Hell No! Country Joe Still Won't Go!

To Vietnam, that is. The Washington Times reports:

American singer Country Joe McDonald, whose satirical "Fixin' to Die" anthem condemned the U.S. war in Vietnam, said he will not go to Hanoi to receive a World Peace Music Award…..
"As a hippie protest songwriter, I could not exist in Vietnam today," said Mr. McDonald, lead singer of the psychedelic band Country Joe and the Fish.
"Communism tends to be totalitarian, and I am not supportive of that," Mr. McDonald said…."My parents were American Communists for some time, but they left the party because of a lack of democratic positions by the party."
…..
The snazzy chorus of Country Joe and the Fish's "I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-to-Die Rag" reflected the mood of many Americans with its ricocheting rhyme: "One, two, three, what are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn. Next stop is Vietnam."

[Link via Rational Review.]

Comments

[Dave]

You've got to hand it to the guy, it's rare that those on the left are so consistent (not saying right wingers are consistent so hold your fire). Most musician/actor/writer/artist activists are the type who will scream "imperialism" every time the USA does anything anywhere, but then explain to you how the Soviets HAD to take over all of Eastern Europe to protect their security. Or they will go into apoplectic fits at the latest idiotic screed from Jerry Falwell, but explain to you how John Walker Lindh was just a "spiritual seeker", while a Christian counterpart who joined an organization (say, the KKK) that carried out one hundredth of the Taliban's religious opression, attacks on homosexuals, attacks on women, etc etc etc, would rightly be labled a fascist.
I could go on, but you all know the story. Congrats again to Country Joe for putting honest prinicples ahead of dogma.

[Lisa Simpson]

Bloody heck, that song is almost forty years old now.

[dead_elvis]

I get a slight chuckle out of the fact that he is, in a way, answering his own chorus from way back.

[twc]

What a surprise. No democratic positions in the CPUSA.

Yeah, although CJ seems a bit half hearted about it, other than him, I think Baez is the only other anti-war stalwart of those days to recognize the brutaltity of communist Viet Nam.

[Sparky]

Best line of the piece:

"My parents were American Communists for some time, but they left the party because of a lack of democratic positions by the party."

Isn't that kind of like saying, "My parents were Ku Klux Klan members for some time, but they left because of a lack of a commitment to diversity within the Klan."

I'm not comparing Communists to Klan members, just pointing out the absurdity of the statement.

Alright, so it's not impossible to square democracy with communism. But then, it's not impossible to square the Klan with diversity either, right?

[Mo]

Sparky,
Quoth Henry Ford, "You can have any color Klansman you'd like, as long as they're white."

[Joe L.]

Why the reticence to compare KKK and CPUSA? Like I care if Gus Hall or his ghost is upset or if Tom Robb is apoplectic? Both organizations represent abhorrent ideologies.

And I'm glad Country Joe can see what Vietnam is like,...now. A pity he didn't see it that way in 1968 0r 1969. The Communists didn't morph into dictators and brutes in 1975.

Not really here to start a flame war about Vietnam, but it just seems odd, NOW Country Joe seems unhappy with the humand rights record of the people he objectively supported 40 years ago.

And is typical of this generation of activist, no discussion of his role in the triumph of these people or any discussion of the short-sightedness of his group's views then. Just a statement that the DRVN and it's rulers aren't nice guys.

[John Hensley]

I bet Harry Belafonte, communist dupe that he is, will not only accept his award in person but also put in a few good words for the host government.

[grylliade]

Not really here to start a flame war about Vietnam, but it just seems odd, NOW Country Joe seems unhappy with the humand rights record of the people he objectively supported 40 years ago.

He didn't support the Vietnamese Communists; he opposed the war. There's a big difference, especially when you throw "objectively" in there (and especially when you mean the exact opposite). I don't support North Korea, but I do oppose going to war to rid North Korea of its parasites. It's just ridiculous to say things like you just did, when there's no support for it; nothing in the song supports Communism, just opposes getting involved in a war half a world away.

[Mo]

Joe,
Isn't it fair to say that one could think that DRVN was abhorrent then and now, but we still shouldn't have been there? Just like there are a lot of people that felt we shouldn't be in Iraq but don't think too highly of Saddam as well. Don't want to go too off topic, but it's possible to oppose an intervention and the regime you're nation is fighting.

[Michael]

It's cancelled anyway:

http://www.freep.com/entertainment/namesandfaces/names15_20040615.htm

[Joe L.]

"...especially when you throw "objectively" in there (and especially when you mean the exact opposite). I don't support North Korea, but I do oppose going to war to rid North Korea of its parasites. It's just ridiculous to say things like you just did, when there's no support for it; nothing in the song supports Communism, just opposes getting involved in a war half a world away."

Well, "objectively" is used as Orwell used it, those who opposed the war against the Fascists were OBJECTIVELY PRO-FASCIST. So, no I didn't misuse the word.

You know some, if not many, opposed continuing the war after June 1940. I believe Lord Halifax even attempted or proposed attempting negotiations with the Nazi's. Poland, the "cause" of the war was gone, France our ally was occupied. The Germans offered to guarantee the Empire... One can think of many reasons to end the war, then. And to have done so would have objectively aided the Fascists.

Why is it ridiculous to say the things I did? That's a gratuitous assertion. The antiwar movement, then and now, boasts of their success in ending the war in Vietnam. Given that, and given Country Joe's view of DRVN I ask you, didn't he and his ilk help the Communists? They have no problem with taking some of the credit for "ending" the war, so let's have them take some of the "credit" for the nasty regime now in place there, too.

[Jennifer]

Joe L.-
Are you trying to say that you believe we would have won the war in Vietnam if not for all who opposed it?

Funny case of timing--on my way home from work just yesterday I listened to Lewis Black's latest comedy CD, and he talked about the utter abhorrent stupidity of the non-thinking people who insist that opposing a war is identical to supporting the enemy. And now here on the Reason site I see flawless examples of what he was talking about.

[Kevin Carson]

Joe L,

You're assuming that the communist government of a unified Vietnam in the early sixties would have been the same as the regime that unified the country in 1975. But the counterinsurgency efforts of the U.S. and Saigon had effectively gutted the VC as a local movement by 1970, and left civil society in the South as an empty shell. The only thing left to fill the void was the Hanoi regime's military and communist party.

I'm not saying that that alternative Vietnam wouldn't have been communist or statist. I'm just saying it would probably have been less centralized and brutal, and more influenced by indigenous forces.

[Joe L.]

No, Jennifer,
I am not sure that the war was winnable, given the US military then and the geopolitical situation, plus the grand strategy exercised by the US. BUT I do say that Country Joe. Joan Baez, CSN&Y, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, et. al. contributed to the the movement's success in ending the war. I repeat. They take some of the credit for the defeat, then they need(ed) to take of the credit for the disaster that befell Vietnam, too. Some in the antiwar movement, in fact pulled for the "other side." As on the cover of Ramparts, "Alienation is when you country is at War and you want the other side to win."

"...utter abhorrent stupidity of the non-thinking people who insist that opposing a war is identical to supporting the enemy. And now here on the Reason site I see flawless examples of what he was talking about." REALLY, are the criticisms getting close to home Jennifer? IS the questioning of your opposition to Iraq forcing you uncomfortably close to having to confront a difficult moral issue? All I can say is that opposing Vietnam or Iraq is not IDENTICAL to supporting the enemy, but it does support the enemy. Now, if the enemy was Jesus, I'd say "Be a traitor" But as the enemy in 1969 was a rather nasty bunch of Marxist-Leninists and the enemy today a rather nasty bunch of Fascist and Islamo-Fascists I would say that I would worry about the company I keep. Win Without War is a nice slogan, but it is effectively meaningless.

So, Jennifer IF we lose in Iraq, and the Fascists or the Mullahs come to power what will you say? The options are Support the conflict, that doesn't mean supporting UNRESERVEDLY EVERY ACTION or see the same crew (or worse) in power in Baghdad. There isn't a middle ground. There isn't going to be a Third Way between the Coalition and the "Insurgents." It's going to be one or the other.

You tell me which you prefer.

[Joe L.]

Kevin,
The NLF was COMMUNIST. Are you trying to tell me that COMMUNISTS were going to be nice? Plus, you ignore the fact that the final fall of South Vietnam was the CONQUEST of the South by the North. I would argue that was the whole point of the war, from the North's viewpoint. In the end, the DRVN expected to impose a northern led Marxist system on the WHOLE of Vietnam.

[no]

Actually, Joe, Orwell later recanted his views regarding "objectively pro-Fascist" pacifists and suchlike later in life. So bringing up an Orwell quote doesn't help.

By the way, Joe, are you in favor of invading China today? If not, by your lights, that makes you objectively pro-Chinese Communist.

[thoreau]

Anybody who doesn't support a US invasion of China is objectively supporting the brutal regime in China.

Right?

[Andrew]

"I don't support North Korea, but I do oppose going to war to rid North Korea of its parasites."

And if North Korea invaded South Korea, you'd advocate leaving South Korea to fight the North on its own? That's essentially what you're saying with Vietnam. We didn't invade Vietnam, or the USSR for that matter, to get rid of communism. We invaded Vietnam to stop the expansion of communism. I'm tickled to see that you feel there is no moral difference between isolating bad regimes/ideologies and letting them expand without forceful opposition.

What fools we were for risking our lives and money to prevent the USSR from taking over the rest of the world! We could have been focusing on our own libertarian, peace-loving paradise here on Earth!

[thoreau]

Doh! no beat me to the punch.

[Jennifer]

Joe-
It's interesting that you mention the possibility of mullahs coming to power in Iraq; the only reason they have a chance of doing so now is because we brilliantly decided that the best way to fight Islamic terrorism was to invent false excuses to start a war against one of the most secular countries in the Muslim world.

I am also fascinated by your example of Orwellian doublethink: you simultaneously admit that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable, yet also insist that the reason we didn't win was because of those who opposed it. Would you have preferred that we drag on our unwinnable war for a few more years, so that the memorial wall in DC could have been twice as long?

On a related note, I see on CNN and other news channels that a series of former military officers and diplomats, many of whom served under Reagan and Bush the First, have come out to say that the current administration has damaged America's standing in the international community and made our country far less safe. Their jointly written letter is to be released tomorrow.

Hussein was a scumbag, but no danger to us. I supported the war in Afghanistan, and I would have supported a war against Saudi Arabia, but Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist threat we face. At least not then. Now it's become Bin Laden's wet dream of a recruiting tool.

[Cbone]

The line Goes: 1,2,3 what are we fighting for? The answer was freedom for the Vietnamese people. So if you oppose that, you support the other side, the communists. Duh!

[Jennifer]

Cbone-
Thanks to napalm and Agent Orange, we sure as hell freed them from the responibilities of home ownership and life.

[Paul]

General Giap himself said that the Tet offensive was such a military disaster for the North, as well as virtually wiping out the VC, that he was ready to consider conditional surrender. It was the actions of Hanoi Jane, John Kerry, Walter Cronkite, and the protesters in the US that convinced him that he could still win, so he decided to regroup and fight on.

Worse than that, after we brought the troops home the South was holding its own with our continued support in terms of money and arms, and only fell after the left in this country treacherously voted to discontinue said support. The fall of S Viet Nam and Cambodia were the result. Three million dead and two impoverished dysfunctional regimes. That's the legacy of the Viet Nam war protesters.

So yes, we could have won that war with better leadership and without the blatantly communist sympathizing anti-war left. My fear is the same type of America hating leftist assholes will see to it that we lose the current war, or at least prevent us from aggressively fighting it until we sustain truly horrible civilian casualties and economic devastation.

[Narniaman]

"......America hating leftist assholes "

I think that says it quite well.

I don't think the leftists who wanted North Vietnam to win and were eager for Saddam Hussein to stay in power were particularly fond of either North Vietnam or Saddam Hussein.

But they sure do hate the old capitalistic US of A. And "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", right?

Good example -- John Kerry. If he had his way, there would have never have been a Gulf War I and Saddam would probably be sitting pretty with all the WMD's he had at that time, along with a few nukes or two. Was the reason Kerry supported North Vietnam and Nicaragua and Saddam because he had a particularly affection for communism and fascism? Probably not. But he sure would like to see the US of A a little less powerfull and influential now, wouldn't he?

[Dorian]

Jennifer,

You said,

?? you simultaneously admit that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable??

He never said the war was un-winnable he said he didn?t know if it was winnable. I on the other hand believe it was quite winnable had we not pulled the rug out on from under our troops, in part, due to the protests. So more to the point - the blood of those dead and wounded American solders are on the hand of the protestors along with the long-term suffering of those we abandoned.

You also said,

?On a related note, I see on CNN and other news channels that a series of former military officers and diplomats, many of whom served under Reagan and Bush the First, have come out to say that the current administration has damaged America's standing in the international community and made our country far less safe??

So what is else is new? The one constant in Washington is that you can always find a former ?Ex?, especially an disgruntled ?Ex?, to bad mouth an administration. Of course they always do so for noble reasons. I?ll take the advice of the high-paid, in-the-loop experts over these dried-up, has-beens any day.

Whatever you think of the administration it is not a collection of monsters bent on destroying the world. I believe these people live in the U.S., have families, friends and many reasons to do the right thing. We?ve seen what the status quo has created around the world and the administration is shaking things up a little. Nobody likes a shake up but when the dust settles I believe the US will re-emerge more admired than ever.

PS

Please don?t get your political advice from Black

[Gary Gunnels]

It should probably should be noted that ARVN was just as brutal as the Vietnamese communists. When ARVN invaded Cambodia they massacred tens of thousands of civilians. Anyway, the notion that the South Vietnamese government represented freedom any more than the Vietnamese communists did is a rather cruel joke.

[Gary Gunnels]

Also, it should be noted that major anti-war activity occurred long after the major commitment of forces there - indeed, the U.S. had been conducting a massive secret war in Laos for many years prior to any major protests. To be blunt, the notion that the "protests" upended the contest there ignores the long historical nature of America's commitment to SE Asia before such protesting really got underway.

As to the claim that General Giap was on the verge of admitting defeat, that's a myth. The fact that the enemy suffered far more and had lost a major gamble mattered little because the war looked like a never ending conflict without any definite, realistic objective - which is exactly what Giap wanted. Indeed, the group that took the main brunt of the blow was of course the VC - so its a bit of a misnomer to suggest that the Vietnamese communists were utterly routed - the VC was crippled certainly, but the NVA wasn't.

[Paul]

Giap himself said he was ready to entreat for terms. I guess somebody forgot to tell him it was a myth. Nice revisionist history your spouting there bubba.

[Paul]

Here you go.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040406-032203-3282r

[rod]

I could really give a crap less about CJ and his arthritic fish. My beef is that he did one rather cathcy political song and that was it. Like a political Flock of Seagulls.

Perhaps he deserves some props; as a few posters noted above, away from Joan Baez, I beleive he might be one of the few identified as within the artistic left of the 60s who criticized--however belatedly--the communists.

actually, Joan Baez's criticism was truly heroic, coming as it did in the Nation circa 1976, if I recall.

Jennifer, as a relatively recent graduate of a military history program, the preponderance of thought now among serious military historians (read: dont have a dog in the fights of the 60s)was clearly that we had the war largely squared away bu 1970, and that Tet was the most disaterous military offensive since Hitler at falaise. FYI----FWIW. Doesnt make anything right or wrong though.

Gary G--I can find nothing really backing up your assertion that ARVN was as bad as the VC and NVA. I'm sorry, but it's not true. Again, it doesnt make Vietnam a good war or moral war. It does make you wrong though.

By the way, ARVN clearly did commit some atrocities. That's not on the table. But, show me the ARVN Hue....you get the reference, no?

Note: in all war there are atrocities, and all sides there are bad guys. But Vietnam was pretty clearly a war where one side mostly played from the legal side of the ledger (read: minimal Eastern front crap)

Do well, Roddy

[Jack]

If you need proof the warsies have nothing but steaming shit between their ears, consider that by their standards *Ayn Rand* must be "objectively pro-communist" because she wrote:

"If you want to see the ultimate, suicidal extreme of altruism, on an international scale, observe the war in Vietnam -- a war in which American soldiers are dying for no purpose whatever. This is the ugliest evil of the Vietnam War, that it does not serve any national interest of the United States -- that it is a pure instance of blind, senseless, altruistic, self-sacrifical slaughter. This is the evil -- not the revolting stuff the Vietniks are howling about."

"The Wreckage of the Consensus", delivered as a lecture in April, 1967, reprinted in _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, pg. 224 (paperback, 2nd ed. Nov. 1967).

[Ray]

Ok, I stopped reading in order to comment when I got to Kevin's completely erroneous assertion that the South's social structure was somehow hampered by the destruction of the VC.

The assertion implies that the Vietcong was not an instrument of Hanoi which is completely false. True, in any guerilla insurgency such as Vietnam's, the guerillas themselves will need to operate largely independent of the host regime but that does not make them separate or exclusive of one another.

Despite the inherent flexibility in such a guerilla outfit, General Vo Nguyen Giap of the NVA was still calling the shots. And while there was an unnecessary turn over of leaders in the South, the same folks that were in charge in the early 60s were calling the shots in 75.

It was the VC in conjunction with the NVA that exterminated over 3000 people during their short lived occupation of Hue city during the TET offensive.

Yeah, much less brutal.

[bob]

Having now read all of these comments, I am reminded of the oft-quoted phrase, "You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts."

The left-right differential on display here is striking, and explains the current political polarization of the country rather well. I hesitate to use the word "objectively" here, but could a reasonable man objectively conclude other than the following:

1. Those on the "left" tend to be rather aggressive with their rhetoric and loose with their facts.
2. Those on the left rarely admit error and seldom seem to acknowledge the existence of any middle ground or intermediate interpretations of history.
3. Moral equivalence is deeply imbedded in the politics of the left. Which would be okay but for the fact that certain political philosophies - say fascism and communism - are fundamentally inconsistent with liberal thought.
4. Those on the "right" seem to endorse specific solutions to problems and readily offer their rationales therfore, though somewhat unpalatable and sometimes disingenuous. Those on the "left" tend to offer more vague and general solutions to problems and are somewhat reluctant to debate the merits of the same.

Of course, I may be wrong about these conclusions. Maybe I am not as reasonable as I think I am.

[grylliade]

And if North Korea invaded South Korea, you'd advocate leaving South Korea to fight the North on its own?

Yep. Guess what, they're big boys now. They have one of the largest economies in the world ? bigger than Russia, for God's sake. Yet we're there ready to protect them. Rather, we have a bunch of troops stationed there to die in case the North invades, which will let us get involved ? once American soldiers die, we're in it to our eyebrows. The whole strategy is rather silly in this day and age. Countries like Japan and Germany can take care of their own defense, thank you very much, and if they want Americans to spend tax money on defense so they can do whatever with their budgets other than sponsor a military . . . well, that's their problem. Let them take responsibility for their own defense. I just fail to see how America's vital interests are at risk in Korea in this day and age.

Coincidentally, I actually think that we tremendously mishandled Vietnam. The war was all but won, but public opinion turned against it. Blame the Federal government for not making its case very well for the war, either in America or South Vietnam (especially South Vietnam ? we lost without much of a struggle the propaganda war there). I don't blame anti-war protestors, because they were following their conscience, and that's kinda what you have to do in America. You don't shut up and do as you're told, since your betters know what to do much better than you do. You do what you think is right, and if you're wrong than you deal with the consequences. But blaming protestors for "losing the war" is sheer nonsense.

[thoreau]

grylliade makes a darn good point. South Korea isn't exactly impoverished. They can afford a better (maybe not bigger, but definitely better) than Kim Jong Il's.

From the perspective of the hawks, wouldn't it be better to have the South Koreans handle their own security and free up those troops to deal with the Middle East?

[thoreau]

CORRECTION:

They can afford a better army (maybe not bigger, but definitely better) than Kim Jong Il's.

[calmunist]

Is this all a joke? Where did all you experts come from? All of you sit typing your "important" words, yet none cite your qualifications to make statements such as you have. Move on. Nam is history. CJ MacDonald had a farm. EE-I EE-I OH!

[Brock]

Now I am confused, I thougt communism was good in theory. D'oh! My socology prof said so!

[Jim Walsh]

How many country-flavored anti-war songs from the Nam era can you name? Aside from "Rag," I can think of two: "Ruby, Don't Take Your Love To Town" (written by Mel Tillis) and Kinky Friedman's "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To You."

[Xboy]

What fools we were for risking our lives and money to prevent the USSR from taking over the rest of the world! We could have been focusing on our own libertarian, peace-loving paradise here on Earth!

Actually, Andrew, the Libertarian Party once stood for exactly that. Any of you neo-triumphalists out there care to admit these inconvenient facts?
Back in the 1970s the LP supported pulling all our military forces out of Europe and the Far East and cutting the Defense Department budget in half.
The Libertarian position then was that our armed forces were intended for the defense of our nation, not for reckless save-the-world adventures.
Sure, it's always fun to attack objectively pro-Communist America-haters, especially with the benefit of thirty years' hindsight, but don't forget to take a gander at your own movement's past, too.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Bloody heck, that song is almost forty years old now."

It's a lot older than that, really. I don't know who the original composer was, but I've heard a recording with the same melody and pretty much the same arrangement from sometime like the early 1930s by a jug band or some similar outfit. Basically, CJoe took that tune and put some satirical lyrics about Vietnam onto it.

Nice to the Proclamations of Jennifer is back in session.

[mark]

Yeah, Country Joe's putting principles ahead of dogma once again. Check out his website. http://www.countryjoe.com

Among other interesting parts: "I will receive a World Peace Music Award at the 2nd Annual World Peace Music Awards in Hanoi on June 26, 2004. My fellow honorees are Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Peter, Paul and Mary, Harry Belafonte, and Vietnamese song writer Trinh Cong Son. Due to a scheduling conflict I will unfortunately not be able to accept it in person."

[joe]

The military didn't lose the war, and was just about to win actually, when the treasonous, leftist media-types stabbed it in the back!

And after all the Kaiser had done for us!

[Gary Gunnels]

Rod,

You can read about such atrocities in Shawcross's Sideshow. And a google search of "ARVN atrocities" comes up with many links. Indeed, with regard to ARVN's invasion of Cambodia, these atrocities are what one would expect - given the historical blood fued like nature of relations between these two peoples.

Again, the notion that South Viet Nam was some sort of democratic or otherwise human rights friendly alternative to the Vietnamese communists is a bit of a cruel joke.

Paul,

According to General Giap's own memoirs, his goal was largely to demonstrate that LBJ was incorrect when he stated that the Vietnamese communists were "moribund" - and he did so quite effectively during Tet (this is in part why blaming the war protestors is misguided and flat out ahistorical - LBJ and Nixon repeatedly lied about the nature of the conflict, their goals, etc., then fumed when people got upset about this or lost their sense of trust in these administrations). Indeed, General Giap's own notes from the time before the attack clearly state that he never expected to win a full out military victory. Giap's memoirs are published in a three volume set if you ever care to look at them.

Ray,

Actually, many scholars theorize that the reason why the Vietnamese communist "led with their chin" during Tet was to indeed cripple the VC command structure, and thus undermine it as an independent force in the post-war Viet Nam that they were planning.

Ray,

"Had America fought a proper counterinsurgency war..."

America did fight a counter-insurgency war; indeed, almost all of the Laotian campaign and much of the early efforts in Cambodia were a counter-insurgency wars combined with massive bombing campaigns.

[Oligonicella]

Calmunist - One needs no "qualifications to make statements" other than a thinking brain. Many "qualified" speakers spout babble. Many amatures are far more versed than the degree-holders.

[submandave]

I though I posted this last night, but guess it didn't take.

Jennifer: "Hussein was a scumbag, but no danger to us. I supported the war in Afghanistan, and I would have supported a war against Saudi Arabia, but Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist threat we face."

I feel very differently, and while this will provide more detail, I will try to illustrate with a few questions:

1. Do you think Hussein would have been a danger to us if he could have? Do you think he would have provided chemical and /or biological weapons to others to use against us if he thought he could have covered his tracks?

2. How long do you think we could have kept the UN sanctions in place? How effective, in the long run, do you think we would have been in preventing contraband trade with Iraq? How long would you have kept forces in Saudi Arabia (a particular sore spot with Bin Ladin et. al.) to contain and watch Saddam?

3. Where did Abu Nidal live out his remaining years and who supported him? Who ran the Salman Pak training camp? Where was Ansar al-Islam based?

4. If, in the course of the GWOT, we decided military action was called for against Saudi Arabia, Syria or Iran, from where would we have staged such operations? What do you think the effect of a hostile Saddam and Iraq on our flanks would have been on either plans or effectiveness?

[kevrob]

If the RVN was corrupt, in large part it was our own damned fault, for US complicity in the assasination of President Ngo Dinh Diem, and abetting the coup d'?tat that led to Nguyen Van Thieu and Marshall Ky running things.

What the war was depends much on who and where you are. To some Vietnamese patriots it was a War Against Foreign Invaders, part 3. (part 1 being against the Japanese, and part 2 v. the French). For other VN patriots, it was a war to Keep Those Northern Commie Bastards From Taking Over. The proportion of support for democratic principles, regional rivalry, or self-interest by those running the show in the South is left for the reader's own conjecture.

I have seen one theory that holds the best way to think about U.S. interventions such as Korea or VN is not as "wars", but as battles in the Cold War. There were other ones that were more successful, such as the defeat of the Communist takeover of Greece, or of Italy, and outright failures, like the inability to overthrow Castro. We could have "won" in Viet Nam, but at what cost? We almost lost in Korea when China's "volunteers" entered the fray and turned rollback into a rout, until we engineered a stalemate. Avoiding a replay of that situation affected our strategy, so that we were fighting a holding action, which would inevitably be won by the side that could outlast the other.

Whether it was prudent, in the grand scheme of things, to try to hold the line in Southeast Asia in the way that we did is problematic. Perhaps we should have taken the advice of Sen. George Aiken (R-VT) to "Declare victory and get out." This may be what we are doing in the Iraq sovereignty-handoff, tricky as that may turn out to be. A fighting retreat is a hell of a lot better outcome than a surrender, but not an easy military maneuver. It would be even harder with a "boat people" exodus.

This doesn't even touch on the means we used to fight the war. The fellow in CJ's song who "don't give a damn" ought not to have been conscripted, whether the war was just, winnable, or a necessary fight we were doomed to lose. We could have easily won the war, if we didn't care about anything else. Goldwater's offhand comments about clearing jungle with tactical nukes are an extreme example. The "limited war" doctrine that rankled many who felt that we should have really tried to win was an unavoidable result of the MAD world of that day. The British, Aussies and their Malay allies managed to beat the commies, and one can see how the safe hamlets policy was copied from the Briggs Plan. Surely we Americans could do as much in Indochina, right? Maybe not, if only because it was easier for the Soviets to supply the NVA by sea, not to mention what came down the Ho Chi Minh trail.

This may be the light at the end of our Iraq tunnel. We can conceivably cut the terrorists and others fighting against our occupation off from their sources of munitions, if we can capture or destroy enough weapons caches. That could be a mighty big job, though we may "Iraquize" it in time.

Kevin

[rod]

gary, no one is saying the south vietnamese--either as a state or an army were the moral equivalent of...well, there aren't really examples, since all states that have militairies have appalling military abuses....

but, a clear reading of all that you cite makes clear one thing: the NVA, the VC and, by an order of magnitude, the Maoist state that followed, were vastly worse than the states and armies they opposed.

Again, that does not make Vietnam, 1964-1973 a good war.

It does make your first statement wrong though.

On a personal level, i confess to finding it interesting why you cannot go where the facts clearly lie; or more accurately, why you need to support a strong position--the war was wrong, the South Vietnamese were hardly the land of the free despite their oppsoition to communism--with the weaker argument in constructing equivalence between the North and South.

The paradox over there is of course that the absolute bad guys won a fight we were not meant to fight in the first place and did evil of a scale that boggles the mind.

[Ray]

Keeping your political eye shades on drastically reduces the ability to comprehend the matter fully.

Giap was a dedicated student of Mao's Red book on insurgency. The "People's War" essentially had three phases that went thus; 1) send out loyal cadres to propagandize the locals 2) launch a protracted guerrilla struggle 3) then conventional warfare in conjunction with an uprising of the people.

Kevin had asserted earlier that perhaps if the Vietcong had been allowed to take the government over in the early 60s things would have been different. First of all, the VC were as ruthless as the North. Secondly, the VC were in the employ of the North and by design, they were never in line to ascend to any kind of actual ruling power. The VC was phase one of Mao's "People's War" blueprint.

Westmoreland and LBJ come on the scene and were determined to fight a conventional war using "search and destroy" methods, meeting them out in the Highlands. Giap attested later that this exactly what they wanted as it left the coastal areas of population to be more thoroughly exploited.

Now, the two main methods of warfare are maneuver warfare and attrition warfare. Long story short, it is impossible to win a situation like Vietnam via conventional or attrition warfare. When conventional forces come against highly maneuverable insurgent forces, it is the larger, better equipped conventional force that winds up suffering the effects of attrition. CIA estimates from 1965 showed that the VC needed no more than 12 tons a day of outside supplies. That is a dozen or so pickup trucks to supply the entire Vietcong.

So what does all of that mean? Had America fought a proper counterinsurgency war as Victor Krulak of the Marines and a handful of other notable advisors and officers had suggested, Vietnam would have been won i.e. communist expansion checked, with no more than a few thousand American troops ever being deployed there at one time.

Part of the basic plan of such insurgency warfare (Mao wasn't the first to pen such plans but his are probably the most famous for our day) is the attrition of the larger, stronger force. The point is not to match strength against strength but to avoid battle in order to draw the stronger force along. The Americans under George Washington did much the same thing in our war for independence.

One of the ingredients to that attrition is the knowledge that support for such a protracted, indecisive war is difficult to maintain on the home front.

Giap was very outspoken in later years on how helpful the 60s protests were in furthering the communists' cause. Of course this doesn't mean that Country Joe and Baez and even Clinton and Kerry were purposefully "aiding" the communitsts but they did play in to the standard insurgency model.

So yes, Vietnam could have been easily won and for Country Joe; he's just another useful idiot.

[joe]

Jim Walsh, Bob Dylan and CSNY had "country flavor" via folk.

[Dave Diamond]

Fascinating conversation, all............
-Dave

[Ron Cabral]

Country Joe is an honorably discharged Regular Navy Petty Officer who served a full three year tour - 2 of those years overseas. He is a patriotic American and he supports U.S. Veteran's causes and he is active in his community in Berkeley.
He also happens to be an internationally famous rock and folk performer who has penned hundreds of songs and has released 34 albums since 1964. Now lets get behind his induction to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame...both as a soloist and as a co-founder of Country Joe and The Fish - a group that also belongs in that Hall...