Last Days in Vietnam

[Jon G. Tidd]

Nixon's "zilch" comment was about strategic, not tactical, bombing.

Yet in the 1972 "Christmas" bombing of North Vietnam, carried out by B-52s flying at 30,000 feet, strategic bombing, Nixon inflicted such pain on the North that it agreed to negotiate a "peace" in Paris, for which Henry Kissinger shared the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize. All of this, the whole shebang, was a cynical charade that had one objective: to fool the American people into believing the U.S. was disengaging from Viet Nam in an acceptable way.

The North wasn't fooled. Nixon and Kissinger weren't fooled. Thieu and Ky weren't fooled. No one who knew anything about the war was fooled. Only the American people, who did not want to know anything about the war, were fooled. Yes the American people were fooled. To keep them happy. Which was easy. The 1973 Paris Peace Accords, coupled with Nixon's crippling in Watergate, led to what exists today. A populace that yearns for freedom; a corrupt Vietnamese government that thrives on privilege for Communist officials.

[Martin Blank]

Nixon's "zilch" comment was about strategic, not tactical, bombing.

Yet in the 1972 "Christmas" bombing of North Vietnam, carried out by B-52s flying at 30,000 feet, strategic bombing, Nixon inflicted such pain on the North that it agreed to negotiate a "peace" in Paris, for which Henry Kissinger shared the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize. All of this, the whole shebang, was a cynical charade that had one objective: to fool the American people into believing the U.S. was disengaging from Viet Nam in an acceptable way.

The North wasn't fooled. Nixon and Kissinger weren't fooled. Thieu and Ky weren't fooled. No one who knew anything about the war was fooled. Only the American people, who did not want to know anything about the war, were fooled. Yes the American people were fooled. To keep them happy. Which was easy. The 1973 Paris Peace Accords, coupled with Nixon's crippling in Watergate, led to what exists today. A populace that yearns for freedom; a corrupt Vietnamese government that thrives on privilege for Communist officials.

what would have been an acceptable way to disengage? string it out with thousands more dead american boys?

Edited October 13, 2015 by Martin Blank

[Jon G. Tidd]

Martin Blank,

What would have been acceptable in my opinion would have been [a] an agreement that included the Laotian Government, North Viet Nam's lackey, and required Laos to hand over the American POWs it held; a requirement that North Viet Nam give up the gains in South Viet Nam it had acquired in its 1972 offensive; [c] a requirement that the North cease armed hostilities toward the South for a decent interval, which I'd peg at two years.

The issue by 1 January 1973 wasn't U.S. lives. It was the fate of many, many South Vietnamese who stood to be persecuted by the North. And who were persecuted or who risked peril at sea in boats to escape the North Vietnamese.

[Martin Blank]

all of us would have liked to see everyone who was held captive or mia come home from vietnam, cambodia and laos return home. better yet we would have liked to see the war not happen at all and no one killed, captured or missing. how long do esteem an agreement to this effect would have taken and what would have had to be done to get it done – invading laos (which jfk didn't do in the early 60s) or continued massive bombing. invading every country in indochina? what would you have done to elicit this agreement?

why should north vietnam give back what it had won through massive losses. to them there was only one vietnam – the one that would have existed had we not blocked the elections. it would have only been a matter of time before the north took back those gains with more casualties on both sides. would you have sent the army back? bombed? what would have accomplished that aim? enough deaths to win kissinger another peace prize? no matter how long the cessation of hostilities the north would have won.

I would treat my enemies more humanely after their defeat than the north did. to the northern as is standard revolutionary creed, any in the south who had served the interests of colonial powers such as france and the U.S. were traitors and should have been fighting the imperialists rather than the northern and the viet cong. what would you do to traitors?

just trying to look at the situation realistically and would have preferred the boat people, etc. not happened but their lives are on us and not their countrymen. its what happens when amoral people have a war just to have a war and make some money in the name of patriotism and freedom. pretty cynical people our leaders, eh?

just some devil's advocate and trying to look through the eyes of others. no offense meant to all who served.

[James DiEugenio]

The USA had already bombed Laos and Cambodia back to the Stone Age.

And we invaded both countries. Those invasions caused domestic havoc and several deaths in the USA, Kent State and Jackson State. Which Nixon ended up blaming on the people who were killed.

In my review of Last Days in Vietnam, I praised those who tried to help those civilians escape. But again, this was done in the face of a FUBAR of giant proportions.

[Jon G. Tidd]

"why should north vietnam give back what it had won through massive losses. to them there was only one vietnam"

Martin, I agree with what you say, except that although I agree with your statement of the North's perspective as I've set forth above, I don't agree with that perspective if I'm an American looking to make the best deal for the folks my country has just spent years trying to protect from domination by North Viet Nam.

[Martin Blank]

"why should north vietnam give back what it had won through massive losses. to them there was only one vietnam"

Martin, I agree with what you say, except that although I agree with your statement of the North's perspective as I've set forth above, I don't agree with that perspective if I'm an American looking to make the best deal for the folks my country has just spent years trying to protect from domination by North Viet Nam.

i don't think you give our leaders credit for their proper level of cynicism

[Douglas Caddy]

Review of Bob Woodward's latest book, "The Last of the President's Men", that deals with the issue of Vietnam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/books/bob-woodward-last-of-the-presidents-men-review.html

[James DiEugenio]

Nice quote there by Tricky DIck.

Tells the press that bombing is very effective.

Then tells Kissinger that in ten years it has achieved zilch.

Which confirms what Ken Hughes said about them knowing they could not win but inflicting terrible damage and casualties anyway.

[Douglas Caddy]

Here is The New York Times book review of the just published Brinkley-Nichter book on the 1973 Nixon tapes that includes information about Vietnam policy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/books/review/the-nixon-tapes-1973-edited-by-douglas-brinkley-and-luke-a-nichter.html