Showing posts with label Peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peace. Show all posts

Friday, November 11, 2011

Veterans Day

The First World War nominally ended on November 11th. First celebrated as Armistice Day, it became Remembrance Day for the Commonwealth to honor those who had fallen. In the United States where Memorial Day already commemorated those who died defending our country it became Veteran’s Day to also honor the veterans who came home.


Lord Grey, the British Foreign Minister described the beginning of the war as "The lamps are going out in Europe". The immediate costs in dead and treasure of this ultimately pointless war were horrific. The horror of the trenches scarred the psyche of the Western world. The resulting despair allowed political movements to come to influence and power, which have changed for the worse Western culture, the holocaust and gulag being just the tip of the iceburg. Too many of the lamps are still out.

It is a hard truth that this is an especially appropriate day to remember our veterans living and dead. One of the very few bright spots were the solders and sailors whose dedication, loyalty, and valor shamed the politicians and “statesman” who sent them to war. They should always be remembered.

But also we need to remember that in other wars it was this same dedication and valor that bought our Freedom and Liberty, certainly against the forces released as a result of the First World War.


Enjoy the holiday, but remember to think of and pray for those who served.




In 2007 David Duff objected to the war being called pointless. El Jefe Maximo responded. Their interesting and informative discussion is a must read..

Related posts:

Le Soldat Americain dans Afgaistan
Soldiers are People, too
The Last of the Light Brigade.
The Bivouac of the Dead
Roy Nickerson
11/11/1918 (From Kingdom of Chaos)
Rembrance Day - where They Fell HT:David Duff
Campfires and Battlefields 1884


Labels:WWI and Veterans Day posts

Saturday, May 07, 2011

Carriers in the West Pacific.

Strategy Page has several informative articles on Chinese naval power, and the implications are signifcant.


Shi Lang Headed For Service

Artists conception of the Shi-Lang from Strategy PageApril 29, 2011: All indicators are that the new Chinese aircraft carrier, the Shi Lang (formerly Varyag) will go to sea before the end of the year, after nearly nine years of reconstruction and upgrades. Defensive weapons, and more electronics, are being installed now, and major internal work appears to have been completed. snip The Shi Lang/Varyag is one of the Kuznetsov class carriers that Russia began building in the 1980s. - snip - The 323 meter (thousand foot) long ship normally carries a dozen navalized Su-27s (called Su-33s), 14 Ka-27PL anti-submarine helicopters, two electronic warfare helicopters and two search and rescue helicopters. But the ship was meant to regularly carry 36 Su-33s and sixteen helicopters. The ship carries 2,500 tons of aviation fuel, allowing it to generate 500-1,000 aircraft and helicopter sorties. Crew size is 2,500 (or 3,000 with a full aircraft load.) Only two ships of this class exist; the original Kuznetsov, which is in Russian service, and the Varyag.

While this carrier is not of the same class as the American Attack Carriers it will outclass every other navy in the West Pacific, and with first class aircraft could give the US Navy a good fight, especially a task force that was not covered by carriers or land based aircraft. It is certainly a sign of a navy that is growing in from costal defense force to contesting for Admiral Mahan’s control of the seas.

Of course Aircraft Carriers need aircraft.


Chinese Carrier Fighter Shows Its Colors

Chinese J-11 from strategy PageApril 28, 2011: New photos of the Chinese naval fighter, the navalized version of the J-11 (an illegal clone of the Russian Su-27), have appeared. This one is painted in Chinese Navy colors, and appears to be equipped with Chinese made electronics. This all grew out of China obtaining one of the Russian navalized Su-27s (the Su-33) from Ukraine, and taking tech (like the folding wings and beefed up landing gear) from it to navalize their 30 ton J-11 as the J-11BH (formerly the J-15). - snip - The Shi Lang is expected to serve as a training carrier, to prepare naval aviators for service on the two new carriers under construction.

Depending on electronics this is probally not be in the same league as the Navy’s current F-18 and definitely not up to the F-22/F-35 class, but shows that in the relatively near future the Chinese will be building top class military aircraft. The F-22 and F-35 are now the goal for designers to meet and beat, in time the Chinese will have planes that can outdo even the F-18 and compete with the F-22/F-35.


The Second Artillery Corps Versus the USN

April 27, 2011: The Chinese Second Artillery Corps, spread over several provinces, has been expanding over the last few years. This includes adding two brigades apparently armed with the long rumored Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile, the DF-21D. This gives the Second Artillery Corps ten DF-21 brigades, plus brigades with several other types of missiles. snip The DF-21D is mainly intended for use against the USN (U.S. Navy), particularly the aircraft carriers. - snip - While the 500-2,000 kg (.5-2 ton) warhead usually contains a nuclear weapon, it is believed that China also has a conventional warhead. - snip - For example, two years ago, China launched another "remote sensing" satellite, joining two others in a similar orbit. These three birds are moving in formation, at an altitude of 600 kilometers, across the Pacific. Equipped with either radar (SAR, or synthetic aperture radar) or digital cameras, these three birds can scan the ocean for ships, even though the Chinese say their purpose is purely scientific. A typical SAR can produce photo quality images at different resolutions. At medium resolution (3 meters) the radar covers an area 40x40 kilometers. Low resolution (20 meters) covers 100x100 kilometers. This three satellite Chinese posse looks suspiciously like a military ocean surveillance system. This is the missing link for the rumored Chinese ballistic missile system for attacking American aircraft carriers.

Since the end of WWII, coast artillery has not been a concern of the US defense planning, after all there was no navy or combination of navies that could get past the US fleet. In the old communist block that was not the case, defending against the US Navy was a serious problem. The anti-shipping missile that is pretty much ubiquitous now, was first a Russian coast defense weapon. Working with Chinese Navy this modern Coast Artillry could force the US Navy to stand off a good distance from the Chinese coast hampering any effort to support the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, or Japan.


Analysis

Whe viewing Chinese defense efforts we should not take a solely Amercentic view point. Look at the problem for the Chinese view.

- For decades the Chinese military was hobbled by political direction that was time locked in Mao’s long march. In the last twenty to thirty years China has made a number of improvements that could be described simply as building a self-respecting 21st century force.

- Every country on it’s border is potentially hostile, or a buffer between it and a potentially hostile country. This creates a requirment for a defense force of healthy quality and size.

- With the expansion of it’s industry it is importing a massive amount of oil from the Middle East. The protection of the vital shipping route seems to be a focus of Chinese naval policy. In addition to passing near poteintialy unstable or hostile countries in South East Asia it must cross the Indian Lake Ocean. The Indian Navy is making similar upgrades and is an equivalent force - it is also one of the potentially hostile countries that borders China.

Of course, even though weapons developed for one purpose does not mean they can’t be used for another, the military situation in the Western Pacific is changing.


While much of the US defense and intelligence diplomatic interest thought and planning is bogged down in the sands of the Middle East and worried about new and improved counter insurgency warfare, this appears to be “preparing for the last war.” There are more serious problems that can not be forgotten about.


The days when when the High seas were an Amercan Lake are vanishing. A lot of people in Washington in both parties need to wake up.


See also:

How Not to Fix the Military
Book Review: Echof Battle

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Veteran's Day -- 2010

The First World War nominally ended on November 11th. First celebrated as Armistice Day, it became Remembrance Day for the Commonwealth to honor those who had fallen. In the United States where Memorial Day already commemorated those who died defending our country it became Veteran’s Day to also honor the veterans who came home.


Lord Grey, the British Foreign Minister described the beginning of the war as "The lamps are going out in Europe". The immediate costs in dead and treasure of this ultimately pointless war were horrific. The horror of the trenches scarred the psyche of the Western world. The resulting despair allowed political movements to come to influence and power, which have changed for the worse Western culture, the holocaust and gulag being just the tip of the iceburg. Too many of the lamps are still out.

It is a hard truth that this is an especially appropriate day to remember our veterans living and dead. One of the very few bright spots were the solders and sailors whose dedication, loyalty, and valor shamed the politicians and “statesman” who sent them to war. They should always be remembered.

But also we need to remember that in other wars it was this same dedication and valor that bought our Freedom and Liberty, certainly against the forces released as a result of the First World War.


Enjoy the holiday, but remember to think of and pray for those who served.




In 2007 David Duff objected to the war being called pointless. El Jefe Maximo responded. Their interesting and informative discussion is a must read..

Related posts:

Le Soldat Americain dans Afgaistan
Soldiers are People, too
The Last of the Light Brigade.
The Bivouac of the Dead
Roy Nickerson
11/11/1918 (From Kingdom of Chaos)
Rembrance Day - where They Fell HT:David Duff



Labels:WWI and Veterans Day posts

Monday, July 26, 2010

Who Goes Nazi

Elizabeth Scilia, of First Things brings us an article by Dorothy Thompson from the August 1941 edition of Harpers Magazine. asking

“Who Goes Nazi?”

Certainly the names are different these days but there are still people who will “go Nazi” if the chance happens though it I possible they will be the loudest denouncing Nazism. .


It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times–in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.

snip

Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work–a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.

At any rate, let us look round the room.

The gentleman standing beside the fireplace with an almost untouched glass of whiskey beside him on the mantelpiece is Mr. A, a descendant of one of the great American families. There has never been an American Blue Book without several persons of his surname in it. He is poor and earns his living as an editor. He has had a classical education, has a sound and cultivated taste in literature, painting, and music; has not a touch of snobbery in him; is full of humor, courtesy, and wit. He was a lieutenant in the World War, is a Republican in politics, but voted twice for Roosevelt, last time for Willkie. He is modest, not particularly brilliant, a staunch friend, and a man who greatly enjoys the company of pretty and witty women. His wife, whom he adored, is dead, and he will never remarry.

He has never attracted any attention because of outstanding bravery. But I will put my hand in the fire that nothing on earth could ever make him a Nazi. He would greatly dislike fighting them, but they could never convert him…. Why not?

Beside him stands Mr. B, a man of his own class, graduate of the same preparatory school and university, rich, a sportsman, owner of a famous racing stable, vice-president of a bank, married to a well-known society belle. He is a good fellow and extremely popular. But if America were going Nazi he would certainly join up, and early. Why?… Why the one and not the other?



Indeed why? Read the whole article. The names are different but is today the same old story?




From Wikipedia.
Dorothy Thompson (9 July 1893, Lancaster, New York – January 30, 1961, Portugal) was an American journalist and radio broadcaster, who was noted by Time magazine in 1939 as one of the two most influential women in America, the other being Eleanor Roosevelt.

She is notable as the first American journalist to be expelled from Nazi Germany (in 1934), one of the few women news commentators on radio during the 1930s, and as the inspiration for Katharine Hepburn's character "Tess Harding" in the film Woman of the Year (1942).




Related: Who is a Fascist?

Monday, May 31, 2010

Memorial Day: "The Sinking of the Reuben James"

On 31 October 1941, a little more than a month before Pearl Harbor a U-Boat torpedoed the Destroyer U. S. S. Rueben James escorting merchant ships to Great Britian. The Kingston Trio plays Woody Guthrie’s classic in their honor. The video answers Woody Guthrie’s “What were there names?”





Requiescant in pace

Thursday, July 03, 2008

The Fourth of July

The Declartion of Independence


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,



When in the Course of human events,

snip

We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
.
That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles

and organizing its powers in such form,

as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established

should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they re accustomed

snip

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,


That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;

snip

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Book Review: Left to Tell


Left to Tell – Discovering God Amidst the Rwandan Holocaust

Immaculee Ilibagiza
Hay House, 2006
Left to Tell Fund
Left to tell


Most everyone knows in general that in 1994 there was a genocide of over a million people in Rwanda as the world stood by. Numbers so large we lose any sense of individuals. Immaculee Ilibagiza rivets us the events as they happened to her, her family and acquaintances as she was one of the few who was left to tell their story

From the life of a child in a loving family and a student who is only loosely aware of national politics she is suddenly thrown into the maelstrom of a Civil War that turns into genocide against own her people. Hidden in a bathroom for three months with seven other women she emerges to find her family dead, many whom she had thought friends had been part of the killing. She learns that the only way survive as a human being, not just some one who was not killed, means she has to have faith and trust in God and forgive those who killed her family and friends.

The surreal horror is seen in joy of finding a friend she thought dead, and finding out he was hidden by someone who went out every day to join the killers.

This is a riveting well written account that should be mandatory reading for every one.

Many things can be said about the genocide, but is perhaps best to remind ourselves of the teaching of the Catholic Faith that gave her the strength of survive.

Look in the mirror - the person looking back at you is not so very far from being the hero or villain in a similar situation. Pray that Christ’s Grace and Mercy give us all the wisdom to see the difference and the strength to act.


Grant them Eternal Rest Oh Lord, and let your Perpetual Light shine upon them.


------------------------------------------


See Also

R J Rummel’s Power Kills Site Most every thing you want to know about Genocide and more.

What is Genocide

Book Review: Death by Government

Genocide/Democide Topic.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Tet 1968 – A Personal Narrative

The Tet Offensive began forty years ago today.

The Year of the Monkey

Nineteen Sixty-Eight was a strange year. First there was Tet or Vietnamese New Years, the occasion for the North Vietnamese offensive. Then I was in the hospital for a week, which was the week of the Martin Luther King riots. I spent the week lying on my back watching the country burn down on TV. Then there was the Democratic Convention. Some said they would disrupt the convention. The Mayor said he was going to protect the right of people to peacefully hold a political convention. It was clear that if you liked to bash in heads for fun or else have your head bashed that was the place to be. I did not care for either so I stayed home. Generally it seemed like rioting was the recreation of choice that year around the world, the tactics and method of the “sixty- eighters,” if not their stated goals, seemed awfully brown shirtish. There seemed to be general mood that year that things were bad and getting worse. The year wasn’t all bad; I escaped (graduated) from high school and went to college.


The War at Home.

This was the height of the Viet Nam war. Going to school in the morning, right in front of our school bus was the Navy ambulance bus taking casualties from the Air Station to the Naval Hospital. I remember sitting on my parent’s sofa watching the news. Not news of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and suicide idiots that every one takes so serious these days, but regular armies maneuvering divisions and engaged in major battles. Two hundred to three hundred US dead a week, week in week out. North Viet Nam was being bombed, but apparently under so many restrictions it was almost usless. There were negotiations about the shape of the peace table if there were ever real peace negotiations. It seemed a Dien Bien Phu II was shaping up at Khe Shan. A truce had been announced by both sides for the Tet holiday, the question being when and where the North Vietnamese would violate it. They violated it everywhere. Saigon, Hue, Dak To, Da Nang, Pleiku all with enemy forces in the city. The US Embassy in Saigon occupied. The walled citadel of Hue, the old Vietnamese Imperial capital, was lost. News coming so fast you couldn’t absorb it. That week, over seven hundred dead. Like Nine Eleven, everyone was sitting glued to the TV watching the bad news. Unlike Nine Eleven no stories of dramatic escapes and heroic rescues.

On the third day the New York news teams got to Viet Nam to report what happened. I remember watching Walter Cronkite in dirty wrinkled fatigues and a dented helmet reporting how serious things were, if we actually survived this battle you knew the war was lost. Statements by military press officers were ridiculed.

This was a shock wave. The net effect of months of watching heavy fighting on television, the staggering scope of the enemy attack, along with a narrative that said we were defeated even if we survived this battle changed the mood of the country. The next few years are only understandable when you realize we were in a state of national “ongoing traumatic stress syndrome.”

US and South Vietnamese forces defended and attacked to no pattern we saw in the media. The Embassy was recaptured. The Battle of Hue dragged on forever. It was agreed to end the negotiations about negations and have negotiations on the same subjects as the negotiations about negotiations. The war seemed to continue as before. Johnson stopped the bombing of North Vietnam not for any gain but because he thought it would help win the 1968 election. Even so Nixon won the 1968 election.

Nixon invaded Cambodia. This resulted in riots in the US that culminated in the Kent State incident. Next Nixon invaded Laos. In 1972 North Vietnamese tanks crossed the border. To read the newspaper headlines or watch the TV news it seemed things were getting worse. A keystone of Nixon’s policy was the Vietnamazation program of upgrading the South Vietnamese Army and tuning things over to the South Vietnamese. The media reported every problem and generally trashed the program. A company went berserk at My Lai and massacred about a hundred people, apparently covered up by the Army. The Special Forces tried to but failed to liberate some POW’s in North Viet Nam. In 1972 the bombing of North Viet Nam was resumed, including this time the ports and Red River Delta. The press and others were frantic; this was an escalation that would bring China into the war.

But then, almost from no place, the 1972 peace agreement was signed. The US and the North Vietnamese agreed to a cease fire and to mutually withdrawal from South Viet Nam. The US was allowed to keep a very finite amount of advisors and promised to come to the aid of South Viet Nam if North Vietnam went back on the agreement. In the press it seemed like a face saving surrender. There was some doubt that the US would keep its promise. (At this point I remember in our first week of Officers Basic they told us that even if we volunteered we could not go to Vietnam, the mock groan of disappointment was overwhelming.)

Nixon cut corners to be sure he won reelection in 1972 against one of the most unelectable Democratic candidates ever. His burglars were caught at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate Apartments; the step by step investigations eventually forced him to resign in 1974. But he was politically paralyzed long before that, and his successor was, by default, a seat warmer until the 1976 elections.

In 1975 South Vietnam fell. Congress made it clear we would not keep the promise to come to South Viet Nam’s aid. The first wave of boat people came to the US. The second wave was abandoned at sea. South Vietnam was put under a totalitarian regime that rivaled anything of Hitler, Mao or Stalin. The same for Laos. But this was child play compared to what the Khmer Rouge (Communist Party) did in the killing fields of Cambodia.


Bandaging he Wounds

I think three things aided national reconciliation,

- The Independence Bi-Centennial celebration in 1976. This turned everyone’s attention to something all could agree on or at least use the same words if we didn’t agree.
- Richard Nixon and Watergate. He became the scapegoat for every thing from 1954 to 1975. He was guilty of enough that no one cared if he was being accused of things he didn’t or couldn’t have done. “It’s all Nixon’s fault”, even if it wasn’t, was a statement that allowed people to avoid accusing friends neighbors and relatives of supporting the “wrong” side, whichever side that was.
- And a number of myths about the war grew and were accepted. Often not factual, but allowing people to live together, except when one myth challenged another, or worse, was challenged by facts.

And we went from “ongoing” to “post traumatic stress syndrome.”




The Real War

Some of this was apparent at the time, to a political and military geek such as my self, much I learned later.


In 1959 the North Vietnamese Government ordered the Viet Cong to begin military action to take over South Viet Nam. They used the classic guerilla war pattern of Mao Zedung. They were greatly helped because they had much more resources than normal to start up a guerilla campaign. Much of the prepatory work had been done by the old Viet Minh while fighting the French, there was logistic support from North Vietnamese base areas in Laos and Cambodia, the South Vietnamese government had major problems, really the problems of any third world government, but easy to exploit. By 1965 this campaign had progressed to Mao’s third or mobile phase. The South Vietnamese were in a bind. They had no uncommitted reserves. (I think I remember reading at the time that South Viet Nam has one or two battalions available everything else was committed). And the North Vietnamese were massing a mobile force of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese divisions to finish off their victory. If the South Vietnamese army consolidated forces to defeat the mobile units they would abandon a fatal amount of territory, but leaving their forces disbursed meant their units would be destroyed one at a time by the enemy mobile forces.

The solution was the introduction of US combat units to fight the North Vietnamese mobile forces, and have the South Vietnamese deal with the guerillas. (This was the general plan though there were exceptions, such as the Army Special Forces and the Marine CAP platoons, and token South Vietnamese forces always accompanied large US operations.)

The introduction of US troops put the North Vietnamese generals in a bind. They could not defeat the US Army and Marines in the field. Not that they didn’t try. Through 1965, 1966 and into 1967 they launched a number of operations trying to defeat the US forces. They quickly learned that human wave attacks against fire bases using howitzers as shotguns was suicidal. Sometimes they would win against a small unit but they could never win against a force large enough to advance Mao’s mobile war strategy. All they ended up with was massive amounts of casualties; even the small battles they won were often Pyric victories. They needed to change their strategy.


Their problem was Mao’s theory said they had to capture the county side first before moving into the cities. Prematurely moving into the cities would cut them off from their bases and invite destruction. But they were unable to defeat US forces to take over the countryside. There were two proposals considered, to back off the lower level phases of guerrilla war to wear down the US so it would grow tired and withdraw, or launching a major offensive to dislodge the US forces. They decided to take a long shot gamble on the later.

It was always possible to infiltrate the cities but any thing larger than a patrol that could melt into the population could not survive the counter attack. They decided if they infiltrated enough forces into the cities, launched a surprise attack and captured enough critical points they could survive the counter attack and it would be the US forces that were cut off. They expected that there would be a large response to a call for a popular uprising. Success required they obtain firm control over their critical targets in the first twenty-four hours or so isolating the US forces from their bases.

They obtained the initial surprise. We knew what their doctrine was, we believed it was good doctrine, but we did not realize they were so desperate that they would throw it out on a gamble.

They got into the cities, captured large amounts of space. They got control of civilian areas that had no defense force beyond local police. A call for a general uprising was made. The Viet Cong political officers came out and started to organize a new government and had “counter revolutionaries” rounded up and executed.

Many South Vietnamese and US units were isolated, some destroyed. Support units of all types became infantry to survive. But most held until relived or even counter attacked.

There was no popular uprising. The North Vietnamese captured no critical military bases. The combat units in the field turned around and came back to the cities, made sure the bases were secure and cleared the cities. That sounds so easy, it wasn’t. By the third day it was clear the offensive had failed. The North Vietnamese were still in control of what most of what they had captured, but couldn’t take more and were being attacked. There were still several months of fierce fighting to clear the cities and restore the pre-offensive status.

In many areas the defeat of the offensive resulted in the destruction of the local Viet Cong infrastructure. Many Viet Cong units joined the offensive and were lost or seriously damaged. After a few months when units with the name and number of a Viet Cong unit rejoined the fight it was almost exclusively staffed with North Vietnamese. When the local Viet Cong political cadres outed themselves to set up a new government their identities became common knowledge. Killing the counter revolutionaries left a lot of people who wanted revenge for dead relatives and friends. They were known and easy target for Operation Phoenix. In many places vigilantes acting on their own killed them. The Viet Cong’s local political organization never recovered though it took a long time exploit this.

The Vietnamazation program, which really should have started earlier, meant pulling units off line giving them a rest, new equipment, time to train and develop confidence. When it went back on line it was a much better trained, equipped and confident force. They were able to slowly gain control over larger areas of the countryside on their own. By 1972 guerilla activity had ceased to be a major problem in much of South Viet Nam. (I read a news report that in parts of the Mekong delta the per capita rate of guerilla attacks was about the same as the pre-WWII per capita rate of criminal activity.) Aggressive large operations such as the border crossings gradually reduced the North Vietnamese Armies ability to conduct large scale operations in South Viet Nam. When the North Vietnamese crossed the DMZ in a tank assault in 1972 it was the South Vietnamese Army that stopped them.

US units were being withdrawn. Because of the individual replacement policy there were very few unit homecomings to make this visible in the US. A unit was deactivated in place it’s people redistributed and that many replacements were not sent. By 1972 most US combat troops were gone.


Ending the War

So long as North Viet Nam could they would continue to send its armed forces to south to capture South Viet Nam. Attacking North Viet Nam involved risks of escalating the war by bringing in China or Russia to help North Viet Nam. This was a real risk though it probably played larger in Washington’s mind than was the real case. How to convince them? Negotiations by themselves would not do it. Their first and last fallback negotiating position was that they would get complete control of all Viet Nam. Invasion and regime change of North Viet Nam (to use the current term) was politically impossible in the US political situation. Bombing risked intervention and excessive political fallout if not successful in a short period of time.

Nixon’s National Security Advisor (and later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger had a plan.

The first part was for the vigorous prosecution of the war in South Viet, as well as destroying bases in sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos.
The second was Vietnamazation program to turn the war back to South Viet Nam. This would allow the US to leave at some point.
Third was to give both China and Russia a reason not to intervene if bombing in the North was resumed.
Fourth was to launch a bombing campaign that would make North Viet Nam agree to stop the war in the South.


While it wasn’t obvious in the news Russia and China did not get along. In 1969 they even had a large border fight in Manchuria. China refused to let Russia transship to North Viet Nam across Chinese territory. Most of the equipment that North Viet Nam needed to support the war came from Russia and was unloaded at the port of Hiaphong. China was only able to provide basic infantry weapons and a large manpower pool if they intervened, which North Viet Nam probably did not want because they could not be sure it go away after the war. This was an opportunity. If a strategic bombing program could close Hiaphong Harbor and hit other high value targets, North Viet Nam would not get the weapons it needed to prosecute the war, or maintain a basic economy, and possibly stay in power.

Kissinger opened a diplomatic campaign to make both Russia and China feel they had more to lose by interviewing to support North Viet Nam than if they just left it to it’s own devices. To the Russians he opened a softening of détente including signing the ABM and SALT weapons reduction treaties. To China he offered diplomatic recognition and opening of trade relations. President Nixon’s famous visit to China in 1972, was part of this campaign.

The strategic bombing campaign was started. It closed Haiphong Harbor. Bridges on major highways were destroyed. North Viet Nam had to agree to withdraw in order for their government to survive. But it did not change their goal of taking over the South.

An agreement was signed. POW’s came home. Both sides withdrew. South Viet Nam started to recover from the war. North Viet Nam rebuilt it’s Army. In 1975 they attacked with fourteen divisions from Cambia, Laos, and North Viet Nam. South Viet Nam asked the US for air support, the request was denied despite our promise in the peace agreement. This caused the South Vietnamese Government to panic, and the war was lost. The general opinion is that South Viet Nam could have held with air support and quite possibly without it if they had not panicked.



Collateral Damage

Negotiations had started early in the war. They preliminary negotiations stalled. The North Vietnamese insisted that they and the Viet Cong be separate parties and negotiate with US only. Accepting this would deny that the US was helping a sovereign government against foreign attack. The US insisted that the US and South Viet Nam be separate parities and negotiate with North Viet Nam only. Accepting this would deny that the Viet Cong was an indigenous uprising. Every so often one side would make a proposal that the other found unacceptable, which had an annexed diagram for a table, about the least important part of the proposal. The press only reported on the shape of the table. (After the war North Viet Nam’s military published in their professional journals a number of “how we won articles” that make it clear that the Viet Cong was always an instrument of North Vietnamese policy and never an indigenous movement or independent organization.) After the Tet offensive President Johnson to proposed a plan that sidestepped the issue by ignoring it, thus doing nothing to advance the negotiations or produce peace; and got the North Vietnamese to agree to the proposal by stopping the bombing. Both of which Johnson also believed would help a in the 1968 elections.

The Cold War stand off with the Soviet Union resulted in a de facto policy of what was called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) though it always seemed to me that something like Massively Asinine Dumbness would be a better name. A central concern was to prevent an escalation of violence to the point where nuclear weapons were used. This concern had a major impact on US military policy during the war. On one hand President Johnson considered a withdrawal or defeat as politically unacceptable. On the other hand the question he asked was how to prevent escalation, not how to end the thing. As a result the Johnson kept the war in “maintenance mode” with no purpose or end in sight. Maybe earlier in the war there was no way to end it without unacceptable escalation, maybe not, but the “no escalation” groupthink prevented serious consideration of how to end the war.

The press’s “investigative reporting” of the My Lai massacre broke the story two weeks after an Article 32 board returned an indictment. Article 32 Board are open hearings, normally that would follow an investigation that would take at least a year. It developed that there had been a few small incidents like this, the Army and Marines investigating and prosecuting whenever there was evidence to convict. The press usually knew about these but did not report them until after the My Lai incident.

Unlike most of today’s news persons, the main news teams in New York had been covering wars since WWII and were usually pretty good military analysts in their own right. In addition to his confidence building style Walter Cronkite of CBS news was one of the best. It is hard to imagine when he made that report from a studio in Saigon, with borrowed fatigues and helmet that he did not understand the actual situation.


Thousands of Vietnamese “boat People” came the US at the fall of South Viet Nam. (Many got on boats and sailed to US ships thus the term.) Later, in response to the communists “reeducation” polices there was a mass emigration from Viet Nam by boat, it was clear if the President ordered the navy to pick them up he would have major confrontation in Congress he could not win, so the Navy was ordered not pick them up, even if the boat was not seaworthy and sinking.


Summation

At a conference after the war a (North) Vietnamese Colonel was asked about the North Vietnamese Army never wining a significant battle against the US military. He responded

“So what.”




---------------------------------------------------------------


Additional Reading

I wanted to add some more links and hypertext the main post, but

that day that dreaded day

is here. These will have to do.



Hanks Eclectic Meanderings

Maothought or Who is Winning
My summery of Mao’s three phase guerilla war theory.


Wikipedia

Viet Nam War
Tet offensive


South Vietnamese

Viet Quoc
The TET ’68 Offensive
MORE ABOUT THE 1968 TET OFFENSIVE
THE HANOI'S 300,000 MIA'S
Why We Lost South Vietnam?

National Congress of Vietnamese Americans

Some Vietnam War Issues Revisited: The Role Played By ARVN

Commonwealth

Digger History (The Tet Offensive 1968)
BBC report 31 January 1968


North Vietnamese

CNN: Interview with General Giap
Tran Van Tra's comments on Tet '68
How North Vietnam Won The War


US Army Center for Military History Published material – Viet Nam

Named Campaigns Viet Nam

AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY VOLUME II THE UNITED STATES ARMY IN A GLOBAL ERA, 1917-2003
Chapter 10. THE U.S. ARMY IN VIETNAM: BACKGROUND, BUILDUP, AND OPERATIONS, 1950-1967
Chapter 11 THE U.S. ARMY IN VIETNAM: FROM TET TO THE FINAL WITHDRAWAL, 1968-1975



VIETNAM STUDIES RIVERINE OPERATIONS 1966-1969

Chapter 9 Tet Offensive of 1968 and U.S. Reaction




Myths

Myths

Who Owns the Viet Nam War


The History Place

Time line thru 1968
Time line from 1969


International Socialist Review
Tet: Turning point in the Vietnam War

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Election 2008 Overview

It looks like Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and McCain will win the Republican nomination.


I took the rolling poll tracking data for the for the candidates at Rassmusen Reports and copied them into a spread sheet starting from December First. I averaged the results for each day with an average of the previous ten days. (The entry for the tenth is an average of the first to the tenth, the entry for the eleventh is an average of the second to the eleventh) This smoothes the results eliminating minor day to day variances in public opinion or errors in a particular days samplings. The disadvantage of this method is it is not very sensitive to the last several day’s results. (I am not reproducing the data because Rasmussen will be happy to sell you similar data, more professionally done.) Of course individual primaries and caucuses will not accurately reflect the national average and may be more important in the actual nomination.


On the Democratic side Clinton has been holding at the high thirties nationally. Obama is in the low very high twenties low thirties and Edwards in the Low twenties. These numbers are stable for a month and a half. I suspect she will win the Democratic nomination. The question is how much anti-Clinton sentiment there is in the undecided and Edwards supporters. Normally you would expect them split between Clinton and Obama proportionally, but there is too much Clinton angst to make that a safe bet.

I don’t see much in any of them to vote for. As is often pointed out that the so-called Neo-conservatives are not actual conservatives. They rebelled from the main stream of the left because they saw those policies as morally and intellectually bankrupt. Though their ideas are much better than the main stream left they are not really conservative. Left Wing Lite so to speak. Most of what got President Bush in trouble in Iraq and domestically came from the baggage they brought with them to Bush's coalition. The thought of going from Left Wing Lite to the high calorie version does not seem exciting.

In the 2000 Presidential debates Al Gore said he thought Nation Building was a good policy for the US military. This was reflecting the traditional Wilsonian ideas. Bush disagreed. The US should only use it's armed forces to protect our vital interests. Iraq is basically a Nation Building project, justified by the Bush Administration as response to Nine Eleven. This was the result of the Neocon’s increased influence after Nine Eleven. It may not have been Iraq, but Gore would have had much less inhibition to getting us into similar activities even without Nine Eleven. I see no reason to assume a new Democratic administration would not continue the traditional Democratic military policy.If you thought Iraq was fun - Vote Democratic.





The Republican side is more interesting.

Giuliani, the long time expected Republican nominee is doing a nosedive. Every three or four days since December First he has been losing a percentage point If this continues he will be in negative numbers in late February. None the less the perceptive Anchoress gives him her Endorsement:

It is easy to forget, particularly if you did not live in New York in the months following 9/11, that Rudy Giuliani went to the wakes or funerals of nearly every lost cop and firefighter in the city, sometimes going from one funeral to the next in a single day. He even walked a bride down the aisle, after she’d lost her firefighter father and brother. He was tremendous and authentic, and he showed courage, commitment and leadership.

She is right, he is the best leader in a crisis of all the candidates, but I am not at all sure what direction he will lead in the more normal affairs of government. He is not at all solid on social conservative or fiscal issues, issues that need solid leadership in directions he does not support.



Romney has been climbing slowly to the low twenties and holding. Thompson is steady at ten to twelve percent. I think they have found their level and will not go anywhere, assuming none of the other candidates does something stupid. These would both be reasonable Presidents but I am not sure they are enough of a candidate to win. Romney may be able to position himself with enough recognition that he will be a much better candidate in 2012 or 2016. The more I see of Thompson the more I like him, but at a steady ten to twelve percent he not going anywhere.



Huckabee has been doing a slow gain picking up a net of about fifteen points from a starting point of twelve percent. He has been doing a good job of bringing some very disappointed social conservatives into the process. I think the real question is can he deliver them to whomever is the candidate the Republicans nominate. The Republicans can’t win with out this support. The biggest problem was nicely summed up by Peggy Noonan.

From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture.

They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs.

They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues--taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia--and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect.

But there are two problems. One is that while the presidency, as an office, can actually make real changes in the areas of economic and foreign policy, the federal government has a limited ability to change the culture of America. That is something conservatives used to know. Second, I'm sorry to say it is my sense that Mr. Huckabee is not so much leading a movement as riding a wave. One senses he brilliantly discerned and pursued an underserved part of the voting demographic, and went for it.



John McCain was down to the low teens in mid December and has been sky rocketing up ever since. I think this reflects that in addition to his strong base at about his minimum in December, but he also is an acceptable candidate to the undecided and acceptable as a second or third choice of the Republicans who support other candidates and acceptable to independents in the general election. But with that much soft support it is easy to stumble.

El Jefe of the The Kingdom of Chaos calls John McCain the the Most Viable Conservative.

So convince me, people. I'll go with the most viable conservative. McCain's voting record in Congress is in general conservative, and he can win. Show me somebody else who can win. Show me somebody else as persistent. Think on something else: McCain could have been anointed -- walked into this nomination if he wanted -- all he had to do was back-off a bunch of stands that have irritated the Hell out of a lot of us. Okay, most of us on the conversative side of things disagree with his stands. But he made them anyway. He didn't maneuver for advantage, when it was clearly in his interest to do so. He did his duty as he saw it. Show me somebody else, who -- at such great political cost to himself: stands up for what he thinks . . .


Gerald of the The Cafeteria is Closed quotes Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame University on McCain’s prolife record. He may actually be stronger on social conservativism in practice than Huckabee.

Of the remaining pro-life Republicans, none can match McCain’s record of opposing abortion. He has served in Congress for 24 years, and cast a lot of votes on abortion legislation during that time. His record is not merely exemplary — it is perfect. McCain’s votes on abortion really could not be better. A campaign advertisement in South Carolina says of John McCain: “Pro-life. Not just recently. Always. Never wavering.” The ad is true....Twenty-four years of service at the national level — almost all of them in the Senate — make a big difference when we are talking about the next President, compared to candidates who have been small-state governors. There is no need to speculate or to rely upon promises or take matters on faith when it comes to McCain and abortion. He has demonstrated himself to be the best pro-life choice.


Identifying the best presidential pro-life candidate is very largely about judges, as well as particular issues. The next president is likely to (no one can say for sure, of course) have a couple of vacancies on the Supreme Court to fill. Given the Court’s present makeup and who is likely to be replaced, these two nominations will either tip the balance against Roe, or confirm it once again for a whole generation. For if the Court revisits the question of Roe’s basic validity in, say, 2010, it will not do so again for a very long time.(The last time was Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992.) McCain’s “model” of a Supreme Court Justice are — he has said — Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.I mentioned a recent South Carolina advertisement about McCain’s pro-life voting record. As good as that record is, the ad contained still more powerful evidence of his pro-life convictions. This part of the ad shows Cindy McCain walking beside a diminutive Catholic nun. Mrs. McCain is holding an infant in her arms. It is (the ad text says) “little Bridget, a baby she and John adopted in 1993 from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. Bridget has been a great blessing to the McCain family.”



McCain seems to be the best (or least worse) of the candidates. However I am not entirely happy with him. The McCain Finegold Act denies freedom of speech, but nothing like the so called hate speech laws advocated by the Democrats; those parts of the act should be repealed or ruled unconstitutional. His grandstanding on torture with proposed legislation that was so poorly written that it could increase the use of torture was disappointing. (The link is my post.)

He is the best the candidate that’s running, but I think I will keep my old endorsement until I accommodate myself to reality.


Update 8 PM,Jan 19, 2008: I corrected some grammer errors and rewrote some text that was not clear. I shouldn't post after midnight.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Democracy and Peace in a Unipolar World

Read the papers, watch the news, visit the news sites. The world is becoming less peaceful. Right??

Not!


Noted Political Scientists Daniel W. Dezner and R.J. Rummel recently commented on
The first Human Security Report which documents a dramatic, but largely unknown, decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuse over the past decade. Published by Oxford University Press, the Report argues that the single most compelling explanation for these changes is found in the unprecedented upsurge of international activism, spearheaded by the UN, which took place in the wake of the Cold War. [Introduction to the report]


Wars 1946 to 2004


Drezner summarizes the data:


The number of genocides and politicides plummeted by 80% between 1988 and 2001.
The number of armed conflicts around the world has declined by more than 40% since the early 1990s.
International crises, often harbingers of war, declined by more than 70% between 1981 and 2001.
The number of refugees dropped by some 45% between 1992 and 2003, as more and more wars came toan end.
The period since the end of World War II is the longest interval of uninterrupted peace between the major powers in hundreds of years.
The number of actual and attempted military coups has been declining for more than 40 years. In 1963 there were 25 coups and attempted coups around the world, the highest number in the post–World War II period. In 2004 there were only 10 coup attempts--a 60% decline. All of them failed. [I've touched on this point before as well--DD.]


Naturally, they offer different explanations for this good fortune.

Neither of then sees the "single most compelling explanation for these changes is found in the unprecedented upsurge of international activism, spearheaded by the UN, which took place in the wake of the Cold War." which the authors of the report claim, perhaps in defererence to funders of the report. The UN is a membeship organization. When the significant members decide to use it as the spearhead for activitism, much can be accomplished, otherwise UN activitism is so much empty motion at best.


Drezner sees this resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and resulting uni-polar international system.

I think the largest factor was the fall of the USSR. The lack of a rival superpower to the US means there is little point in powerful nations fomenting wars on the periphery of the rival superpower. The fall of the USSR made the containment and ultimate removal of Saddam Hussein possible, either of which would have been unthinkable before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The USSR would have backed Hussein, who was their client. That would have been that.

The second major change is the forming of the EU. More precisely the alliance formed by formerly vicious enemies France and Germany. The border over which both world wars started this century now doesn't even have passport control.

The major powers seem to be comporting themselves with restraint and reason today. Look at China or France. Both are adversaries and major trading partners of the US. Neither is fomenting wars designed to hurt the US or it's neighbors. The US returns the favor.



Rummel sees this as further proof to the Democratic Peace thesis, that democracies do not or very seldom go to war with each other.

[He says] look at the charts . . . for the growth in democracies in comparison to the great decline in violence.

 democracies 1946 to 2004



As the number of democracies increase over the 58 years, they reach a tipping point in 1992 where armed conflict then steeply decline.

I predicted that a decline would occur with this growth of democracies in my 1979 book on War, Power, Peace (link here). For additional evidence of this decline and a related Q and A, see my democratic peace clock (link here) and my blog “Democracies Increase and Ipso Facto, World Violence Declines” (link here) chastising commentators for missing this. Yes, yes, I know, correlation does not prove causation. But, if there is a solid theory, consistent replications, and complimentary evidence, then it is no longer a working hypothesis, but fact. In sum, there is a sharp decline in internal and foreign violence worldwide, and the best explanation for this is the growth the number of democracies. This decline provides more evidence of the power for peace of the democratic peace.




These two ideas do not necessarily disagree with each other. Dezner is looking at proximate causes and Rummel at underlying causes. The break up of the Soviet Union created a number of new states, while many of these are in a transitional stage to democracy rather than democracies it is a move in the right direction. Also with out the threat of the Soviet Union the US became less tolerant of dealing with authoritarian regimes resulting in pressure to reform. The fact that it was the democratic West that one the Cold War provides an endorsement that democracy works.

This is good news. the same conclusions have been published in a number of places but they just are not as exciting as a good war for news coverage. Is the trend certain to continue, no, but it looks good. Peace is more a goal than a default status. It takes constant effort maintain a situation that promotes peace ( a democratic peace) or at least inhibits the chances of war (a balance of power.)



NOTE: The Human Security Report, is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the governments of Canada, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, and the U.K. it was formerly located at the Universityof British Columbia and recently relocated at Simon Fraisier University in Canada.

The graphics are from Rummel's website.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Imagine

John Lennon’s song Imagine proves he is a much better song writer than a philosopher. He sings:

Imagine all the people
living life in peace

. . .

You may say I’m a dreamer,
but I’m not the only one,


Well R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science is imagining peace with good science and hard data rather then poor philosophy and dreams.

His life professional work was uncovering the root causes of war, and Democide which is detailed on his Power Kills web site. His major thesis is that the incidence of war and governmental mass goes down with the level of actual democracy in a country.

This week on his blog Freedoms Peace he has two here and here posts about visualizing (or imaginings) this concept graphically.

regression”
This regression analysis chart shows that as freedom (x axis) increases, insecurity decreases.

A major thesis of Dr Rummel’s is the Democratic Peace - that genuinely democratic countries do not go to war with each other. (Andrew Cory at at Dean’s World provides a good short summary.) A while back I checked the data on Rummel’s web site. If one takes the strictest definition of democracy his data showed a statistical 99% confidence level for this thesis. (Actually no exceptions is 100% but I would leave room for some weird case coming up.) Depending how much doubt one would accept for the borderline cases it would be a 90 to 95% confidence level. Political Science is a social science; this level of confidence is very atypical. His data agrees with what I know and could verify on the subject. While I do not have his fondness for categorical statements, I would have to consider the Democratic Peace thesis as well established as anything in the Social Sciences and better than most.


It seems that John Lennon might have got something right.


NOTE: I decided I did not like some of my word choices and edited it, The point is the same. 07/21/05
Copyright 2004-2012 - All rights reserved. All opnions are mine, except comments or quoted material - who else would want them. Site Meter