot of cement in his world-view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

But by the early 80s for a mid-grade military officer to still believe in the Domino Theory shows a lot of cement in his world-view.

I thought I was done with this thread but I have to disagree here. Red China and the USSR never saw eye to eye but the NVA were able to play them off each other to get supplies and assistance throughout the conflict with the USSR ending up as their main benefactor in the end. Ultimately North Vietnam had to bow to the realism of China being a historic threat to its northern territories. This was in temporary suspension during the Chinese Civil War and the early 60's.

The Domino Theory has not been discredited as was stated and is still being discussed in the War Colleges. Communist movements in SE Asia post WWII were prevalent almost everywhere. Malaysia, 1962 Coup in Burma, Thailand, Indonesia. etc. One also has to view the situation (in the late 50's early 60's) through the Prism of the Communist victory in now Red China and the Korean War.

The war in Vietnam allowed the nation states south of Thailand an opportunity to stabilize both politically and economically, most chose to purge themselves of their internal Communist foes. By 1972 the international Communist movement had "openly" splintered and Nixon had "gone to China". To cast the Domino Theory aside as a disproven myth of heated Cold War rhetoric is not entirely universally accepted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

But by the early 80s for a mid-grade military officer to still believe in the Domino Theory shows a lot of cement in his world-view.

I thought I was done with this thread but I have to disagree here. Red China and the USSR never saw eye to eye but the NVA were able to play them off each other to get supplies and assistance throughout the conflict with the USSR ending up as their main benefactor in the end. Ultimately North Vietnam had to bow to the realism of China being a historic threat to its northern territories. This was in temporary suspension during the Chinese Civil War and the early 60's.

The Domino Theory has not been discredited as was stated and is still being discussed in the War Colleges. Communist movements in SE Asia post WWII were prevalent almost everywhere. Malaysia, 1962 Coup in Burma, Thailand, Indonesia. etc. One also has to view the situation (in the late 50's early 60's) through the Prism of the Communist victory in now Red China and the Korean War.

The war in Vietnam allowed the nation states south of Thailand an opportunity to stabilize both politically and economically, most chose to purge themselves of their internal Communist foes. By 1972 the international Communist movement had "openly" splintered and Nixon had "gone to China". To cast the Domino Theory aside as a disproven myth of heated Cold War rhetoric is not entirely universally accepted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

The Domino Theory is still alive and well in certain circles in DC. There were several published National Security Strategies in the most recent Bush Administration that advocated a kind of reverse Domino Theory based on hoped for success in Iraq. Bush was not shy in his speeches calling for people to rise up and secure their thirsts for freedom. One could argue that the elections in Iraq, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the success of the Kurds, and the just too late Green Revolution in Iran were the first fruits of this policy.

The most recent "Arab Spring" was the nightmare scenario that was guarded against just a few years ago. This Domino Theory was based upon trying to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from orchestrating "elections" under the "one man - one vote - one time" practice. This was initially vigorously opposed in Algeria in the 00's, but to see Egypt, and possibly Syria, Libya, Jordan, and Tunisia fall in this manner is truly frightening.

quote:

To compare what's happening in the Muslim world now with the DT is pretty out there. I hope this isn't what the pros in D.C. spend their time on. The two sets of circumstances are wildly different.

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

To compare what's happening in the Muslim world now with the DT is pretty out there. I hope this isn't what the pros in D.C. spend their time on. The two sets of circumstances are wildly different.

The Domino Theory is alive and well at the National Security Adviser level and in the professional Intel community. The circumstances are indeed different but the theory remains. One only needs to go back to the 2006 National Security Strategy to find this:

B. Successes and Challenges since 2002
Since 2002, the world has seen extraordinary progress in the expansion of freedom, democracy, and human dignity:
• The peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq have replaced tyrannies with democracies.
• In Afghanistan, the tyranny of the Taliban has been replaced by a freely-elected government; Afghans have written and ratified a constitution guaranteeing rights and freedoms unprecedented in their history; and an elected legislature gives the people a regular voice in their government.
• In Iraq, a tyrant has been toppled; over 8 million Iraqis voted in the nation’s first free and fair election; a freely negotiated constitution was passed by a referendum in which almost 10 million Iraqis participated; and, for the first time in their history, nearly 12 million Iraqis have elected a permanent government under a popularly determined constitution.
• The people of Lebanon have rejected the heavy hand of foreign rule. The people of Egypt have experienced more open but still flawed elections. Saudi Arabia has taken some preliminary steps to give its citizens more of a voice in their government. Jordan has made progress in opening its political process. Kuwait and Morocco are pursuing agendas of political reform.
• The “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan have brought new hope for freedom across the Eurasian landmass.
• Democracy has made further advances in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, with peaceful transfers of power; growth in independent judiciaries and the rule of law; improved election practices; and expanding political and economic rights.
The human desire for freedom is universal, but the growth of freedom is not inevitable. Without support from free nations, freedom’s spread could be hampered by the challenges we face:

President Bush was very passionate about exporting basic human freedom to those who sought it out and he crafted his Nation Security Strategy to meet that aim. He was convinced that if people were given the opportunity for freedom and has US support that they would reach out - as witnessed in the Lebanese Cedar Revolution and the Green Revolution in Iran. His goals for the Middle East:

3. Middle East
The Broader Middle East continues to command the world’s attention. For too long, too many nations of the Middle East have suffered from a freedom deficit. Repression has fostered corruption, imbalanced or stagnant economies, political resentments, regional conflicts, and religious extremism. These maladies were all cloaked by an illusion of stability. Yet the peoples of the Middle East share the same desires as people in the rest of the world: liberty, opportunity, justice, order, and peace. These desires are now being expressed in movements for reform. The United States is committed to supporting the efforts of reformers to realize a better life for themselves and their region.
We seek a Middle East of independent states, at peace with each other, and fully participating in an open global market of goods, services, and ideas. We are seeking to build a framework that will allow Israel and the Palestinian territories to live side by side in peace and security as two democratic states. In the wider region, we will continue to support efforts for reform and freedom in traditional allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Tyrannical regimes such as Iran and Syria that oppress at home and sponsor terrorism abroad know that we will continue to stand with their people against their misrule. And in Iraq, we will continue to support the Iraqi people and their historic march from tyranny to effective democracy. We will work with the freely elected, democratic government of Iraq – our new partner in the War on Terror – to consolidate and expand freedom, and to build security and lasting stability.

...and a conclusion that fit the noble thought put forth in the NSS:

XI. Conclusion

The challenges America faces are great, yet we have enormous power and influence to address those challenges. The times require an ambitious national security strategy, yet one recognizing the limits to what even a nation as powerful as the United States can achieve by itself. Our national security strategy is idealistic about goals, and realistic about means.
There was a time when two oceans seemed to provide protection from problems in other lands, leaving America to lead by example alone. That time has long since passed. America cannot know peace, security, and prosperity by retreating from the world. America must lead by deed as well as by example. This is how we plan to lead, and this is the legacy we will leave to those who follow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe we can close this thread now. Shouldn't have been started in the first place; too ****ing sensitive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe we can close this thread now. Shouldn't have been started in the first place; too ****ing sensitive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan


T,

OK. I disagree. In my opinion, he was a thug who showed disregard for his own people and soldiers, and brutal contempt for helpless civilians once under his control. His willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers to achieve objectives in the field doesn't distinguish him nor elevate his reputation to that of the great marshals of history.

Regards,
Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan


T,

OK. I disagree. In my opinion, he was a thug who showed disregard for his own people and soldiers, and brutal contempt for helpless civilians once under his control. His willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers to achieve objectives in the field doesn't distinguish him nor elevate his reputation to that of the great marshals of history.

Regards,
Feltan

The problem with such a comment is that it implies "rules" that would make victory for the north vietnamese impossible : "you are allowed to win only with minimal losses, even facing overwhelming technological superiority"... Yeah right with such rules you don't win...

Giap had to resort to some sort of assymetrical warfare, at the time it was accepting massive losses in the hope of eventually forcing the ennemy to retreat, be it through direct military defeat (ie Dien Bien Phu style), which was unlikely, or throught political factors.

Where the Vietnam war taking place today, the north vietnamese might have resorted to terrorism against US civilians and interests, etc...

The point is you cannot evaluate Giap's results with such standards, it just simply doesn't make sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe we can close this thread now. Shouldn't have been started in the first place; too ****ing sensitive.

No, a good discussion in many ways and although OT not out of place here. As long as there is not any bashing and name calling. There has been some good dialog here. There is much to know about Giap and the Vietnam War. But you are right about it drifting a bit OT on an OT subject.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe we can close this thread now. Shouldn't have been started in the first place; too ****ing sensitive.

No, a good discussion in many ways and although OT not out of place here. As long as there is not any bashing and name calling. There has been some good dialog here. There is much to know about Giap and the Vietnam War. But you are right about it drifting a bit OT on an OT subject.

Yes, in the GENERAL forum, or in one that might be involve the Vietnam war. BUT ANY contentious issue can be expected to lead to "bashing and name-calling". I suspect that good manners in this particular forum is the only reason that this thread has not degenerated into chaos. Good manners would also have suggested that "loaded issues" not bearing on this forum probably shouldn't be raised here.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

TBH I find the content of the above quote both ignorant and frightening. It is exactly what The Moose described as viewing the world through a Western state lens.

quote:

Breaking news from cloud cuckoo land?

quote:

An excellent point. The ultimate goal in conflict is to win or attain your purpose. Vietnam today is independent and unified and free from outside intervention. Say what you want, but they did eventually gain what they wanted. Given the disproportionate balance of forces, you have to at least respect that. Whether you like them or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan


T,

OK. I disagree. In my opinion, he was a thug who showed disregard for his own people and soldiers, and brutal contempt for helpless civilians once under his control. His willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers to achieve objectives in the field doesn't distinguish him nor elevate his reputation to that of the great marshals of history.

Regards,
Feltan

The problem with such a comment is that it implies "rules" that would make victory for the north vietnamese impossible : "you are allowed to win only with minimal losses, even facing overwhelming technological superiority"... Yeah right with such rules you don't win...

Giap had to resort to some sort of assymetrical warfare, at the time it was accepting massive losses in the hope of eventually forcing the ennemy to retreat, be it through direct military defeat (ie Dien Bien Phu style), which was unlikely, or throught political factors.

Where the Vietnam war taking place today, the north vietnamese might have resorted to terrorism against US civilians and interests, etc...

The point is you cannot evaluate Giap's results with such standards, it just simply doesn't make sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here was the obituary in "The Duffle Blog"...... http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietnam-war-winning/   .

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

quote:

TBH I find the content of the above quote both ignorant and frightening. It is exactly what The Moose described as viewing the world through a Western state lens.

If you follow the link you will note that this was taken directly from the National Security Strategy of the United States (2006 version), a document that is required by law. It is viewed directly from the the "lens" of the President of the United States (at the time) and should be read in that context.

I posted this to answer the question as to whether the Domino Theory was still being considered in strategic circles. The answer, as supported by the NSS 2006, is yes. Since the Domino Theory is a "theory" there is no way to prove it as truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here was the obituary in "The Duffle Blog"...... http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietnam-war-winning/   .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

veji1,

That is a valid point if you subscribe to the notion that the ends justify the means of achieving them. I do not. There are norms and behaviors that are expected, and they transcend temporary tactical situations.

Your own post alludes to the fact that Giap departed from these expected norms of behavior. In doing so, in my opinion, his reputation and memory resides in the debris field and pond scum left in the wake of human advancement. Furthermore, I suspect in a generation or two the Vietnamese people will quietly push the memory of Giap to the back of the bus; a bit embarrassed by his brutality and excesses. You don't have to look far for similar examples -- once "great" people who are rapidly disowned once the implications of their behavior is evaluated outside of the current period's passion.

Regards,
Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

veji1,

That is a valid point if you subscribe to the notion that the ends justify the means of achieving them. I do not. There are norms and behaviors that are expected, and they transcend temporary tactical situations.

Your own post alludes to the fact that Giap departed from these expected norms of behavior. In doing so, in my opinion, his reputation and memory resides in the debris field and pond scum left in the wake of human advancement. Furthermore, I suspect in a generation or two the Vietnamese people will quietly push the memory of Giap to the back of the bus; a bit embarrassed by his brutality and excesses. You don't have to look far for similar examples -- once "great" people who are rapidly disowned once the implications of their behavior is evaluated outside of the current period's passion.

Regards,
Feltan

Fair enough, from a moral standpoint your view is valid, but my point was that from a political and military point of view, such a view is but a set of blinkers. It makes you unable to fully grasp what are the means at your disposal to achieve victory.

With such a view, once the US was fully committed, the only rational (or be it "moral") choice for North Vietnam would have been to accept defeat and give up on unifying vietnam under their terms. Interestingly enough your view is very similar to that of the US leaders until 69/70, summarised by McNamara as "inability to put ourselves in their shoes". This is a view that leads to defeat.

And lastly, your point about "great" people is again morally valid, but politically beside the point : most of the great political and military leaders were at some point butchers until the 19th century at least, plunder rape and death were part of the game, their barbarity but the reflection of their time. In our western view of warfare of the middle 20th century epitomized by the bombing campaigns on Germany, Japan or North Vietnam, plunder and rape are barbarities, but mass bombing of civilians is fair game... Where is the line ? morality is a historical concept which evolves with time and distance.

Again i don't mean to say your views are not valid, in absolute, but that to evaluate the figure of Giap and the context of the 35 years long vietnamese war of liberation, they dramatically corner your analysis and evaluation.

quote:

In case there is a misunderstanding, my comment was not directed against you or against any US sitizen.
I understand that you posted it to underline your point that the DT is still alive - as I understand it as a variant from the one originating in the cold war.

quote:

I believe the final analysis will point to the fact that the war didn't make any difference. The great loss of life was in vain. There was no victory. If the war had never happened, a very similar outcome was likely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Here was the obituary in "The Duffle Blog"...... http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietnam-war-winning/   .

"Actress and sometime-girlfriend Jane Fonda has already confirmed she will be singing “Strawberry Fields Forever,” Giap’s favorite song, at his funeral"

quote:

In Washington, flags were ordered to fly at half-mast for the soldier Henry Kissinger once credited as “the man who single-handedly got the U.S. out of the Vietnam War.”

Several leading Congressional representatives, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), held a moment of silence on Capitol Hill for the fallen soldier. Giap was technically a constituent of hers, having been made an honorary citizen of San Francisco in 1968. Pelosi has already sponsored a resolution to have Giap’s name added to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has sponsored his own resolution, unofficially backed by Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, thanking Giap for the “years of hospitality” and offering to repay the favor by having Giap’s body flown by helicopter from the rooftop of the American embassy in Vietnam and dumped in the South China Sea.

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/10/vietnam-war-winning/#ixzz2hHkTq4EY