R
Raymond
Guest
Vietnam War: It Could Have Been Avoided
Tim King Salem-News.com
If we learned from our mistakes, the world would be a different place
today.
(SALEM, Ore.) - Long before the U.S. went to Vietnam, before at least
58,148 of our countrymen were killed there, and thousands were left
behind missing and in captivity, our country was asked by an acting
leader of that nation to help them finally achieve freedom.
Without question, the word "freedom" brings to mind the purest pursuit
of the United States, and our President has used it as one of the
reasons for occupying Iraq with U.S. forces. Another example of a
quest for freedom came at the close of the Second World War, from a
man Americans later learned to hate.
The year Vietnam asked us for help was 1945, the man asking was Ho Chi
Minh, and he would later become the leader of the communist forces of
the North Vietnamese. When you look at the history of the Vietnam
conflict, and all of the senseless killing and suffering, you learn
there is at least a possibility that it could have been easily
avoided.
During World War Two, Ho Chi Minh worked for President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt. He helped rescue downed American pilots, and providing
valuable information to Americans on Japanese troop movements.
He had been trained in Moscow, but Ho had spent time in the United
States too and was regarded as enthusiastically pro-American during
this period. Ho disbanded the Communist Party in the immediate post-
war period, a constitution similar to ours was adopted, and he called
for a general election.
President Roosevelt had publicly endorsed Vietnam's independence and
Ho believed the President would bring Vietnam its long awaited goal,
freedom.
But the passing of FDR was more to Vietnam than a changing of the
guard, it meant the end of a promise for U.S. support. When Ho Chi
Minh sent communiques asking the Truman Administration to recognize
Vietnam as a sovereign nation, and to not fund the revitalization of
French colonialism in Southeast Asia, his words fell on deaf ears.
Shortly after that the French came back, funded by American dollars.
But they did not last long, and their military forces were fully
defeated by 1954. Ten years later the American war in Vietnam began,
and more than ten more years would pass before our country's final
pullout.
Had we listened to that request for freedom in 1945, there might have
never been a Vietnam War. It is almost as though the country most
interested in protecting the world from Communism, the U.S., was the
facilitator of this country's aspirations to become Communist in the
first place, at least Moscow responded to Ho Chi Minh's letters.
Why is this relevant? It just seems like perspective is everything
when you talk about the current overseas conflicts, and our citizens
forget the painful past all too easily while claiming to celebrate
it.
It seems that we owe the veterans who gave their last breath fighting
for the rest of us the respect of treating that freedom well, and
reserving our fighting forces for wars that inevitably must be fought,
rather than those that are more personal in nature, as Iraq seems to
be to President Bush.
Vietnam in the end, is still a Communist country and it is a
progressive one on many respects, but it is still more than capable of
bringing a hard hand down on those who step over the line. Did it
benefit us to send almost 60,000 of our forces into a war there that
politicians did not allow the fighting forces to win? Most would say
no, it wasn't.
It was recent history in the bigger picture, and for a long time
people seriously appreciated our nation having reached a point where
we don't send our troops off to wars that inevitably, can't be won.
Today we are a nation that forgets easily the lessons of the past.
------------------------------------------------------------
"[Y]ou will always find that those are most apt to boast of national
merit, who have little or not merit of their own to depend on . . ."
-Oliver Goldsmith
Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with almost twenty years of
experience on the west coast as a television news producer,
photojournalist and reporter. Today, in addition to his role as a war
correspondent in Afghanistan where he spent the winter of 2006/07,
this Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com's Executive News
Editor. Salem-News.com is the nation's only truly independent high
traffic news Website, affiliated only with Google News. You can send
Tim an email at this address: newsr...@salem-news.com
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september242007/ho_vietnam_92407.php
Historians will debate the precise motivations for the Vietnam war for
years to come. When official explanations don't stand up to scrutiny,
it raises the question, -- who benefits? As the man said, "follow the
money ... straight to the oil fields."
We were tossed out of Vietnam before we were able to get control of
their oil but we never gave up. Today we are trying by the diplomatic
route.
SEE:
BLACK GOLD HOT GOLD
The Rise of Fascism in the American Energy Business
(Pre-publication online preview excerpt)
(CHAPTER THREE)
The whole 20 year Viet Nam "war" from 1955 to 1975 was an oil scam.
And all during the "war," Vietnamese General Giap fought the Americans
with weapons he got from Laurence Rockefeller for a dollar. Did you
ever wonder why the US, despite, greatly superior weapons, and the
loss of 57,000 Americans and half a million Vietnamese, never won the
"war?" Ever wonder why the US President issued such strange "rules of
engagement" for the American troops that made sure they didn't win?
Ever wonder why Henry
Kissinger, a personal assistant to Nelson Rockefeller spent so much
time in the Viet Nam/Paris Peace talks which
never went anywhere but simply dragged on for years. Maybe winning the
"war" wasn't part of the plan of the Empire of Energy. Maybe the
timing of the "war" was more important.
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj050701-3.html
It is time for a reasonable look at both Vietnam and Iraq -- and at
what the former can teach us about the latter. My perspective comes
from military service in the Pacific in World War II (I still carry
shrapnel in my body from a kamikaze attack on my destroyer, the U.S.S.
Maddox), nine terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, and four
years as secretary of defense to Nixon.
---- Melvin Laird
MELVIN R. LAIRD was Secretary of Defense from 1969 to 1973, Counselor
to the President for Domestic Affairs from 1973 to 1974, and a member
of the House of Representatives from 1952 to 1969. He currently
serves
as Senior Counselor for National and International Affairs at the
Reader's Digest Association.
U.S. Oil Companies in Vietnam for oil.
Newsman, Jack Anderson said that the way to be safe while driving
around in Vietnam was to be in a Shell Oil truck because it was
protected. (Paraphrased)
REUTERS
Published: February 14, 1983
Vietnam accused China today of violating Vietnamese sovereignty by
allowing American oil companies to operate in the Tonkin Gulf, off
northern Vietnam and southwestern China.
BACKGROUND
1. Abstract
The Spratly Islands of the South China Sea are a potential tinder box
in the region. Approximately 44 of the 51 small islands and reefs are
claimed or occupied by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan,
Malaysia and Brunei. The conflict is the result of overlapping
sovereignty claims to various Spratly Islands thought to possess
substantial natural resources -- chiefly oil, natural gas, and
seafood.
Disputes have been propelled by an aggressive China, eager to meet
growing energy demands that outstrip its supply capability.
Overlapping claims resulted in several military incidents since 1974
and in several countries awarding foreign companies exploration rights
in the same
area of the South China Sea. Regional nation-states not directly
involved in the Spratly disputes became concerned about regional
stability and established a regional forum to discuss the peaceful
resolution of the disputes. Sovereignty and exploration disputes were
thought to be resolved with the drafting of ASEAN's 1992 declaration
which committed members to resolve disputes peacefully and to
consider
joint exploration of the territory. Military aggression and
exploration endeavors conducted by China since 1992, however, have
brought into question the validity of the 1992 joint declaration and
raises the question of what long-term, peaceful solution could prevent
the region from erupting into a continuum of military incidents over
sovereignty rights to the natural resource-rich Spratly Islands.
2. Description
The Spratly Islands of the South China Sea are a potential tinder box
in the region. Approximately 44 of the 51 small islands and reefs are
claimed or occupied by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan,
Malaysia and Brunei. The conflict is the result of overlapping
sovereignty claims to various Spratly Islands thought to possess
substantial natural resources --chiefly oil, natural gas, and
seafood.
Disputes have been propelled by an aggressive China, eager to meet
growing energy demands that outstrip its supply capability.
Overlapping claims resulted in several military incidents since 1974
and in several countries awarding foreign companies exploration rights
in the same
area of the South China Sea. Regional nation-states not directly
involved in the Spratly disputes became concerned about regional
stability and established a regional forum to discuss the peaceful
resolution of the disputes. Sovereignty and exploration disputes were
thought to be resolved with the drafting of ASEAN's 1992 declaration
which committed members to resolve disputes peacefully and to
consider
joint exploration of the territory. Military aggression and
exploration endeavors conducted by China since 1992, however, have
brought into question the validity of the 1992 joint declaration and
raises the question of what long-term, peaceful solution could prevent
the region from erupting into a continuum of military incidents over
sovereignty rights to the natural resource-rich Spratly Islands.
Claims to various islands of the archipelago began in the 1930s. Since
the 1950s, the involved claimants have developed 29 oil fields and 4
gas fields in the Spratly region.(1) China's rising energy demands,
decreasing ability to meet demand growth with domestic energy
sources,
and continued reliance on oil have propelled China to look to
alternative energy sources -- in particular the relatively untapped
South China Sea in general, and the Spratly Islands in particular.
According to Kent Calder, China's energy balance of trade has
dramatically deteriorated since the early 1990s, causing China to
become a net importer of oil for the first time in over 25 years.(2)
Dependence on imported oil is likely to continue, given its low per
capita energy consumption rate -- 40% of the world average. Unless
China can find a way of coping with the high start-up costs, waste
products and safety concerns affiliated with the implementation of
nuclear energy, oil will remain one of China's leading energy sources
for the mid-to-long term. (3)
3. Duration: 1992 to now
4. Location
The Spratly Islands consist of 100 - 230 islets, coral reefs and sea
mounts (tablemounts).(4) Despite the fact that the archipelago is
spread over 250,000 sq km of sea space, the total land mass of the
Spratly Islands is a mere 5 sq km. The land is not arable, does not
support permanent crops, and has no meadows, pastures or forests.(5)
Furthermore, the Spratly Islands have not been occupied by humans
until
recently. Countries with territorial claims use military means
--airstrips and armed forces -- to reinforce their claims.(6)
The Spratly Islands are situated in the South China Sea -- one of the
largest continental shelves in the world. Typically, continental
shelves are abundant in resources such as oil, natural gas, minerals,
and seafood. According to James Kiras, a contributing editor of the
Peacekeeping & International Relations journal, one study conducted
by
China estimated oil reserves in the South China Sea to be larger than
Kuwait's present reserves.(7)
Oil and natural gas reserves in the Spratly region are estimated at
17.7 billion tons; Kuwait's reserves amount to 13 billion tons.(8) The
Spratly reserves place it as the fourth largest reserve bed
worldwide.
You can also visit the CIA World Factbook site for descriptive
information on the Spratly Islands' ecology.
Indirect Actors:
the United States:
The United States could become involved on two fronts -- commercial
and military. U.S. businesses participating in off-shore exploration
in the disputed islands have a commercial stake in how inter-state
tension and disputed claims are resolved. On the military side, the
United States has a mutual defense pact with the Philippines, yet
analysts indicate the Spratly disputes are unlikely to invoke the pact.
(17) The United States would, however, likely TAKE ACTION if maritime
activity was restricted in a manner inconsistent with international
law.
----------------------------
Tim King Salem-News.com
If we learned from our mistakes, the world would be a different place
today.
(SALEM, Ore.) - Long before the U.S. went to Vietnam, before at least
58,148 of our countrymen were killed there, and thousands were left
behind missing and in captivity, our country was asked by an acting
leader of that nation to help them finally achieve freedom.
Without question, the word "freedom" brings to mind the purest pursuit
of the United States, and our President has used it as one of the
reasons for occupying Iraq with U.S. forces. Another example of a
quest for freedom came at the close of the Second World War, from a
man Americans later learned to hate.
The year Vietnam asked us for help was 1945, the man asking was Ho Chi
Minh, and he would later become the leader of the communist forces of
the North Vietnamese. When you look at the history of the Vietnam
conflict, and all of the senseless killing and suffering, you learn
there is at least a possibility that it could have been easily
avoided.
During World War Two, Ho Chi Minh worked for President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt. He helped rescue downed American pilots, and providing
valuable information to Americans on Japanese troop movements.
He had been trained in Moscow, but Ho had spent time in the United
States too and was regarded as enthusiastically pro-American during
this period. Ho disbanded the Communist Party in the immediate post-
war period, a constitution similar to ours was adopted, and he called
for a general election.
President Roosevelt had publicly endorsed Vietnam's independence and
Ho believed the President would bring Vietnam its long awaited goal,
freedom.
But the passing of FDR was more to Vietnam than a changing of the
guard, it meant the end of a promise for U.S. support. When Ho Chi
Minh sent communiques asking the Truman Administration to recognize
Vietnam as a sovereign nation, and to not fund the revitalization of
French colonialism in Southeast Asia, his words fell on deaf ears.
Shortly after that the French came back, funded by American dollars.
But they did not last long, and their military forces were fully
defeated by 1954. Ten years later the American war in Vietnam began,
and more than ten more years would pass before our country's final
pullout.
Had we listened to that request for freedom in 1945, there might have
never been a Vietnam War. It is almost as though the country most
interested in protecting the world from Communism, the U.S., was the
facilitator of this country's aspirations to become Communist in the
first place, at least Moscow responded to Ho Chi Minh's letters.
Why is this relevant? It just seems like perspective is everything
when you talk about the current overseas conflicts, and our citizens
forget the painful past all too easily while claiming to celebrate
it.
It seems that we owe the veterans who gave their last breath fighting
for the rest of us the respect of treating that freedom well, and
reserving our fighting forces for wars that inevitably must be fought,
rather than those that are more personal in nature, as Iraq seems to
be to President Bush.
Vietnam in the end, is still a Communist country and it is a
progressive one on many respects, but it is still more than capable of
bringing a hard hand down on those who step over the line. Did it
benefit us to send almost 60,000 of our forces into a war there that
politicians did not allow the fighting forces to win? Most would say
no, it wasn't.
It was recent history in the bigger picture, and for a long time
people seriously appreciated our nation having reached a point where
we don't send our troops off to wars that inevitably, can't be won.
Today we are a nation that forgets easily the lessons of the past.
------------------------------------------------------------
"[Y]ou will always find that those are most apt to boast of national
merit, who have little or not merit of their own to depend on . . ."
-Oliver Goldsmith
Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with almost twenty years of
experience on the west coast as a television news producer,
photojournalist and reporter. Today, in addition to his role as a war
correspondent in Afghanistan where he spent the winter of 2006/07,
this Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com's Executive News
Editor. Salem-News.com is the nation's only truly independent high
traffic news Website, affiliated only with Google News. You can send
Tim an email at this address: newsr...@salem-news.com
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september242007/ho_vietnam_92407.php
Historians will debate the precise motivations for the Vietnam war for
years to come. When official explanations don't stand up to scrutiny,
it raises the question, -- who benefits? As the man said, "follow the
money ... straight to the oil fields."
We were tossed out of Vietnam before we were able to get control of
their oil but we never gave up. Today we are trying by the diplomatic
route.
SEE:
BLACK GOLD HOT GOLD
The Rise of Fascism in the American Energy Business
(Pre-publication online preview excerpt)
(CHAPTER THREE)
The whole 20 year Viet Nam "war" from 1955 to 1975 was an oil scam.
And all during the "war," Vietnamese General Giap fought the Americans
with weapons he got from Laurence Rockefeller for a dollar. Did you
ever wonder why the US, despite, greatly superior weapons, and the
loss of 57,000 Americans and half a million Vietnamese, never won the
"war?" Ever wonder why the US President issued such strange "rules of
engagement" for the American troops that made sure they didn't win?
Ever wonder why Henry
Kissinger, a personal assistant to Nelson Rockefeller spent so much
time in the Viet Nam/Paris Peace talks which
never went anywhere but simply dragged on for years. Maybe winning the
"war" wasn't part of the plan of the Empire of Energy. Maybe the
timing of the "war" was more important.
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj050701-3.html
It is time for a reasonable look at both Vietnam and Iraq -- and at
what the former can teach us about the latter. My perspective comes
from military service in the Pacific in World War II (I still carry
shrapnel in my body from a kamikaze attack on my destroyer, the U.S.S.
Maddox), nine terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, and four
years as secretary of defense to Nixon.
---- Melvin Laird
MELVIN R. LAIRD was Secretary of Defense from 1969 to 1973, Counselor
to the President for Domestic Affairs from 1973 to 1974, and a member
of the House of Representatives from 1952 to 1969. He currently
serves
as Senior Counselor for National and International Affairs at the
Reader's Digest Association.
U.S. Oil Companies in Vietnam for oil.
Newsman, Jack Anderson said that the way to be safe while driving
around in Vietnam was to be in a Shell Oil truck because it was
protected. (Paraphrased)
REUTERS
Published: February 14, 1983
Vietnam accused China today of violating Vietnamese sovereignty by
allowing American oil companies to operate in the Tonkin Gulf, off
northern Vietnam and southwestern China.
BACKGROUND
1. Abstract
The Spratly Islands of the South China Sea are a potential tinder box
in the region. Approximately 44 of the 51 small islands and reefs are
claimed or occupied by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan,
Malaysia and Brunei. The conflict is the result of overlapping
sovereignty claims to various Spratly Islands thought to possess
substantial natural resources -- chiefly oil, natural gas, and
seafood.
Disputes have been propelled by an aggressive China, eager to meet
growing energy demands that outstrip its supply capability.
Overlapping claims resulted in several military incidents since 1974
and in several countries awarding foreign companies exploration rights
in the same
area of the South China Sea. Regional nation-states not directly
involved in the Spratly disputes became concerned about regional
stability and established a regional forum to discuss the peaceful
resolution of the disputes. Sovereignty and exploration disputes were
thought to be resolved with the drafting of ASEAN's 1992 declaration
which committed members to resolve disputes peacefully and to
consider
joint exploration of the territory. Military aggression and
exploration endeavors conducted by China since 1992, however, have
brought into question the validity of the 1992 joint declaration and
raises the question of what long-term, peaceful solution could prevent
the region from erupting into a continuum of military incidents over
sovereignty rights to the natural resource-rich Spratly Islands.
2. Description
The Spratly Islands of the South China Sea are a potential tinder box
in the region. Approximately 44 of the 51 small islands and reefs are
claimed or occupied by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan,
Malaysia and Brunei. The conflict is the result of overlapping
sovereignty claims to various Spratly Islands thought to possess
substantial natural resources --chiefly oil, natural gas, and
seafood.
Disputes have been propelled by an aggressive China, eager to meet
growing energy demands that outstrip its supply capability.
Overlapping claims resulted in several military incidents since 1974
and in several countries awarding foreign companies exploration rights
in the same
area of the South China Sea. Regional nation-states not directly
involved in the Spratly disputes became concerned about regional
stability and established a regional forum to discuss the peaceful
resolution of the disputes. Sovereignty and exploration disputes were
thought to be resolved with the drafting of ASEAN's 1992 declaration
which committed members to resolve disputes peacefully and to
consider
joint exploration of the territory. Military aggression and
exploration endeavors conducted by China since 1992, however, have
brought into question the validity of the 1992 joint declaration and
raises the question of what long-term, peaceful solution could prevent
the region from erupting into a continuum of military incidents over
sovereignty rights to the natural resource-rich Spratly Islands.
Claims to various islands of the archipelago began in the 1930s. Since
the 1950s, the involved claimants have developed 29 oil fields and 4
gas fields in the Spratly region.(1) China's rising energy demands,
decreasing ability to meet demand growth with domestic energy
sources,
and continued reliance on oil have propelled China to look to
alternative energy sources -- in particular the relatively untapped
South China Sea in general, and the Spratly Islands in particular.
According to Kent Calder, China's energy balance of trade has
dramatically deteriorated since the early 1990s, causing China to
become a net importer of oil for the first time in over 25 years.(2)
Dependence on imported oil is likely to continue, given its low per
capita energy consumption rate -- 40% of the world average. Unless
China can find a way of coping with the high start-up costs, waste
products and safety concerns affiliated with the implementation of
nuclear energy, oil will remain one of China's leading energy sources
for the mid-to-long term. (3)
3. Duration: 1992 to now
4. Location
The Spratly Islands consist of 100 - 230 islets, coral reefs and sea
mounts (tablemounts).(4) Despite the fact that the archipelago is
spread over 250,000 sq km of sea space, the total land mass of the
Spratly Islands is a mere 5 sq km. The land is not arable, does not
support permanent crops, and has no meadows, pastures or forests.(5)
Furthermore, the Spratly Islands have not been occupied by humans
until
recently. Countries with territorial claims use military means
--airstrips and armed forces -- to reinforce their claims.(6)
The Spratly Islands are situated in the South China Sea -- one of the
largest continental shelves in the world. Typically, continental
shelves are abundant in resources such as oil, natural gas, minerals,
and seafood. According to James Kiras, a contributing editor of the
Peacekeeping & International Relations journal, one study conducted
by
China estimated oil reserves in the South China Sea to be larger than
Kuwait's present reserves.(7)
Oil and natural gas reserves in the Spratly region are estimated at
17.7 billion tons; Kuwait's reserves amount to 13 billion tons.(8) The
Spratly reserves place it as the fourth largest reserve bed
worldwide.
You can also visit the CIA World Factbook site for descriptive
information on the Spratly Islands' ecology.
Indirect Actors:
the United States:
The United States could become involved on two fronts -- commercial
and military. U.S. businesses participating in off-shore exploration
in the disputed islands have a commercial stake in how inter-state
tension and disputed claims are resolved. On the military side, the
United States has a mutual defense pact with the Philippines, yet
analysts indicate the Spratly disputes are unlikely to invoke the pact.
(17) The United States would, however, likely TAKE ACTION if maritime
activity was restricted in a manner inconsistent with international
law.
----------------------------
