3 ms·

National Security Action Memoranda number 52, May 1961: https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-330-002.aspx https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-V

National Security Action Memoranda number 52, May 1961: https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-330-002.aspx https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-330-... Subject: Program of Action to Prevent Communist Domination of South Viet Nam The US Objective: to prevent Communist domination of South Vietnam and to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society. The US had not achieved those objectives 12 years later. The communists won control over the whole country a few years after US withdrawal finished. Vietnam's government is still communist today. This is basically what I learned browsing through encyclopedias when I was a kid. I did a quick fact-check just now in case I had been misled or misremembered. I can sort-of understand saying that the communists didn't achieve victory over the USA either (because they also didn't manage to install an allied government in the territory of the USA), but claiming that the US won is weird.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"The US had not achieved those objectives 12 years later." Yes. They did. The US did achieve those objectives in the early 1970s'. The US vanquished the South Vietnamese forces, and did considerably damage to North Vietnamese forces using air power - to the point where North Vietnamese did not have a capable fighting force. Communism was basically gone in the South, in the North, inoperable, at least militarily. Then the US left. A few years later, the North built up their armies and waltzed into the South. It's really crazy, strategically that the US withdrew - all they had to do was leave about 50K soldiers, sitting 'behind the wire' not really fighting, maybe an aircraft carrier, i.e. 'the threat of violence' and S. Vietnam would be as free today as S. Korea. The Americans withdrew because of populist political pressure back home i.e teens protesting. I don't believe the US should have necessarily gone to war in Vietnam, but after they did, they should have stayed - it would have cost very little. Anyhow - as per the article - 'points of measure' can be misleading, as it was with 'bodycount' in Vietnam, but they're not entirely misleading. Number of enemy combatants, civilians, allies killed or wounded is a very important metric in every conflict. It's just not 'the' metric.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  If the North didn't have a capable fighting force any more, and still overwhelmed the South shortly after the US withdrew, that means the US did not actually establish a "a viable and increasingly democratic society" during the time it had a military presence there. Societal viability includes, at a minimum, being able to survive one's enemies. Enemies that were already drastically weakened during the period of US involvement, by your own account.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Societal viability includes, at a minimum, being able to survive one's enemies. This needs to be said a lot more in our civilization, in 2018.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Societal viability includes, at a minimum, being able to survive one's enemies. By that argument, all of western Europe didn't save a viable society since Germany was able to defeat them. I don't agree with that.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      By that argument, all of western Europe didn't save a viable society since Germany was able to defeat them. France had a credible defense. Also, France certainly survived their enemy in the long term.
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      I'd agree with that, actually. France today is not the same as France in 1939 - the period from 1870-1940 is generally considered the French Third Republic, and they're on the Fifth Republic now. Poland today is not the same as Poland in 1939. Germany today is certainly not the same as Germany in 1939. Not only are the people in charge different, but the whole system of government is different, the cultural values are different, and many of the cities were rebuilt from the ground up. Just because a society collapses doesn't mean the people disappear, or even that they start to think of themselves as a different nationality. Society is all of the organizational superstructure on top of that, and barring rare cases like governments-in-exile-that-can-pick-up-where-they-left-off-when-liberated, that usually doesn't survive being defeated in warfare.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"The US had not achieved those objectives 12 years later." Yes. They did. The US did achieve those objectives in the early 1970s'. The US vanquished the South Vietnamese forces, and did considerably damage to North Vietnamese forces using air power - to the point where North Vietnamese did not have a capable fighting force. Communism was basically gone in the South, in the North, inoperable, at least militarily. Then the US left. A few years later, the North built up their armies and waltzed into the South. It's really crazy, strategically that the US withdrew - all they had to do was leave about 50K soldiers, sitting 'behind the wire' not really fighting, maybe an aircraft carrier, i.e. 'the threat of violence' and S. Vietnam would be as free today as S. Korea. The Americans withdrew because of populist political pressure back home i.e teens protesting. I don't believe the US should have necessarily gone to war in Vietnam, but after they did, they should have stayed - it would have cost very little. Anyhow - as per the article - 'points of measure' can be misleading, as it was with 'bodycount' in Vietnam, but they're not entirely misleading. Number of enemy combatants, civilians, allies killed or wounded is a very important metric in every conflict. It's just not 'the' metric.

philipkglass 8y ago
If the North didn't have a capable fighting force any more, and still overwhelmed the South shortly after the US withdrew, that means the US did not actually establish a "a viable and increasingly democratic society" during the time it had a military presence there. Societal viability includes, at a minimum, being able to survive one's enemies. Enemies that were already drastically weakened during the period of US involvement, by your own account.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Societal viability includes, at a minimum, being able to survive one's enemies. This needs to be said a lot more in our civilization, in 2018.
- refurb 8y ago
  Societal viability includes, at a minimum, being able to survive one's enemies. By that argument, all of western Europe didn't save a viable society since Germany was able to defeat them. I don't agree with that.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    By that argument, all of western Europe didn't save a viable society since Germany was able to defeat them. France had a credible defense. Also, France certainly survived their enemy in the long term.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    I'd agree with that, actually. France today is not the same as France in 1939 - the period from 1870-1940 is generally considered the French Third Republic, and they're on the Fifth Republic now. Poland today is not the same as Poland in 1939. Germany today is certainly not the same as Germany in 1939. Not only are the people in charge different, but the whole system of government is different, the cultural values are different, and many of the cities were rebuilt from the ground up. Just because a society collapses doesn't mean the people disappear, or even that they start to think of themselves as a different nationality. Society is all of the organizational superstructure on top of that, and barring rare cases like governments-in-exile-that-can-pick-up-where-they-left-off-when-liberated, that usually doesn't survive being defeated in warfare.