CNAS on the NSP: Echos of El Sal

[jmm99]

After the Fall, Stephen B. Young (a young USAID advisor 1968-1971) included a couple of excerpts in Al Santoli's oral history (here is one at page 48), with bio at page 367. But, very relevant to the present discussion, is his longer excerpt on Village Development, starting at page 209 (some pages are not incuded in the Google snips, but you will get where he was coming from).

His was a more optimistic view of what could have been done than that of the CIA analysts and historians (see recent thread on CIA histories - Vietnam). Not surprisingly, he too advocated a populace-centric approach - ala Alinsky and many others, including JMM (under the right conditions).

Stephen Young went on to a distinguished career (as a lawyer and business consultant) - see bio here in middle of page and .pdf here. He has kept his hand in things Vietnam (e.g., AEI paper here).

Here is a heavy hitter (IMO) who saw a favorable course of action as being "possible" - though his excerpts (from Santoli) did not really get into whether that COA was feasible or probable.

My concerns about feasibility (much less probability) boiled and boils down to several factors which, in my perception, controlled the GVN:

1. Oligarchy - a mix of paternalism, classism, urbanism and family ties, which were very strong and affected all of the other factors.

2. Venality - present in both military and civilian appointments and promotions; nothing close to a meritocracy.

3. Corruption - not only who you knew and who you paid; but also corruption in the larger sense of "power corrupts", etc. - often hidden by use of family members and friends (e.g., mistresses) as middle persons.

4. Close involvement in outright criminal enterprises (following a long Saigon tradition); and "nation-defeating capitalism" (e.g., the shadow supply system and the brass concessions).

5. Conservatism (not in a good sense) by carrying on the military and civilian mentality learned from the French and those who co-operated with them.

6. Very much of a threat-centered policy vs. "enemies" (including not only Coms, but also the nationalists and non-Com socialists) - who were "neutralized" first by Diem and then by the generals.

7. Absence of rural-focused empathy. In short, the GVN from Diem on had no real feelings for the farmers - and they none for the GVN. Thieu was pushed to some rural reforms in 1969-1972 (confirming title in small farmers to some 2-1/2 million acres of land, which BTW had been "given" - with strings - to small farmers by the VM in the 40s and 50s; and then restored to the landlords by Diem).

8. Absence of a cause - other than self-preservation - and, indeed, Diem and the generals were anti-communists (the primary common link with us). The farmers didn't like the communists either; but their other choices had been foreclosed.

To me, all of this seemed too high a mountain to climb, without good feasibility of success in revolutionizing the GVN (which is what would have had to be done).