6 ms·

The Vietnam War Was Already Lost, but I Had to Go Anyway

48 points by ForHackernews 7y ago

Ididntdothis 7y ago
When you read about WW2 you see the same thing in the German side and also sometimes on the Allied side. Generals and politicians knew that the battle was lost but instead of giving up they made the front soldiers fight to a certain death. That while the leaders who made decisions lived in splendor. Same with the current American wars. When they invaded Iraq in 2003 the military was understaffed and it took years for the leaders to admit that and adjust. So solders were dying while at the same time a lot of defense companies made good profits and there were tax cuts for higher incomes. I always wonder how wars would go if as soon as a country was at war, leadership had to live in conditions like a front soldier and nobody would be allowed to make a profit from war related business. I bet we would have much less wars.
- DougN7 7y ago
  If everyone had to suffer everything that they inflicted on others, we’d soon live in a near utopia. One can dream...
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Or we'd select for masochists.
    - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
      Not sure why you're getting downvoted, it seems like a perfectly plausible outcome to me.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Inspired by a "what could possibly go wrong" moment. Selection incentives are a real beast.
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      One thing shown by modern politics is that you're absolutely correct: Plenty of people in modern society are happy to act (and in particular, vote) in a way that will hurt them as long as they think someone who deserves it will be hurt more. Not to mention that some people simply won't be hurt by things that other people can't handle.
    - lixtra 7y ago
      Or sadists. If you consider that Hitler went through gas warfare I have no optimism that we would be better off with politicians that know war.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    Knowing human nature, if we all had to share those warlike conditions, maybe we'd just endure sucking for everyone to keep the war effort going.
  - fallingfrog 7y ago
    You know at first that sounds glib but the more I think about it the more profound that statement appears..
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      One could accomplish that with forced empathy and memory injection. We already have fMRI tech that can do some of that.
      - Ididntdothis 7y ago
        We don’t need fMRI. There is plenty of opportunity to experience the conditions first hand.
      - kingkawn 7y ago
        The ease with which you’ve transformed empathy into a form of oppression...
        crankylinuxuser 7y ago
        I'm certainly not the only one to think of this. I know of Twilight Zone episodes to have used that. Specifically one I can think of is the Dachau Nazi "doctor" comes back to relive his glory days, and is forced by the ghosts who still live there to forcefully feel their pain for the rest of his life. It's supernatural, but still the same idea. There were also episodes of Outer Limits that did similar, but with a machine that forced them to live with the crime they committed. I believe Black Mirror also did some of this as well.
    - fallingfrog 7y ago
      If I could elaborate more I was just thinking of various statements of political philosophy that people have made to me in the past. “The Golden rule is the one thing that all religions have in common.” “Liberals just want to spread the misery around.” “What we need is facts and logic, not emotion.” “Liberty, equality, fraternity.” “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I can’t tie this all up in a bow but there are some interesting themes and counter themes there. If I was a philosophy major I might be able to make more sense.
  - Eric_WVGG 7y ago
    There’s a really great science fiction novel where that’s sort of the climax, but I guess I can’t cite it without dropping a mammoth spoiler…
- jmngomes 7y ago
  Agreed. That has actually been publicly suggested, and supported, by a retired general: " Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get." in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket Edit: corrected "general's number of stars"
  - saiya-jin 7y ago
    Or conscript children of top politicians. And not some cozy job far from any possible danger, but right at the center of it. I guess US wouldn't invade another country half around the globe even if whole population would have to switch to Flintstones-like cars.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      that definitely would help.
    - vondur 7y ago
      I think this happened far more during WW1 and WW2. Not so much in the Vietnam War.
  - mandevil 7y ago
    Smedley Butler was a two star Major General, not a four star General.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I’m sure all leaders in all organizations can agree it’d be convenient if their suppliers were paid less money.
Spearchucker 7y ago
I was conscripted at age 18. I'm a lot older now and it blows my mind more and more at how war and veterans and victories and leaders are celebrated and therefore... legitimized. The masses are made to think fighting a war (soldier) for someone else (the president and the military industrial complex) is an honorable thing to do. Because patriotism. Which is bullshit. We share this little blue ball in space with all of these people who scare us, whose ideals we ridicule. And people who love and live and dream like we do. There is no honor in violence. Even less in oppression. Regardless of justification.
- mc32 7y ago
  The problem is there are those who don’t share your idealism and would take this position and take full advantage of it. Vietnam might have been a boondoggle of a war. But it certainly better than had we folded and let the dominoes fall in many places where there was some discontent but not nearly as much as there would be with Soviet style governance. Certainly there were smarter ways to wage the war, but short of taking over the corrupt local govt there wasn’t much else we could do. We suggested land redistribution and other forms of reform, as we implemented successfully in South Korea but the South Vietnamese wouldn't have it.
  - ahelwer 7y ago
    Are you suggesting that the US government was right to indiscriminantly bomb a small nation halfway around the world for self-determining into a style of governance disliked by the US? Or are you suggesting the North Vietnamese were a tool of the Chinese or Russians? In which case - like Robert McNamara - you would be told by the former foreign minister of Vietnam that you should read a history book[0], because you have no knowledge of the region's history. The Vietnam war was a disgrace waged for no valid reasons, accomplishing nothing except ending the lives of millions of Vietnamese people. To defend it in this day, with all the benefit of hindsight, is utterly beyond the pale and should rightfully be compared to supporting other historical atrocities such as the genocide of Native Americans. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHdMeHxDg90&t=2m8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHdMeHxDg90&t=2m8s
Synaesthesia 7y ago
AJ Muste: “The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?” Source: https://chomsky.info/196709__/ https://chomsky.info/196709__/
- whatshisface 7y ago
  That quote doesn't really apply in Vietnam, where both sides had such heavy losses that nobody would ever want to repeat it again.
  - CPLX 7y ago
    > nobody would ever want to repeat it again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1980–1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...
  - renox 7y ago
    The loss are highly unevenly distributed.. Weapon sellers, equipment providers makes a lot of money during wars..
    - blaser-waffle 7y ago
      Bingo. That uneven distribution is why them Yankees seem to be fine with all these wars. The World Wars brought violence directly to the Asians and Europeans, devastating Europe from London to Moscow, and all over Asia. Rich and poor got it, good and hard, in their on backyards. Vietnam devastated... Vietnam. It was an economic blackhole for the US -- ditto for Iraq and Afghanistan -- but the average American is driving larger, nicer cars then ever, while living in comfy McMansions. Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland (Washington DC suburbs) are wealthier than ever -- all Top 10 richest counties in the US. They don't feel this pain, and probably never will, save for the small handful of volunteers shipped to Iraq/Afgan/etc.
      - deogeo 7y ago
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Being conscripted to fight in a war you don't care about is a big perceived injustice when you have a fancy Oxford degree and a lucrative career ahead of you. Being conscripted to fight in a war you don't care about when you're a ditch digger and will be for the foreseeable future is a lot less bad. While nobody happy to be drafted a lot of people are less unhappy about it than the author. I know this will not be a popular opinion around here but many people consider it their duty to fight if called upon by their country.
- overthemoon 7y ago
  The problem in this case is with the plight of the ditch digger, not the value of conscription. EDIT: also, you left off this bit: "...provided the ditch digger turned soldier doesn't get maimed, killed, or psychologically damaged fighting a war for his elite masters."
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  You may not know this but ditch diggers also like to have a peaceful life and live to see their children grow up. They value life as much as anybody else.
benjaminbrodie 7y ago
War does not happen because of any cold, calculating, sinister motive, it happens because of (fear of) boredom. Peace is boring, war is exciting, and gives people a sense of purpose (do you know that suicide rate is way down during war time?) and a chance to be part of something eternal. This is why history is to such a large extent the history of wars. Because that's what capture our morbid interest. This is why war, conflict and violence dominate movies and TVs and fiction. The effect of boredom on a large scale in history is often underestimated. It is the main cause of war, revolutions, electoral surprises, etc.
- ufmace 7y ago
  I don't know that I entirely believe this, but I think there might be something to it.

48 points by ForHackernews 7y ago

When you read about WW2 you see the same thing in the German side and also sometimes on the Allied side. Generals and politicians knew that the battle was lost but instead of giving up they made the front soldiers fight to a certain death. That while the leaders who made decisions lived in splendor. Same with the current American wars. When they invaded Iraq in 2003 the military was understaffed and it took years for the leaders to admit that and adjust. So solders were dying while at the same time a lot of defense companies made good profits and there were tax cuts for higher incomes. I always wonder how wars would go if as soon as a country was at war, leadership had to live in conditions like a front soldier and nobody would be allowed to make a profit from war related business. I bet we would have much less wars.

DougN7 7y ago
If everyone had to suffer everything that they inflicted on others, we’d soon live in a near utopia. One can dream...
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Or we'd select for masochists.
  - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
    Not sure why you're getting downvoted, it seems like a perfectly plausible outcome to me.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Inspired by a "what could possibly go wrong" moment. Selection incentives are a real beast.
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    One thing shown by modern politics is that you're absolutely correct: Plenty of people in modern society are happy to act (and in particular, vote) in a way that will hurt them as long as they think someone who deserves it will be hurt more. Not to mention that some people simply won't be hurt by things that other people can't handle.
  - lixtra 7y ago
    Or sadists. If you consider that Hitler went through gas warfare I have no optimism that we would be better off with politicians that know war.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  Knowing human nature, if we all had to share those warlike conditions, maybe we'd just endure sucking for everyone to keep the war effort going.
- fallingfrog 7y ago
  You know at first that sounds glib but the more I think about it the more profound that statement appears..
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    One could accomplish that with forced empathy and memory injection. We already have fMRI tech that can do some of that.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      We don’t need fMRI. There is plenty of opportunity to experience the conditions first hand.
    - kingkawn 7y ago
      The ease with which you’ve transformed empathy into a form of oppression...
      - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
        I'm certainly not the only one to think of this. I know of Twilight Zone episodes to have used that. Specifically one I can think of is the Dachau Nazi "doctor" comes back to relive his glory days, and is forced by the ghosts who still live there to forcefully feel their pain for the rest of his life. It's supernatural, but still the same idea. There were also episodes of Outer Limits that did similar, but with a machine that forced them to live with the crime they committed. I believe Black Mirror also did some of this as well.
  - fallingfrog 7y ago
    If I could elaborate more I was just thinking of various statements of political philosophy that people have made to me in the past. “The Golden rule is the one thing that all religions have in common.” “Liberals just want to spread the misery around.” “What we need is facts and logic, not emotion.” “Liberty, equality, fraternity.” “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I can’t tie this all up in a bow but there are some interesting themes and counter themes there. If I was a philosophy major I might be able to make more sense.
- Eric_WVGG 7y ago
  There’s a really great science fiction novel where that’s sort of the climax, but I guess I can’t cite it without dropping a mammoth spoiler…
jmngomes 7y ago
Agreed. That has actually been publicly suggested, and supported, by a retired general: " Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get." in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket Edit: corrected "general's number of stars"
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  Or conscript children of top politicians. And not some cozy job far from any possible danger, but right at the center of it. I guess US wouldn't invade another country half around the globe even if whole population would have to switch to Flintstones-like cars.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    that definitely would help.
  - vondur 7y ago
    I think this happened far more during WW1 and WW2. Not so much in the Vietnam War.
- mandevil 7y ago
  Smedley Butler was a two star Major General, not a four star General.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I’m sure all leaders in all organizations can agree it’d be convenient if their suppliers were paid less money.

Spearchucker 7y ago

I was conscripted at age 18. I'm a lot older now and it blows my mind more and more at how war and veterans and victories and leaders are celebrated and therefore... legitimized. The masses are made to think fighting a war (soldier) for someone else (the president and the military industrial complex) is an honorable thing to do. Because patriotism. Which is bullshit. We share this little blue ball in space with all of these people who scare us, whose ideals we ridicule. And people who love and live and dream like we do. There is no honor in violence. Even less in oppression. Regardless of justification.

mc32 7y ago
The problem is there are those who don’t share your idealism and would take this position and take full advantage of it. Vietnam might have been a boondoggle of a war. But it certainly better than had we folded and let the dominoes fall in many places where there was some discontent but not nearly as much as there would be with Soviet style governance. Certainly there were smarter ways to wage the war, but short of taking over the corrupt local govt there wasn’t much else we could do. We suggested land redistribution and other forms of reform, as we implemented successfully in South Korea but the South Vietnamese wouldn't have it.
- ahelwer 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that the US government was right to indiscriminantly bomb a small nation halfway around the world for self-determining into a style of governance disliked by the US? Or are you suggesting the North Vietnamese were a tool of the Chinese or Russians? In which case - like Robert McNamara - you would be told by the former foreign minister of Vietnam that you should read a history book[0], because you have no knowledge of the region's history. The Vietnam war was a disgrace waged for no valid reasons, accomplishing nothing except ending the lives of millions of Vietnamese people. To defend it in this day, with all the benefit of hindsight, is utterly beyond the pale and should rightfully be compared to supporting other historical atrocities such as the genocide of Native Americans. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHdMeHxDg90&t=2m8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHdMeHxDg90&t=2m8s

Synaesthesia 7y ago

AJ Muste: “The problem after a war is with the victor. He thinks he has just proved that war and violence pay. Who will now teach him a lesson?” Source: https://chomsky.info/196709__/ https://chomsky.info/196709__/

whatshisface 7y ago
That quote doesn't really apply in Vietnam, where both sides had such heavy losses that nobody would ever want to repeat it again.
- CPLX 7y ago
  > nobody would ever want to repeat it again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1980–1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...
- renox 7y ago
  The loss are highly unevenly distributed.. Weapon sellers, equipment providers makes a lot of money during wars..
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    Bingo. That uneven distribution is why them Yankees seem to be fine with all these wars. The World Wars brought violence directly to the Asians and Europeans, devastating Europe from London to Moscow, and all over Asia. Rich and poor got it, good and hard, in their on backyards. Vietnam devastated... Vietnam. It was an economic blackhole for the US -- ditto for Iraq and Afghanistan -- but the average American is driving larger, nicer cars then ever, while living in comfy McMansions. Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland (Washington DC suburbs) are wealthier than ever -- all Top 10 richest counties in the US. They don't feel this pain, and probably never will, save for the small handful of volunteers shipped to Iraq/Afgan/etc.
    - deogeo 7y ago

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

Being conscripted to fight in a war you don't care about is a big perceived injustice when you have a fancy Oxford degree and a lucrative career ahead of you. Being conscripted to fight in a war you don't care about when you're a ditch digger and will be for the foreseeable future is a lot less bad. While nobody happy to be drafted a lot of people are less unhappy about it than the author. I know this will not be a popular opinion around here but many people consider it their duty to fight if called upon by their country.

overthemoon 7y ago
The problem in this case is with the plight of the ditch digger, not the value of conscription. EDIT: also, you left off this bit: "...provided the ditch digger turned soldier doesn't get maimed, killed, or psychologically damaged fighting a war for his elite masters."
Ididntdothis 7y ago
You may not know this but ditch diggers also like to have a peaceful life and live to see their children grow up. They value life as much as anybody else.

benjaminbrodie 7y ago

War does not happen because of any cold, calculating, sinister motive, it happens because of (fear of) boredom. Peace is boring, war is exciting, and gives people a sense of purpose (do you know that suicide rate is way down during war time?) and a chance to be part of something eternal. This is why history is to such a large extent the history of wars. Because that's what capture our morbid interest. This is why war, conflict and violence dominate movies and TVs and fiction. The effect of boredom on a large scale in history is often underestimated. It is the main cause of war, revolutions, electoral surprises, etc.

ufmace 7y ago
I don't know that I entirely believe this, but I think there might be something to it.