I have just left Vietnam after spending several weeks travelling around the country. As I visited Hanoi, Hue, Da Nang, Saigon and Cu Chi I became ever more puzzled about what the USA was up to in the Vietnam War.
There is an old English saying that "generals are always fighting the last war" rather than the present war so the key to Vietnam must lie in Korea. The Korean War was launched by Mao to serve two purposes, the first being to bleed America to death and the second being to rid himself of any soldiers who had Kuomintang connections. The "bleed America to death" policy is a matter of public record, Mao genuinely believed that the vast population of China would allow him to grind the US and UN forces into the ground. However, the US and UN had just fought the second world war and pursued a similar war of highly efficient mass extermination of Chinese soldiers. They improved their techniques using helicopters as well as fighters and bombers and in the end it was the Chinese who were in danger of being ground down to nothing. To crown the UN efforts with success, the South Koreans became useful allies and founded a stable Western state.
The colonels of Korea became the Generals of the Vietnam war. They launched campaigns of mass extermination against the enemy as they had done in Korea. But the Viet Cong were nationalists who were supported by many in the South of Vietnam and there was no stable Southern Government available as there had been in Korea and no clear-cut enemy. The bombing and killing merely drove the South Vietnamese into the arms of the enemy.
In Iraq the USA is now fighting the Vietnam War. Every US Army officer has raked over the coals of their defeat and now knows the answer. What they have learnt from Vietnam is that it is no good exterminating those who you wish to govern, of prime importance is to set up an alternative government. So now they are supporting an Iraqi democracy and empowering its forces. But Iraq is not Vietnam. All of the Iraqis are liable to be Islamic Fundamentalists whether they are in government or not. The "democratic" Iraqis will deprive women of their rights as freely as Al Qaida and introduce Sharia Law democratically. The only surprise to date is that the extremists who are bombing the Iraqis have not understood, as yet, that their route to power is through the ballot box (coupled with voter intimidation) or by infiltrating the most popular parties and seizing power from within.
In Afghanistan the extremists have worked out that they can just infiltrate and intimidate to get power in a "democratic" system. The Taliban are radicalising Pakistan and are now trying to draw American fire onto its ally. Once Pakistan is destabilised sufficiently the democratic parties, other than those of the Northern Alliance, will just swap back to black turbans.
So, by fighting Vietnam in Iraq and Afghanistan the US will destabilise the whole region and get exactly what it fears.
There are three resolutions to Iraq and Afghanistan. The first is to back off, deport fifth columnists and any remotely connected Muslims from the West so that the new Islamic States that will arise can be held responsible for terrorism. (ie: "If you support extremists who blow up New York we will punish you, the identifiable enemy, in return. We will certainly exclude any of your nationals and sympathisers from our soil."). The second is to divide and rule by separating Iraq into Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites and solely supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The third is to colonise Iraq and Afghanistan by building roads and fortifications, renaming the countries and considering terrorism to be treason punishable by death.
Of these alternatives the second is probably the most practical in the short term and the first is probably the most sensible.
See also:
The future of Afghanistan
There is an old English saying that "generals are always fighting the last war" rather than the present war so the key to Vietnam must lie in Korea. The Korean War was launched by Mao to serve two purposes, the first being to bleed America to death and the second being to rid himself of any soldiers who had Kuomintang connections. The "bleed America to death" policy is a matter of public record, Mao genuinely believed that the vast population of China would allow him to grind the US and UN forces into the ground. However, the US and UN had just fought the second world war and pursued a similar war of highly efficient mass extermination of Chinese soldiers. They improved their techniques using helicopters as well as fighters and bombers and in the end it was the Chinese who were in danger of being ground down to nothing. To crown the UN efforts with success, the South Koreans became useful allies and founded a stable Western state.
The colonels of Korea became the Generals of the Vietnam war. They launched campaigns of mass extermination against the enemy as they had done in Korea. But the Viet Cong were nationalists who were supported by many in the South of Vietnam and there was no stable Southern Government available as there had been in Korea and no clear-cut enemy. The bombing and killing merely drove the South Vietnamese into the arms of the enemy.
In Iraq the USA is now fighting the Vietnam War. Every US Army officer has raked over the coals of their defeat and now knows the answer. What they have learnt from Vietnam is that it is no good exterminating those who you wish to govern, of prime importance is to set up an alternative government. So now they are supporting an Iraqi democracy and empowering its forces. But Iraq is not Vietnam. All of the Iraqis are liable to be Islamic Fundamentalists whether they are in government or not. The "democratic" Iraqis will deprive women of their rights as freely as Al Qaida and introduce Sharia Law democratically. The only surprise to date is that the extremists who are bombing the Iraqis have not understood, as yet, that their route to power is through the ballot box (coupled with voter intimidation) or by infiltrating the most popular parties and seizing power from within.
In Afghanistan the extremists have worked out that they can just infiltrate and intimidate to get power in a "democratic" system. The Taliban are radicalising Pakistan and are now trying to draw American fire onto its ally. Once Pakistan is destabilised sufficiently the democratic parties, other than those of the Northern Alliance, will just swap back to black turbans.
So, by fighting Vietnam in Iraq and Afghanistan the US will destabilise the whole region and get exactly what it fears.
There are three resolutions to Iraq and Afghanistan. The first is to back off, deport fifth columnists and any remotely connected Muslims from the West so that the new Islamic States that will arise can be held responsible for terrorism. (ie: "If you support extremists who blow up New York we will punish you, the identifiable enemy, in return. We will certainly exclude any of your nationals and sympathisers from our soil."). The second is to divide and rule by separating Iraq into Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites and solely supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The third is to colonise Iraq and Afghanistan by building roads and fortifications, renaming the countries and considering terrorism to be treason punishable by death.
Of these alternatives the second is probably the most practical in the short term and the first is probably the most sensible.
See also:
The future of Afghanistan
Comments