Originally posted by: HJD1
Hayabusarider,
Quote
I believe you are ignorant, and I mean in the kindest sense. Your perspective suggests you haven't much life experience, but the US traditionally does not launch unprovoked attacks against a soverign nation, no matter how much we dislike the leadership. Traditionally, it has been frowned upon when the President and administration obfuscates and downright lies to achieve what was seemingly a personal agenda. I lived through another war, one where the leaders did the same thing. I have seen and heard all this before. It was Communists then, that gave justification to fight the wrong war for the wrong reasons. This time it is terrorism, but only the "isms" are different. As far your perspective on WWII, all I can say is that if I wish to show someone hindsight in the purest form, I shall refer to your post. BTW, I came to the conclusion that Rumsfeld is McNamara reincarnated long before the French suggested it. Bush is Johnson, another fellow Texan. Yep, been there done that.
Yeah,
I sorta wished at the time that the Dixon had some holes in her or something to justify the Gulf of Tonkin Res. Almost seems like the WMD story has the holes but, not the ship.
At the time I was all gung ho for Johnson's resolve... then as Nixon came in I started to fade and fade and fade... I got out of the service in '69 after 6 years. The Tet in Feb did it for me. I saw a resolve there that scared me. Really scared me.[/quote]
HJD1, I am going to take the opportunity here to go over some of the history of the day for those who were not there...
Back in the "good old days", the US had reason to fear Communism (more specifically Russia) because Europe, which had been recently been freed of one evil had been partially consumed by it. The Domino Theory, while incorrect, seemed to make sense in the context of the time. Now China, being the Asian equivalent to the USSR, might just do what the USSR did to Europe. Certainly, Mao was no prize. People made a Hitler out of Saddam, but Saddam was really a petty third world tyrant with no threatening ideology. Not so with Mao, who was responsible for the murders of more people than live in all of Iraq today. The French were involved at the beginning, but being the "cowards" they were, left once they understood the nature of the conflict. This was communicated to Eisenhower, who was very, very leary of involvement in SE Asia. He being the consummate military man understood the potential morass the US might find itself in. In fact he communicated his concerns to Kennedy when he took office. Kennedy, made a fatal error. He surrounded himself with people who were intelligent, but who's bias outweighed their judgement. The Communists MUST be defeated, and in a recorded statement, said that the US would pay whatever cost in money and blood required to turn back the Red Menace. So, McNamara an others worked to do just that. Purposefully, the involvement of the US escalated from advisors to combat units. Kennedy then was killed, and Johnson came aboard. Johnson of course became VP, because of Joe Kennedy, who insisted on it for his own personal reasons. VP is of course the most visible, but powerless office one can hold unless the President dies. Unfortunately, that is just what happened. Now this is where the parallels with Iraq start to come in. Johnson had one fear. The Kennedys. They insisted, no, coerced Johnson to not make JFK's death meaningless. Johnson would see to it that the South Asia was free from Communism.
What did Johnson do? He used fear and patriotism. If the Communists could gain Asia, then Europe would not be far behind. Once that happened, the US was doomed. The US would save the day. We were morally superior, and had the manpower and technology to overcome the Enemy. America, the Great. Come and liberate, preserve and protect. That was the cry. So we bought it. Never in the history of our country had we reason to mistrust the Government. We all signed up for this mission, so to speak. Why would we not? Problem was that the assement of the situation was incorrect. This was not about Communism, but an ongoing regional conflict that existed for centuries. Simply, people there could not stand one another, and used whatever justification they could find to war. This time it was Communism. This was not an ideological war, but a petty battle amoungst disgruntled leaders and peoples.
For a very long time, this perspective was supressed by analysts in the field who had a better understanding of the situation. Johnson, however did not care about that, and indeed it is widely held that such "unpatriotic" and "unamerican" analysis was kept from the administration, because it was unamerican and unpatriotic to bring into question reality as defined by the powers that were.
Johnson wanted two things, to appease the Kennedys, and to establish a place in history equal to that of FDR. To do that he had to get more troops into Vietnam. People might support the war in principle, but sending hundreds of thousands in to the region was problematic. So Johnson told the Big Lie. On August 4, 1964 Johnson misrepresented entirely a fictious attack on the Maddox, a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Maddox had indeed been provoking the Vietnamese. A torpedo attack {which never happened) against the Maddox was the justification for the escalation of the war. To get his way, the President of the US invented a situation in order to use the good faith of the people of the US in order to attack. Of course it all went to hell, because it became clear that to do what was needed would have resulted in a crushing conflict with China, and perhaps the USSR. Johnson could not bring home the forces without losing face, and encouraging the USSR and China to become even more agressive. So people died. Lots and lots of them. Year after year. Finally, Johnson was out, and eventually pressure at home led to the end of the war, but the whole fiasco was supremely tragic. Whenever a President presents a situation as more dire than it is, and then wants to go to war over it, I will always consider that person a scoudrel of the worse sorts.
Facebook
Twitter