ddw@cornell.UUCP (David Wright) (08/06/83)
From: ddw (David Wright)
To: net-politics
Arrgghhh! How long do political myths last? Here we have Daniel Cobb
(orca!danc) flaming about Democratic isolationism in the face of the USSR
and how this caused us to "lose in Vietnam". (His article was nominally
on the differences between Democrats and Republicans but actually about
Vietnam and Central America, as is this reply.) [Numerous errors in
spelling, punctuation, etc. from Cobb's submission corrected and missing
words inserted.]
And when the domino theory proved correct with the loss of Cambodia and
Laos, they pretended again not to notice. There was no revenge taken by
those who warned us of the consequences, but the Democratic Party was silent.
This is a fine example of putting the cart before the horse. It is far from
clear that Cambodia and Laos would have fallen if not for the US. This is
particularly true in the case of Cambodia, which was doing all right until
the B-52's started bombing the hell out of it, and Sihanouk was forced out
and replaced by the hapless Lon Nol. In fact, it's been argued that the
slaughter of the population by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was simply getting
a jump on something that would have happened anyway due to the enormous
devastation of Cambodian cropland by US B-52's. (I hate to say "us" or
"our side" since I'd rather not identify with the incompetents who ran
the war.) Not that this justifies the Khmer Rouge, but it does show the
state to which Cambodia had been reduced.
Now, a quotation from "War and Politics" by Bernard Brodie (I strongly
recommend this book):
"To return now to the specific application of the 'domino theory' to the
situation in 1964, we must note, first, that it required a good deal of
presumption about the infallibility of one's predictions -- especially
on the part of people who were unaware even of their ignorance on the
role that Peking was playing in Hanoi's decisions -- to predict that if
South Vietnam fell to the Communists, states X, Y, and Z would also
inevitably fall; X, Y, and Z often being filled in by the names of nations
rather far away. That South Vietnam itself was going to fall was fairly
obvious in 1964 and early 1965 -- for reasons that should have argued
strongly \against/ our intervention, that is, that the government was
collapsing out of its own inadequacy. That Laos would then go too was
also a pretty safe prediction, but Laos contains only about 3 million of
the most primitive people in Indochina. Cambodia at that time was under
Prince Norodom Sihanouk, who had made some shrewd accomodations to the
Communists and it was not at all necessary to write him off. No doubt
the basic consideration was that Ho Chi Minh's regime was quite demonstrably
inspired far more by the nationalistic urge to achieve the reunification
of an independent Vietnam than by a desire to spread Communism abroad.
Their slogans for resistance to American 'imperialism' had to be primarily
nationalistic rather than Communist, or they would never have elicited
such sacrifies from their people. And if it be argued that this betokened
merely a cynical displacement of symbols, one would have to explain why,
if it were a war primarily to spread Communism, the Chinese did not play
a bigger role in it, especially in terms of sharing the awful rate of
casualties."
Back to Cobb:
And now the Soviets or their proxies are in Central America, where the
strategic threat is real and certain, and the Democrats are screaming about
another Vietnam. THEIR Vietnam. It is simply by refusing to fully face
the issue and support positive action, that they insure another Vietnam.
It's hard to see that we're more threatened by a Soviet presence in Nicaragua
than we are by one in Cuba, which is after all closer to the U.S. I'm not
happy with the way things have been going in Nicaragua lately (further left
all the time) but they feel under the gun (ours) and who else is going to
back them up except the USSR or its proxies? Civil liberties do not thrive
in times of war, and that includes this country. In El Salvador and Guatemala,
there are two sides, neither wearing white hats, and particularly in the
former we've boxed ourselves into a situation where we're supporting the
side that \might/ hang on, whereas if we'd stayed neutral or backed the other
side our situation would be better (the government of El Salvador wouldn't
last twenty minutes if we were backing the guerillas). My point is not that
there's anything we should be doing differently, just that we've gotten our-
selves into another fine mess that we may not have a good way out of.
Some don't understand what our strategic interests are in Central America.
The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries currently maintain a military
force level in Europe that is nearly 3 times the force levels maintained
by NATO.
I've seen this claim before; it depends heavily on how you figure things. For
example, the manpower levels of NATO and the Warsaw Pact are about the same,
or NATO may be a bit ahead.
Their numbers of tanks and heavy artillery pieces far exceed ours.
They maintain these levels at the expense of their people (because of the
staggering costs involved) and without justification, because they are
far more than what is required for defensive purposes.
Oh, yeah? By whose judgement? Yours? Maybe their equipment is terrible and
they figure they need a lot of it because it breaks down all the time.
If war did break out in Europe, NATO forces would need immediate resupply
from the US. This resupply would take place from the East Coast, which is
well within reach of Carribean Basin warplanes. Even if their effort to
interrupt the supply was only partially successful, there could be
disastrous consequences in Europe. The same scenario could occur in the
Middle East for our Rapid Deployment Forces, because they are planned to
be resupplied in the same way.
As mentioned above, Cuba is more of a threat here than Nicaragua. And what
do you propose we do? Invade Cuba? Blockade Nicaragua? (This last is a
lot harder than blockading Cuba, since Nicaragua is not an island, and in
any event it's a lot harder to justify.)
The strategic threat here is real and obvious, and yet the Democrats sit
by, mumbling Vietnam.
Which is a good thing to do. Are we getting involved in a war that we cannot
win? If so, the best thing to do is cut our losses and get out.
To return to the nominal subject of this note, it's difficult to say that
either party has been particularly stationary with respect to the USSR.
It was a Democratic administration that sent in the troops in Korea and in
Vietnam. Eisenhower did not send troops into Vietnam (for reasons upon
which we can only speculate; there are as many theories as there are
commentators).
To close with an anecdote:
During McNamara's tenure as Secretary of Defense, one of his pet
projects (didn't get funded) was a large landing craft that could discharge
vast amounts of equipment fast. Someone sourly commented at the time
that the trouble with this kind of "go anywhere, do anything" equipment
is that the owners develop a tendency to start going places and doing
things.
David Wright
UUCP: {vax135|decvax|ihnss}!cornell!ddw
ARPA: ddw.cornell@udel-relay
CSnet,ARPA: ddw@cornelldanc@orca.UUCP (Daniel Cobb) (08/08/83)
David: The format of your response was interesting in that you give the appearance of countering most of my arguments, but if one reads on, I have to say, that I feel your counter-arguments are absurd. Before I respond though, I would like to thank you of so graciously editing my text, as I barely have the time for this. How can you possibly justify the actions of the Khremer Rouge? You say they were simply "getting the jump" on something that would have happened anyway, due to the "enormous devastation of cropland by US B-52s". Using your logic, anyones death can be justified, since they are bound to die sooner or later. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHAT???????????? You say that since Cuba is already a threat and it is closer than El Salvador, why worry about El Salvador, or Central America. Obviously, David, the idea is to contain the problem. And when Central America is "liberated", and the government of Mexico is on the verge of collapse, will you just write that nation and it's people off too? It seems that you do not comprehend the magnitude of the problem. Cuba is a thorn that we simply have to live with. Obviously I am not in favor of overthrowing any government, but that does not mean that we should simply give Central America to the Communists. That would severely threaten the security interests of our country, as well as Europe and the Middle East for reasons I've already given. Again, your logic is incredible. You said that the Soviet and Pact countries might need 3 times as much military ordinance/equipment as compared to NATO because of an (assumed) high failure rate of their equipment. Again, that is ludicrous. If that were the case, they would obviously endeavor to improve the reliability of their equipment, rather than spend more to field a whole lot of junk. And if war does break out, we will all be praying that indeed, their equipment is made out of silly puddy. You have obviously have your right to your opinion and I do find it interesting, but I sure disagree. BRAVO!!!!!!!! RABBIT, FOR AN INFORMED AND REFRESHING CONTRIBUTION!!!!!!!
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/09/83)
============================== Obviously I am not in favor of overthrowing any government, but that does not mean that we should simply give Central America to the Communists. That would severely threaten the security interests of our country, as well as Europe and the Middle East for reasons I've already given. ============================== If you are not in favour of "giving Central America to the Communists", how can you support military intervention in favour of the dictators instead of the peasants. If the peasants supported the USA, the Communists wouldn't have a hope in hell of taking over Central America. With the present policies, they are being handed the region on a silver platter. Eisenhower/Kennedy gave Cuba to the Russians at the Bay of Pigs to start off the whole sorry affair, and successive Presidents supported by the CIA have continued it until there seems little hope left. I sometimes wonder if Reagan is being paid by the Kremlin, or whether he does it out of the goodness of his kind heart. Martin Taylor
tim@unc.UUCP (08/10/83)
The insistence that the problems of Central America are imported
from the Soviet Union is at variance with the feelings of many experts
who have studied the region. It seems most likely that the problems
are domestic. The Soviets ARE supporting Communists there, it is
true, but we are supporting Fascists and plutocrats. (I use both
terms literally.) There is no indication that the problems have their
origin with either of us. American intervention can only lead to
increased Soviet support in the region, as the endangered Communists
there are forced to turn more and more to outside aid in order to stay
afloat. Thus we are creating the situation we fear, just as we did in
Vietnam by building up the North Vietnamese.
The Soviet Union is without doubt a repressive dictatorship and a
vastly inferior country to the United States, but this isn't a Western
in which all bad guys wear black hats and cause all the trouble.
Reagan is a fanatical anti-Soviet, and sees their influence everywhere
that he sees anything bad, much as Christians blame the devil for all
the problems of the world. Such an overly-simplistic foreign policy
can only lead to disaster.
___________
Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill