5 ms·

A brave soldier, doing right by his country, which was led into fighting villagers half way around the world in incredibly tough scenarios by asshole politician

A brave soldier, doing right by his country, which was led into fighting villagers half way around the world in incredibly tough scenarios by asshole politicians.

beachy 4y ago
The Vietnam war (or the American war as I was corrected in a bar in Hanoi) was the epitome of unintended escalation. One of the early escalators was JFK, who was simultaneously extremely wary of escalation, and is not someone who most people think of as an asshole politician. Your point has some heft but it's a simplistic take.
- adamrezich 4y ago
  isn't it also a bit of a simplistic take to think that American Presidents truly have the "Commander-in-Chief" power w.r.t. war decisions that they have on paper?
  - beachy 4y ago
    From memory JFK was the prime mover in decisions on the number of Americans on the ground, their roles and even their uniforms.
  - colburnmh 4y ago
    Presidents, like leaders in business or the military, realize that they don't have the current experience, situational knowledge, or training necessary to dictate details on the ground. Therefore, they dictate high-level foreign policy, political, and strategic military goals and delegate the strategic and tactical details to the military leaders who have the appropriate knowledge to carry them out. Occasionally, they get involved in specific tactical decisions, like authorizing politically sensitive actions (e.g., the Bin Laden raid). You would not expect the CEO of a large multi-national company to manage all of the details of every department within their company. When you combine all 5 of the armed forces together, it's far more complex than any company on earth, and managing the military is not the President's only responsibility. The President's direction of the military is also bound, to some degree, by the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government. For example, they can't declare war on a country unilaterally. But those restrictions, while important, are not particularly constraintaining at a day-to-day level. The President has wide latitude to direct the military as they see fit. That includings projecting military power as deterrents against hostile foreign powers or engaging in short-term, small-scale offensive operations abroad. So, no, Presidents aren't going to the front lines and directing troops like kings of old. That went out of fashion around the time of Napoleon. But good business leaders don't micromanage their workers and departmental details, either. They realize, hopefully, that doing so would do more harm than good.
- chasil 4y ago
  I have often wondered if, had the Watergate break-in not been discovered or reported, South Vietnam might yet exist, and if they would rival South Korea in their technological accomplishments.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    South Vietnam never had a functioning government.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Not really true unless your standard is Western style democracy. And I can't think of too many developing countries who went from dictatorship to full democracy while fighting an insurgency/superpower proxy war. South Korea, Taiwan were both dictatorships for decades after the fighting ended. The peak of the Southern government was '71-72, prior to the Easter Offensive by the North. The Tet Offensive had destroyed the Viet Cong in the South (needed to be entirely back filled by the Northern troops), so at that point the RVN had full control over much of the South. The fighting had died down to the point that work on social programs like land reform, actually install competent provincial leaders, etc had an opportunity to improve the life of the average citizens in the countryside (the major cities saw little violence over the war with the exception of Tet and a few other attacks). RVN wasn't a democracy by Western standards, but it was a government that could at least provide security, development and work towards building up the country. When the Eastern Offensive happened, the US was limited to air power (all troops had left by ‘73 but the drawdowns started in ‘69), and the ARVN made a good showing at the battle of An Loc. They were capable of being an effective fighting force but needed US support to counter the USSR and Chinese support the North was getting. After '72, Congress cut off all aid, Nixon was in no position to force things otherwise (i.e. Watergate) and the writing was on the wall since the South didn't even have enough gasoline for their military vehicles. The South was a corrupt government with plenty of nepotism and stealing of US funds, but if you visit Vietnam today you’d realize not much has changed on that end.
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
- refurb 4y ago
  As a history nerd I’ve read a ton of books on the Vietnam war and pretty much this. There is a great book on LBJ’s decision to escalate - I can’t remember the title, but it’s 300 pages long and only covers a few months in ‘65 when the decision to escalate was made. People like to think the decision was made in a vacuum but it was influenced by everything going on at the time and geopolitical risk going forward. LBJ made a decision (there were members of the inner circle who wanted to pull out) based on what he knew at the time. It turned out to be the wrong one.
- andrewclunn 4y ago
  What a bay-of-pigheaded comment.
- tasty_freeze 4y ago
  The Errol Morris documentary "The Fog Of War" about Robert McNamara is amazing. Even though McNamara was in his 80s when it was filmed, his mind was still razor sharp. McNamara was highly self-reflective and was not someone to whitewash history, even his own. The documentary covers various phases of McNamara's career, including his contribution to the Tokyo firebombing raids in WWII, and a short bit about his work at Ford Motor Company between the wars, but the Vietnam war part was the biggest section.
  - beachy 4y ago
    It's amazing how brutally honest McNamara was about his own failings in bringing an MBA type approach to a foreign war.
- D_Alex 4y ago
  >the epitome of unintended escalation And right about now we are witnessing another. Against an opponent with nukes.
pdonis 4y ago
You should also include high ranking military officers, many with political ambitions, who put their own aggrandizement or telling their civilian superiors what they wanted to hear ahead of their military duties. I recommend H. R. McMaster's book Dereliction of Duty, which goes into this in great detail.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

A brave soldier, doing right by his country, which was led into fighting villagers half way around the world in incredibly tough scenarios by asshole politicians.

beachy 4y ago

The Vietnam war (or the American war as I was corrected in a bar in Hanoi) was the epitome of unintended escalation. One of the early escalators was JFK, who was simultaneously extremely wary of escalation, and is not someone who most people think of as an asshole politician. Your point has some heft but it's a simplistic take.

adamrezich 4y ago
isn't it also a bit of a simplistic take to think that American Presidents truly have the "Commander-in-Chief" power w.r.t. war decisions that they have on paper?
- beachy 4y ago
  From memory JFK was the prime mover in decisions on the number of Americans on the ground, their roles and even their uniforms.
- colburnmh 4y ago
  Presidents, like leaders in business or the military, realize that they don't have the current experience, situational knowledge, or training necessary to dictate details on the ground. Therefore, they dictate high-level foreign policy, political, and strategic military goals and delegate the strategic and tactical details to the military leaders who have the appropriate knowledge to carry them out. Occasionally, they get involved in specific tactical decisions, like authorizing politically sensitive actions (e.g., the Bin Laden raid). You would not expect the CEO of a large multi-national company to manage all of the details of every department within their company. When you combine all 5 of the armed forces together, it's far more complex than any company on earth, and managing the military is not the President's only responsibility. The President's direction of the military is also bound, to some degree, by the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government. For example, they can't declare war on a country unilaterally. But those restrictions, while important, are not particularly constraintaining at a day-to-day level. The President has wide latitude to direct the military as they see fit. That includings projecting military power as deterrents against hostile foreign powers or engaging in short-term, small-scale offensive operations abroad. So, no, Presidents aren't going to the front lines and directing troops like kings of old. That went out of fashion around the time of Napoleon. But good business leaders don't micromanage their workers and departmental details, either. They realize, hopefully, that doing so would do more harm than good.
chasil 4y ago
I have often wondered if, had the Watergate break-in not been discovered or reported, South Vietnam might yet exist, and if they would rival South Korea in their technological accomplishments.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  South Vietnam never had a functioning government.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Not really true unless your standard is Western style democracy. And I can't think of too many developing countries who went from dictatorship to full democracy while fighting an insurgency/superpower proxy war. South Korea, Taiwan were both dictatorships for decades after the fighting ended. The peak of the Southern government was '71-72, prior to the Easter Offensive by the North. The Tet Offensive had destroyed the Viet Cong in the South (needed to be entirely back filled by the Northern troops), so at that point the RVN had full control over much of the South. The fighting had died down to the point that work on social programs like land reform, actually install competent provincial leaders, etc had an opportunity to improve the life of the average citizens in the countryside (the major cities saw little violence over the war with the exception of Tet and a few other attacks). RVN wasn't a democracy by Western standards, but it was a government that could at least provide security, development and work towards building up the country. When the Eastern Offensive happened, the US was limited to air power (all troops had left by ‘73 but the drawdowns started in ‘69), and the ARVN made a good showing at the battle of An Loc. They were capable of being an effective fighting force but needed US support to counter the USSR and Chinese support the North was getting. After '72, Congress cut off all aid, Nixon was in no position to force things otherwise (i.e. Watergate) and the writing was on the wall since the South didn't even have enough gasoline for their military vehicles. The South was a corrupt government with plenty of nepotism and stealing of US funds, but if you visit Vietnam today you’d realize not much has changed on that end.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
refurb 4y ago
As a history nerd I’ve read a ton of books on the Vietnam war and pretty much this. There is a great book on LBJ’s decision to escalate - I can’t remember the title, but it’s 300 pages long and only covers a few months in ‘65 when the decision to escalate was made. People like to think the decision was made in a vacuum but it was influenced by everything going on at the time and geopolitical risk going forward. LBJ made a decision (there were members of the inner circle who wanted to pull out) based on what he knew at the time. It turned out to be the wrong one.
andrewclunn 4y ago
What a bay-of-pigheaded comment.
tasty_freeze 4y ago
The Errol Morris documentary "The Fog Of War" about Robert McNamara is amazing. Even though McNamara was in his 80s when it was filmed, his mind was still razor sharp. McNamara was highly self-reflective and was not someone to whitewash history, even his own. The documentary covers various phases of McNamara's career, including his contribution to the Tokyo firebombing raids in WWII, and a short bit about his work at Ford Motor Company between the wars, but the Vietnam war part was the biggest section.
- beachy 4y ago
  It's amazing how brutally honest McNamara was about his own failings in bringing an MBA type approach to a foreign war.
D_Alex 4y ago
>the epitome of unintended escalation And right about now we are witnessing another. Against an opponent with nukes.

pdonis 4y ago

You should also include high ranking military officers, many with political ambitions, who put their own aggrandizement or telling their civilian superiors what they wanted to hear ahead of their military duties. I recommend H. R. McMaster's book Dereliction of Duty, which goes into this in great detail.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]