John Kerry: Vietnam Could Not Have Been Won

[bigtree]

John Kerry testifies against the Vietnam War before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1979. (Henry Griffin/AP)

Beware the Revisionists


WE must dispense with a dangerous myth. In an effort to pressure the president to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, armchair commanders have dusted off the old canard that "we could have won in Vietnam if only … " Some revisionists contend we could have won "if only" Congress had not balked at the military's insatiable hunger for more troops and more bombing. Others argue that pacification of the countryside and training of Vietnamese soldiers could have carried the day "if only" we had stuck with these policies longer. Still others argue that we could have won "if only" President Johnson had made a much stronger American commitment when he first decided to send combat troops in 1965.

Let me be clear: more than 58,000 American troops died because they were sent into battle based on false assumptions, flawed goals, and faulty strategies. Yes, we adopted smarter tactics near the end, but by then the die was cast. History has definitively branded Vietnam for the mistake it was—no one should believe that the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and at least 1.5 million Vietnamese were somehow not quite enough.

So what should we learn from Vietnam? The lessons aren't simple, particularly when applied to a very different country—with a vastly different history, culture, and geography—in a different era. But some comparisons with Afghanistan are apt.

We are once again fighting an insurgency in a rural country with a weak central government. Americans were outsiders in a complex war among Vietnamese. Our allies were corrupt. Our adversaries were ruthless. Enemy territory was everywhere. Last month I was traveling down a dirt road in Afghanistan's Helmand province in a heavily armored vehicle. Through thick, bullet-proof windows, I could see Afghans staring as we rumbled past. Their numb looks of confusion took me back 40 years to my days as a young Navy officer in Vietnam. Once again, our enemy blends in with the local population and finds sanctuary in a neighboring country. Once again, the danger of being perceived as an occupying force by a war-weary population remains perilous . . .

read more: http://www.newsweek.com/id/221623

[Vincardog]

1. What is this danger of being perceived as an occupying force? WE are an occupying force.

[Ardent15]

3. It seems our military and political leaders think the Afghan people are stupid....

Big mistake there.

[bigtree]

4. Sen. Kerry

. . . has a decidedly less progressive view of the Afghanistan occupation in that he's still wedded to the notion that there's something redeemable about the NATO operation and mission. Still, for those in opposition to the occupation, his views offer a step back from the all-in/anything goes approach recommended by some in the Pentagon leadership.

[Obamanaut]

2. If someone had bothered to ask the French, who learned it first, they

would have known it.

And maybe not wasted many, many lives - military and civilian.

edited to add 'rec'

[B Calm]

5. I bet if Tancredo would have went, we would have won that war!

[Diane R]

6. Proud to recommend this. John Kerry is a true hero.

[Historic NY]

7. Some want to re-fight Vietnam with the surrogate wars in Iraq & Afghanistan...

not much appears to have been learned.

[2Design]

8. McCain and the non-military repubs are still fighting that war with their new wars because

they believe they could win it and they want to prove that

[B Calm]

10. If only Rush Limbaugh would have went to Vietnam, we would had won

the second week into the war!

[YvonneCa]

9. Senator Kerry's experience shoud be heard...

...and followed. He knows what he is talking about. :patriot:

[Thothmes]

11. Kerry had less than six months in Vietnam

most of the time spent in the Delta on PCs . Not a lot of experience if you ask me.

[YvonneCa]

12. I wasn't only referring to his military...

...service.

[karynnj]

13. No one asked you - Kerry also had 24 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

The fact is that policy decisions on war are made by the civilian leadership. Kerry's 5 months were part of a mission with an estimated 90 % casualty rate, doing something that Kerry and many of his peers argued did nothing to help the US succeed is something that has driven him for 4 decades. The fact is that Kerry's comments in 2005, when he spoke of how it was counterproductive to have US soldiers, who did not know the language or culture doing the search and destroy missions or policing. His descriptions, very delicately, convinced many that he was right. That he was able to speak that way - seeing it from the POV of the soldiers and also the Iraqis was from his experience and the fact that he is the perceptive person he is.

Here he does the same thing - on 2 issues. He states more clearly than any elected official I have heard - that this is an Afghan war and they are the ones who will decide it (just as Vietnam was a civil war). He also speaks of the perception of occupation.

The fact is that, while you diminish Kerry's experience, Bush, Cheney, Obama, both Clintons, Biden etc had absolutely no personal experience. I think Biden's point of view actually changed substantially after his son went. Kerry spent at least 4 of the months facing potential death every single day. From the descriptions of one of his men, there were days when they went out on 3 missions a day. It is very possible that Kerry faced more danger than some people did in tours 2 or 3 times as long. Not to mention, it not clear what he would have learned had he stayed longer.

The fact of the matter is that Lt Kerry completely impressed the US Senate when he spoke.

Are you going to question his medals too?

[bigtree]

14. heck of an experience

. . . if you ask me - floating down the middle of the river on that boat into enemy territory. I find it hard to believe that you've actually read anything credible about his service.