Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

No More Vietnam Syndrome

If only the lessons of Vietnam, or even of Iraq, would actually stick.

Joanna AndreassonJoanna AndreassonU.S. foreign policy for decades proceeded in the shadow of the failure in Vietnam. Some 58,000 Americans were killed in that war. Stateside protests were fierce enough to persuade President Lyndon Johnson to sit out the '68 election. Seven years later, after about 2 million civilian Vietnamese deaths, the U.S. finally gave up without having prevented a Communist takeover of the country.

"Vietnam syndrome" restricted our foreign conflicts, for a time, to such swift and relatively petty adventures as 1983's post-coup invasion of Grenada (which, though it involved fewer than 8,000 U.S. troops, did kill 19 U.S. soldiers, wound 116 more, and prompt a massive majority of the U.N. General Assembly to dub the American action a "flagrant violation of international law") and the 1989 overthrow of troublesome Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.

But in 1991, the U.S. resumed big-time war waging in order to reverse Iraq's conquest of Kuwait. Along with 38 allied countries, America commanded more than 600,000 troops in a three-month ground war. The Bill Clinton era meanwhile saw U.S. overseas interventions begin to be characterized as "humanitarian." We dipped in and out, sending troops or war planes to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo and helping to displace over a million people combined.

After September 11, 2001, the U.S. military fully re-entered the world stage. The last 17 years have seen a variety of wars, quasiwars, and ongoing interventions with a mix of shifting rationales, from revenge for the attacks to spreading peaceful democracy in the Middle East to targeting specific bad actors to simply helping our Saudi allies as they work to reduce Yemen to a charnel house. None of these more recent efforts have worked out well on a geopolitical level. Meant to end Islamic terrorism worldwide, our post-9/11 warmaking multiplied it. A 2007 study by NYU researchers found that the average yearly number and fatality rate of terror attacks rose by 607 percent and 237 percent respectively after we entered Iraq in 2003. If you exclude violence in that country, the increases were still 265 and 58 percent; most jihadis in subsequent years were radicalized by the invasion itself.

Meant to crush Al Qaeda, our interventions have expanded its breadth and numbers; meant to create stable democracies in the Middle East, they've helped reduce Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen to the same sort of chaos that bred the terror in Afghanistan that began this whole bloody, pointless process.

The domestic politics of foreign policy have changed tremendously, however, thanks to a 21st century innovation that permanently altered the political calculus of foreign intervention for the United States: the drone.

The federal government has been reluctant to reveal unvarnished facts about the rules of engagement or the results of our 16 years of droning all across the Middle East, so we have no choice but to rely on often-conflicting estimates from civilian research groups employing different sources and methods. A moderate estimate is that we have likely conducted more than 1,200 such strikes against Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen and likely killed over 2,000 militants (in addition to many hundreds of innocent civilians, the latter being "collateral damage" in Pentagon parlance). Back home, the most important aspect of all this death and destruction is that it doesn't involve a single American boy coming home in a body bag—thus rendering our interventions all but invisible to American voters and reducing the electoral cost to pretty much nothing.

We have not stopped putting boots on the ground; we just deploy fewer of them with less fanfare. Thousands of U.S. troops are embedded in the madness of Syria and in Afghanistan, despite candidate Donald Trump's suggestions that he would pull our people out.

And though we may be warring differently, our rationale for visiting calamity on the rest of the world feels quite familiar. We haven't given up opposing our former Soviet foe, continuing to train troops, sell arms, and fork over hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Russia's Ukrainian rivals. Despite being manifestly terrible at it, we still pretend our absurdly large advantage in arms can make us a successful hegemon, shaping the world by force.

President Trump is more openly hostile to Iran than was his predecessor. He abrogated President Barack Obama's nuclear deal, and there is overall little sign his administration is prepared to seriously rethink our ineffective Middle Eastern postures. The pettiness of his trade war with China also does not bode well for relations with our most realistic future rival in the hegemon category.

These various post-9/11 foreign policy failures have cost our debt-riddled nation at least $1.5 trillion in direct costs, according to a recent Defense Department report, and more than $5 trillion in ancillary costs—such as interest and future veterans expenses—according to a 2017 analysis by the Watson Center at Brown University. In constant 2018 dollars, the Defense Department will spend this year in excess of 50 percent more than it did in 1968.

But the more hideous cost—especially poignant for those who remember the cries of "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"—is in lives. That same Watson Center study estimates that there have been 370,000 deaths from direct war violence since 2001; 200,000 civilian deaths; and over 10 million people displaced by the harm to property and municipal functionality. Alas, this human and social misery is obscured by consistent, deliberate use of bloodless rhetoric. American foreign policy professionals and pundits somehow manage to look at our costly failings and the world's suffering—all that money, all that death—and think the answer is that the U.S. military should have done more, and smarter, and harder.

As The Washington Post paraphrased a phone call from then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to a Pakistani official in 2012, "The United States reserved the right to attack anyone who it determined posed a direct threat to U.S. national security anywhere in the world." Over many administrations, that remains the core of U.S. foreign policy.

If only the lessons of Vietnam, or even of Iraq, would actually stick. We can't expect the aftereffects of this century's foreign policy sins to be short-lived. Laos still suffers dozens of deaths a year because of 80 million unexploded bombs left behind by the Vietnam War. The casualties of our drone wars may be their own variety of unexploded ordnance, as generations grow up in the literal and figurative shadows of insufficiently discriminating robot death machines in the sky, courtesy of the United States.

Photo Credit: guvendemir/iStock

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    From another thread:

    A woman who was forced to give birth on the floor of the Macomb County, Michigan, jail is suing for violations of her civil rights. Jessica Preston was awaiting trial for driving on a suspended license. She says jail staff did not call for medical services until her baby was crowning. The county's attorney has responded that "there is no constitutional right to be born in a hospital, or any collateral right to be born outside a jail."


    As much as it pains me ever to be in the position of agreeing with a county attorney, I must admit that the county attorney's position is probably correct . . .

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    No, that's cruel and unusual. The county, having kidnapped you for a minor crime, assumes the duty of keeping any collateral damage to a minimum consistent with the crime. If a murderer dies in prison, no one weeps too much. This prisoner was awaiting trial, which makes the duty to keep her healthy even more important.

  • tinwhistler||

    Giving birth does not make her unhealthy and they did generously call for medical services. There is no right to a costly hospital trip and many billions have been born without one.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    She was in jail pre-trial. Innocent until proven guilty. Having kidnapped and forcibly restrained her, it was their duty to keep her safe. Even if she could have afforded the costly hospital trip herself, how was she supposed to get their while restrained?

    Your lack of empathy and love of frugality does not diminish the government's responsibility to take care of people they have kidnapped and confined.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • Agammamon||

    Many more billions have died without one. Birth is dangerous for primates - even more so for humans. The state has a duty of care *to the child* if nothing else.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    But does that duty of care entail transport to a hospital? Plenty of humans, even today, are born at home.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    Immaterial and irrelevant. The government kidnapped her and confined her, preventing her from getting ordinary health care. They are responsible.

    Would you say they can deny her toothbrush and toothpaste because billions have survived without them?

    Or soap?

    Or cutlery and plates and drinking glasses? Billions of people have survived without them, and in fact still do today. Lots of Asians get along with chopsticks. Should the prison be able to get away with giving her chopsticks to eat with?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Yes?

    The jail didn't order her confinement. It seems like her beef is with the judge.

  • LynchPin1477||

    But does that duty of care entail transport to a hospital

    Yes.

  • LynchPin1477||

    But does that duty of care entail transport to a hospital

    Yes.

  • Paloma||

    Plenty of humans have survived with broken legs or arms and not gone to a hospital.

    MOST births can be done outside a hospital, with no complications. But the ones that have complications need to be attended by a physician in a medical setting. And you don't always know ahead of time which will have complications.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    For millennia grunts and commoners have died at the whim of the power elite, as often for their petty personal agenda as anything else. If drones or other technology can target leaders and instigators, and spare the minions, then all the better.

  • Agammamon||

    Right up to the point where they target the leaders and instigators in the the United States government.

  • Cy||

    This piece completely ignores other country's influences and interventions.It also seems to lean heavily on the assumptions that other countries are all good and peace loving. While I don't necessarily agree with our world interventionist policies, I understand why.

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    "The United States reserved the right to attack anyone who it determined posed a direct threat to U.S. national security anywhere in the world."


    So basically, the United States imposes a "Stand Your Ground" rule on the rest of the world?

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    Ugh, I hate the ridiculous amount of quote space that is inserted after blockquotes in the commenting section. Who the hell designed the CSS for this site anyway?

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    I've tried leaving no space between the close-blockquote and the next text, and it makes no difference. Racism! Too much white space!

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Pretty much every country reserves that right (whether they say it or not). We just stretch the idea of "U.S. national security" to mean whatever we need it to mean at a specific point in time.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    I woke up this morning with a crazy idea.

    Subsidizing something increases demand for it; thus the fiasco of student loans reducing the seen price of college and making college more popular in spite of Title IX and other administrative burdens increasing the unseen cost.

    What if some city were to leave a box of bananas on every doorstep every morning? Ignoring that most would be exported to less-woke neighbors for profit, people would find unexpected uses for bananas -- distilled into vodka, perhaps. The city elders would see this as increased demand and distribute ever more bananas (while trying, and failing, to stop exports).

    Government is something we similarly get whether we want it or not. The cost is unseen compared to the "benefits". By all rights, this ought to mean that people find unexpected uses for this unwanted but plentiful commodity, encouraging its expansion.

    And the exports: That's the foreign military adventures, is it not?

    Just a crazy thought I woke up with. But it doesn't seem much of a stretch.

  • Jerryskids||

    Bernie's beloved bread lines included a lot of farmers buying up the subsidized-to-the-point-of-being-nearly-free bread to take home and feed to the pigs because bread was cheaper than hog feed.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    Excellent example! Yes, I remember reading about that.

    But I wonder how this extends to a surplus of government because we get it far below cost.

  • Jerryskids||

    It's the exact same thing - if the government's offering free lunches, everybody wants seconds. Even if they're planning on taking it home and feeding it to the pigs. Why not? It's free.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    You are addressing government handing out physical goods. I ask about government itself. When government coercion of others is available for free, such as telling neighbors to not grow vegetable gardens in front yards or preventing stores from selling alcohol on Sundays, does that itself expand government?

  • Bubba Jones||

    After Hurricane Ike people would wait in line for HOURS in the hopes of getting free MREs. Meanwhile Walmart was open, half a mile away.

  • priya47||

    Thanks to U.S. foreign policy for this decision.

  • Jerryskids||

    I don't know why you'd expect much coherence out of our militarized foreign policy, it's off-and-on been primarily "look at the size of our dick and how far we can swing it". While we may have "lost" Vietnam, we may have been successful at showing the Communists that we were willing to fight and fight hard and given them second thoughts about how difficult it might be to export the revolution.

    Of course, that didn't start with Vietnam - I think something that's somewhat overlooked in the debate over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that we nuked those cities not just to demonstrate that we had unimaginably horrific weapons but that we were such crazy badasses that we would *use* those weapons. And if you realize that we will cheerfully incinerate cities full of women and children and old folks - innocent civilians - well, just imagine the depravities we'd be willing to inflict on your soldiers. (Janet Reno learned that lesson well, ain't no religious nutjobs popping their heads up in Waco any more are there?)

    So maybe there's a method to our madness. It's sending a clear message to our adversaries and would-be adversaries - we're crazy as hell and meaner than two hells so you'd be well-advised not to get in our way.

  • Bubba Jones||

    We had already fire bombed Germany and Tokyo.

    The nukes were the ultimate shock and awe. It also sent a message to the soviets.

  • Longtobefree||

    Correct: the difference is that at Dresden and Tokyo, we risked, and lost, the lives of hundreds of aircrew. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we risked only one (OK, technically two) crew.

    Hiroshima; 70,000 initial causalities, another 15,000 to 20,000 by the end of the year dues to radiation.
    Tokyo; 100,000 initial causalities, no one kept detailed reords of how many more dies by the end of the year due to typhus, dysentery, starvation etc.

  • Paloma||

    I don't think Japan was impressed with our "meanness". They had committed many many more atrocities in Korea and China, and had they or Russia or Germany developed the atomic bomb first, you can bet they wouldn't have hesitated to use it.

    What impressed them was the apparent EASE which with the US could literally level a city and hundreds of thousands of lives in seconds. It's difficult to march people off to a concentration camp or gulag. It surely takes a ruthlessness to bayonet women and children. But dropping a bomb from a plane?

  • CGN||

    Sadly, our government seems to feel itself as a global "Peace Officer", which is absurd. If any enemy attacks on our soil, or the soil of a nation we are allied with, then we should help out with troops, etc. This did NOT cover our Iraq war making, nor our war making anywhere else in the Middle East. Relations are now WEAKER, if even present, with the nations we went to war with, and no real benefit came from the war. Similarly, we had no right, and no reason to fight in Vietnam. Our military exists to protect American and its ALLIES, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry nation on the planet.

  • sarcasmic||

    Our military exists to feed the military industrial complex.

  • BigT||

    And the ego of elected officials.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "President Trump is more openly hostile to Iran than was his predecessor. He abrogated President Barack Obama's nuclear deal, and there is overall little sign his administration is prepared to seriously rethink our ineffective Middle Eastern postures."

    It's important to remember that the deal with Iran wasn't conducive to peace. A nuclear Iran would not withdraw from the world safe in its isolation any more than the USSR withdrew within its borders once it acquired nuclear weapons. Rather, once the Soviet Union became confident that its ability to hit the U.S. meant that they wouldn't be attacked by the U.S. directly, we entered into an era of bloody proxy wars--of which Vietnam is only one example.

    There is no reason to think that a nuclear Iran would turn out differently. In fact, Iran already has a proxy army with which it imposes itself on its neighbors (Hezbollah). In fact, that proxy army is also a terrorist organization. Iran has largely refrained from using Hezbollah target Americans directly, in no small part because it fears the U.S. letting Israel off its leash and/or direct retaliation from the United States. If and when Iran acquires nuclear weapons, all that reluctance on Iran's part goes away.

    In the meantime, Trump has not pursued a war against Iran. He has pushed for diplomatic and economic isolation.

  • Paloma||

    India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers, and have had military clashes in the 1970s.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Pakistan was our cold war ally. India had one foot in bed with the USSR.

    Neither presented a serious threat to U.S. security, and neither one of them were signatories to the NPT.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....ignatories

    Iran, on the other hand, is a signatory to the NPT, violated the NPT, and presents a serious threat to U.S. security.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Vietnam Syndrome" is ultimately about Powell/Weinberger Doctrine. The purpose of that doctrine was to help the United States avoid another quagmire like Vietnam.

    The 1991 liberation of Kuwait was not an abandonment of Vietnman Syndrome. The reason we didn't topple the Saddam Hussein regime in 1991 and occupy Iraq in 1991 was, in part, that we wanted to avoid a quagmire like Vietnam.

    The United States abandoned any pretense of the Powell/Weinberger Doctrine under the Bush Jr. and Obama administrations--both of which were largely neocon (as most people understand the term), which means, among other things, the opposite of pragmatism.

    Trump, in case you haven't noticed, is a pragmatist. This is effectively a return to the policies that won us the Cold War. If you're looking at Trump and seeing a warmonger, your perspective is way off.

  • Ken Shultz||

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Agreed. Trump spends a lot of time swinging his dick around but I don't think he wants a real war with anybody. I'd have much preferred that he got out of Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and the rest but so far his foreign policy looks a lot more like Reagan's than Bush I & II, WJC, Obama or (shudder) a potential HRC administration. If Hilary had been elected I have no doubt we'd be in a full blown, on the ground, shooting war by now. The only time Trump got full bipartisan and media approval in the last 2 years was when he dropped a bomb on Syria. If he really wants a second term a war will probably guaranty it. It sure worked for GW. But I really don't think that's where we're heading at this point.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I basically agree.

    Trump criticized the Iraq War, calling it a mistake, and the things he's done since taking office appear to be about avoiding conflicts that aren't in the U.S. interests. That's pragmatism.

    The justifications the Bush Jr. and Obama administrations made for invading and/or occupying Iraq often seemed to be about serving the interests of the Iraqis--rather than U.S. security. That's neoconservatism.

    The deal Trump made with Putin between U.S. and Russian backed forces in Syria, to concentrate their resources on fighting ISIS rather than each other, led to the almost immediate collapse of ISIS. That's pragmatic.

    The justifications Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made for refusing to work with Putin in Syria had a lot to do with the interests of LGBTQI+ activists in Moscow--rather than U.S. security. That's neoconservatism.

    The Bush and Obama years were disconcerting in that not only did we need to persuade people that doing something was not in the best interests of the United States, but also we needed to persuade people that the interests of the United States were important. How do you persuade people who don't care about their own best interests that they shouldn't do something against them. Trump's foreign policy is a return to sanity by comparison.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That and Trump inherited these military messes.

    I think Trump should just pull all thr troops out.

    He wants to leave on a high point. Its a mistake as a high point will never happen. At least he has not escalated these conflicts much.

  • BigT||

    You know what happens when Trump doesn't pull out?

    Barron

  • Paloma||

    You don't think Nixon was a pragmatist?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Largely, he was. He ended the Vietnam War for pragmatic reasons--with a little help from a Congress that was no longer willing to fund the war, and what he did in China was truly pragmatic.

    If Nixon hadn't done what he did in China, China might not have embraced economic reforms the way they did, they might not have joined the WTO the way they did, and the world may have been a far worse place than it is today.

    Now, let's talk about Pinochet. Let's talk about the mujahideen.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nixon ran on ending the Vietnam war.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yes, and, after he won, he invaded Cambodia and Laos.

    And then there's this:

    "The Case–Church Amendment was legislation attached to a bill funding the U.S. State Department. it was approved by the U.S. Congress in June 1973 that prohibited further U.S. military activity in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia unless the president secured Congressional approval in advance.[1] This ended direct U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case–Church_Amendment

    It passed by veto-proof majorities.

    Nixon would have kept the war going if the alternative were being blamed for having lost a war. Once Congress cut off funding, there was no going back.

  • DenverJ||

    I was going to type a "a you know who else" thing, but got too sad to do it. This is armistice day. America has become an empire. I'm tired of being at war. Tired to my bones. And I'm furious.
    So: sad, tired, and furious.
    Happy Veteran's Day.

  • Bubba Jones||

    These things.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The #BlueTsunami is already paying off!

    Democrats are ready to fight for common-sense gun laws. No American should live in daily fear of gun violence.

    I love Reason for its uncompromising positions on open borders and unrestricted abortion access in all 3 trimesters, but my biggest complaint has always been this magazine's flawed understanding of the Second Amendment. The strength of the progressive / libertarian alliance depends on us libertarians moving toward the Democratic position on guns, just as progressives are moving toward the Koch / Reason position on immigration.

    #LibertariansForGunSense
    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #2AIsACollectiveRight
    #OverturnHeller

  • JFree||

    But the more hideous cost—especially poignant for those who remember the cries of "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"—is in lives.

    I actually think the more significant cost is to our soul/consciousness. When you can kill without risking lives, Americans simply don't care. There will be no protests in American streets that tear our country apart but also compel finding ways to end it or change things. And while unpleasant/destructive, that sort of thing is very important for the Scots/Irish mindset that dominates our military. That mindset NEVER tolerates any reevaluation once the fighting begins. That mindset really helps in fighting the war but is incapable of anything that remotely smacks of staining or even questioning honor.

    Say this about the draft/compulsion. It makes the decision to go to war FAR more consequential - and probably therefore less likely. Take that restraint away - and it becomes very easy to spend blood and treasure for all sorts of increasingly shitty reasons - and it can get a lot worse than it has so far too.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "Say this about the draft/compulsion. It makes the decision to go to war FAR more consequential - and probably therefore less likely."
    True. But also the fact that George HW Bush sanitized media coverage of his war. Policies that have endured til the present. During Vietnam reporters like Dan Rather and Geraldo Rivera (yeah I know) went to the war zone, shot footage wherever they wanted, interviewed whoever they wanted, and put it on the nightly news. We watched the coffins come home every night on the 3 networks we had. We watched the aftermath of villages being napalmed. The government learned that too much information was a threat to their hegemony. These days the press is embedded and simply regurgitates whatever the government tells them, something they do without protest. It was a sea change in the public's perception of our endless wars.

  • JFree||

    But the govt can't do that to that to the press unless its a volunteer army. It's one of many things that changes when we ended conscription. Conscription always requires an overt accountability by govt to the people re how the war is being fought and what is happening. Otherwise, the stories come out anyway when enlistments end and that's always going to be worse for govt if they are trying to sanitize it. A volunteer army doesn't have as many enlistments ending - and those who do leave now have both a pension at risk and were far more inclined to support whatever decisions are made anyway.

  • BigT||

    Bradley (Chelsea) Manning mean anything to you?

  • JFree||

    My Lai was covered up until Robert Ridenhour (who wasn't even there but was in that company and thus very credible) came back to the US and wouldn't stop writing letters to Congress and everyone and ultimately Seymour Hersh. And that was during a war with journalists everywhere in the field.

    The military is ALWAYS going to try to conceal stuff. Manning was actually more about a dump of actual documents and a ton of personal issues and had tried to get discharged 6 weeks in. That's just a fluke.

  • JFree||

    Ridenhour's actual letter to Congress when he returned to the US - cc'd to many in Congress. With the statement that he was considering talking to the media. Ultimately a staffer leaked the story to Geoffrey Cowan (a civil rights lawyer in DC) who leaked it to Seymour Hersh.

  • LiborCon||

    "Some 58,000 Americans were killed in that war... about 2 million civilian Vietnamese deaths,"

    The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have lasted longer than Vietnam yet there have been fewer deaths; about 7,000 American military deaths and 500,000 civilian deaths. We may not have stopped fighting wars, but we've managed to become less destructive.

    We no longer indiscriminately bomb civilians. We stopped using land mines, napalm and cluster bombs. We target our enemies with ever more precise weapons that reduce collateral damage. We provide our soldiers with better protection, weapons and medical technology than ever before.

    We've learned a lot of lessons from previous wars.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Gosh, thanks to Brian's telepathic abilities I now see the mindless murders and mayhem laced with slavery and imprisonment as simple instances of "good" (meddlesome and altruistic) intentions that resulted in surprises here and there. What a relief! For a while there I actually imagined there was something wrong with the Nixon régime carpet-bombing millions of babies to rescue France's old opium regie and bring it back into the fold of mercantilism. Oh well...

  • fawem4||

  • fawem4||

  • fawem4||

  • gaoxiaen||

    I've been able to, only it's in Zimbabwe dollars. Oh, well.

  • gaoxiaen||

    You're entering a world of pain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YedqV4Gl_us

  • Bearded Spock||

    "Seven years later, after about 2 million civilian Vietnamese deaths, the U.S. finally gave up without having prevented a Communist takeover of the country."

    Reason continues its historical revisionist Full-of-Shit tour with a fake summary of the Viet Nam War.

    The US actually "gave up" three years earlier; the last US combat units left the country in late 1972/early 1973, not April 1975, when South Viet Nam fell.

    When the US military left, South Viet Nam was a stable, albeit highly imperfect, democracy with a capable military. The Democrat Congress, emboldened by Nixon's weakness, cut all military aid to South Viet Nam in 1974.

    The North Vietnamese took the hint, and in early 1975 launched the offensive that ended the war. But the only US troops in the country by then were a few advisors and attaches and the Marine guards at the embassy.

  • cheapmcmbelt||

    Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to http://www.mkoutletfire.com/mi.....t-red.html word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

  • Sam Technology||

    I wonder how this extends to a surplus of government because we get it far below cost.

  • Sam Technology||

    if you have a good solution, please feel free share to us. https://samtechnology.org
    https://b4blog.net
    also check out Driver Booster and Kisscatoon and https://pubgpcdownload.com/

  • Sam Technology||

    Thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online