janc (04/06/83)
In my previous article "How to Save the World", I included an aside stating that at least part of the blame for the events in Vietnam after the American withdrawal could be placed on the protesters who put the politicians in a position where no effective peace could be negotiated. I somewhat regret including this in the article, since it distracts from the main point, but I still think it is basically true. Certainly, as Kenneth Almquist says, the politicians are not innocent, but it remains that the protesters demanded immediate withdrawal without ever considering the effects. They got exactly what they asked for. To try to place all the guilt for ensuing events on the politicians seems unrealistic. Other people have pointed out that my analysis is over-simplistic. This is probably true. I'm not an expert on this subject. I'd be interested, however, if someone would be willing to supply a more thorough analysis of what went amiss in the Vietnamese peace negotiations. Certainly, no one is claiming that everything worked out beautifully? Any takers? -- Jan Wolter (uofm-cv!janc) P.S. To avoid confusion, my first name is derived from the name 'Johann', not from 'Janet'. The personal pronoun "he" would be appreciated.