What we support and defend

[carl]

Carl,
That is an impressive load of ideologically fused tripe.

Now is that the judgment by an appeasing propagandist for murderous totalitarian police states of some simple observations and points, the evaluation of the spouting of a card carrying fear monger by a rigorous, nuanced thinker well trained in logic and critical thinking or a combination of both?

Revolutions among populaces where agriculture is the key industry and where land is owned by an elite few tend to respond to a message of land reform wrapped in communism. Revolutions in desert regions where land is moot tend to respond better to religious themes. The challenged establishment always lays blame on the message and the messenger, but the reality is almost always in the codified inequities between the goverened and those who govern, coupled with an absence of trusted, legal and certain means to address those reasonable grievances.

You are so focused on the sizzle that you can't seem to appreciate the steak.

Thank you for the lesson in the etiology of revolutions. I will note it and carefully write it down. Of course, that it doesn't address the points nor the observations I made is not unexpected.

I love steak. I wish I could afford it more often.

[carl]

Self-determination doesn't mean unanimity and it isn't necesarily arrived at through peaceful means.

Ask yourself, honestly... if the British hadn't assured the return of French rule in 1945, or if the Americans had not stepped in after the French defeat and forced the division of Vietnam in 1954... would that not have led to a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem?

Once we'd made the decision to support the French - a very bad decision in my hindsight-equipped opinion - it became more or less inevitable that those who opposed the French were going to seek outside help. I don't see that the legitimacy of their cause would be in any way affected by seeking and receiving that help. Was the American revolution any less legitimate for having received help from France?

Legitimacy, in my view, doesn't come from the takers of power being able to speak the same language as the people they gain power over. It comes from how they treat those people. Mass murder justified by that most pure and legitimate of votes, revolutionary victory, is still mass murder and vitiates any claim to legitimacy.

[Ken White]

When they clash, best solution is just to watch...

However, two minor points. Re: the "...the hard fight the South and anti-communist Vietnamese put up" -- while there were a few Dedicated Infantry Commie Killers in the South who fought hard, the vast majority of southerners did no more than they were forced to do. The so-called "hard fight" was promoted and sustained by the US for our own purposes, initially to boost the US domestic economy. It was all part of Kennedy's disastrous deficit spending and allow inflation economic strategy to break out of the recession. That strategy failed miserably on all counts. On Viet Nam, 'fighting Communism' just served as a cover rationale for the US masses -- and Congress...

Just as Iraq as threat to the US was hype; fighting Communism in Viet Nam and the domino theory were hype. Dayuhan's right, our meddling from Truman on was a bad idea that did little to no good at great cost. Not least because Communism will always die of its own accord unless it is given a tiff in which to get involved and from which to draw sustenance to live a little longer as the nominally Communist leaders hype the 'threat' to their nation.

Secondly, not only the Chinese but the Russians and even our 'friends' the British, French and Israelis among many others spy on us and play cyber games -- as do we upon and with them. Way of the world...

[davidbfpo]

Dayuhan in Post 180 writes:

Ask yourself, honestly... if the British hadn't assured the return of French rule in 1945, or if the Americans had not stepped in after the French defeat and forced the division of Vietnam in 1954... would that not have led to a Vietnamese solution to a Vietnamese problem?

Over the last few years with my irregular reading on post-VJ Day allied military action, including the USMC expedition in Manchuria, I have always been puzzled by the logistics of the period.

I understood that imperial allies such as the British Empire, the Dutch and French after VE Day and VJ Day relied upon American shipping, not only for national survival (food), but also to fight Japan and restore imperial rule. If true and to my knowledge neither France nor the Dutch had large serviceable merchant fleets, maybe not the British, then French and Dutch troops reached Indochina and what is now Indonesia on US ships.

Yes, Roosevelt was again empires and colonialism. Not so sure about Truman.

Just asking if anyone knows.

[carl]

Ken:

That header you wrote made me laugh.

I know you were there and I wasn't and I say this at my peril, but there was just too much hard fighting and too many South Vietnamese casualties for me to not too see some determined, though ultimately futile, resistance to the communists. A lot of it may have been people doing what circumstances forced them to do, but that can be said about most people caught up in war. In my view, it is plain that South Vietnam fought long and hard, though not too well, to keep the communists at bay.

It is true that communist regimes will eventually fail. But I think they fail faster if opposed. That increment of time covered by "faster" means a lot of people not suffering as much as they otherwise would have. And of course, if those regimes are never installed at all, it normally means even less suffering.

Everybody spies on everybody else. That is true. But a difference in degree can be a difference in kind. That is the case with Red China's state sponsored effort to steal everything. The Russkies it seems to me are criminals covered by the state. The Israelis are sort of like the Russkies but on a smaller scale and with a bit more state direction. We spy on the French and they try to figure out what we are going to do. All normal stuff. But what the Red Chinese are up to goes way way way beyond that. The state not only tries to get all the skinny on the F-35 and whatever new sonar the Navy is dreaming up, but the state sponsors stealing whatever new manufacturing process TRW comes up with for brakes or the Blackberry keyboard. This is the biggest spy operation and organized state sponsored and approved theft of intellectual property in the history of the world. What the Red Chinese are up to is unprecedented.

That the Reds would do this shouldn't be a big surprise. Mass murder is a normal part of their behavior so thievery on a behemoth scale isn't such a shock. What gets me is we know it is going on and we don't do anything much about it.

[Bob's World]

David,

You are correct. We will never know what would have happened if Roosevelt would have survived, but it is pretty safe to assume that the Colonial powers would have been denied from reasserting their influence over their former colonies. Not so much because Americans are such great libertarians, but we sure as hell hated the monopolies on trade and the restricted access we had to endure under the colonial system.

I suspect that Roosevelt would also not have bought into the Containment strategy. I suspect he would have been more in alignment with other, far less intrusive and expensive approaches offered by policy thinkers such as Walter Lippmann. But containment is the approach we adopted, and at tremendous cost of treasure and influence it sufficed to avoid a major conflict between the Soviet-led East and the American-led West. But it is long past time to move on. We continue to apply variations of containment as a whole to the globe, and to specific problems as well. We spent years containing Saddam's Iraq. We seek to contain AQ and their ideology in the FATA (which I will never understand), we seek to contain Iranian and Chinese influence within regions that are logically within their spheres of influence. We need to recognize that such spheres can, will and do overlap, and will do so to greater degree and frequency as other regional powers continue to rise and as the brief era of US hegemony fades. This is a return to a much more normal dynamic than what existed during the Cold War. It is a different thing, not a bad thing. What will make it good or bad is how well we adapt to deal with the changes.

What I find myself very frustrated with, however, are the following questions for my fellow Americans:

1. When did the Constitution become irrelevant?

2. When did the Declaration of Independence become inconvenient?

3. When did the thinking of our historic leaders, such as Washington and Lincoln become "illegitimate"?

Inertia is a powerful force, and it is one we are caught up within. The sooner we recognize that the better.
Not

[Fuchs]

I suspect that Roosevelt would also not have bought into the Containment strategy. I suspect he would have been more in alignment with other, far less intrusive and expensive approaches offered by policy thinkers such as Walter Lippmann.

You mean the guy who made sure Imperial Japan was cut off from oil imports?

[Bob's World]

Now is that the judgment by an appeasing propagandist for murderous totalitarian police states of some simple observations and points, the evaluation of the spouting of a card carrying fear monger by a rigorous, nuanced thinker well trained in logic and critical thinking or a combination of both?

Carl, to paraphrase Glenn Campbell, "That's mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man."

If ignorance is bliss, you must be very happy indeed.

[Steve Blair]

You mean the guy who made sure Imperial Japan was cut off from oil imports?

Quite. Ol' FDR was certainly into Containment of a sort. It depended on what his needs were at the time. I think it's more instructive to look at his behavior prior to the outbreak of the war than it is to look at decisions he made prior to Yalta and after. He was fading then, and certainly under sway of his own infallibility.

And I'd caution a couple folks in this thread to please debate issues and not personalities.

David, I tend to think Truman (who was a product of the St. Louis political "machine" if I remember correctly) was more concerned with domestic issues and didn't know much about foreign policy (a fairly common thing for many Democratic presidents). He tended to react in the foreign policy area, and was perhaps too dependent on his advisers (who were often FDR appointees). He was also concerned with appearing "weak," and thus would react to Republican accusations of weakness with perhaps more force than was necessary.

[Bob's World]

You mean the guy who made sure Imperial Japan was cut off from oil imports?

Yeah, that guy. Clearly no one was containing Japan in that era. No one knows what FDR would have done if he had lived to shape the post-war peace. I only point it out because many seem to think that the Containment strategy was the only option for dealing with the Soviet threat. It was one of many, and while it arguably served it's purpose, it did so great cost to our national ethos and it continues to cloud how we see the world and potential challeges to our interests to this day.

Truman was very practial and direct, and containment on his watch was like the man. When Ike took office containment made a major shift. FDR was a different type of leader, so I suspect he would have logically taken a different type of approach.

[carl]

Carl, to paraphrase Glenn Campbell, "That's mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man."

If ignorance is bliss, you must be very happy indeed.

Actually, it was Robert Duvall, as Lucky Ned Pepper, who said that immediately before John Wayne, as Rooster Cogburn, shot him to pieces. I am glad to see you are referring to the original True Grit. That is one movie they never should have remade.

As for your second comment, I'm hurt that you didn't try harder when insulting me. I feel insulted now.

[carl]

And I'd caution a couple folks in this thread to please debate issues and not personalities.

Yer Honor, I was provoked. And I throw myself upon the the mercy of the court.

[Bob's World]

[QUOTE=carl;138003]

Actually, it was Robert Duvall, as Lucky Ned Pepper, who said that

First thing you've gotten right in this whole exchange. I stand corrected.

[Steve Blair]

Yer Honor, I was provoked. And I throw myself upon the the mercy of the court.

So long as you both stick to debating ideas and not personalities, no court will be called. Strong, informed discussion is good. Mudslinging is not.

[Dayuhan]

I understood that imperial allies such as the British Empire, the Dutch and French after VE Day and VJ Day relied upon American shipping, not only for national survival (food), but also to fight Japan and restore imperial rule. If true and to my knowledge neither France nor the Dutch had large serviceable merchant fleets, maybe not the British, then French and Dutch troops reached Indochina and what is now Indonesia on US ships.

All from memory, don't have the references in front of me, but my recollection is that the Chinese were assigned to accept the Japanese surrender, disarm and repatriate Japanese troops, release POWs, and maintain order in northern Indochina. The British were to do the same in the south. Gen. Douglas Gracey was the British commander in the south, with Indian troops, and he made it immediately clear that he interpreted "maintaining order" as restoration of French rule. Japanese forces were deployed against the Viet Minh, and released French POWs were not repatriated, but armed and assisted in efforts to reassert French control. When French military units arrived they were transported by British ships. You'd think the British might have had other priorities, but apparently the though of a precedent for colonies breaking away was a matter of some concern.

Douglas MacArthur was quoted at the time as follows:

"If there is anything that makes my blood boil it is to see our allies in Indo-China ...deploying Japanese troops to conquer the little people we promised to liberate. It is the most ignoble kind of betrayal."

Of course MacArthur at the time was doing all in his power to assure that the pre-war elite, many of whom had collaborated with the Japanese, were re-established in power in the Philippines, including armed suppression of active anti-Japanese guerrillas who opposed that old feudal order... but I digress.

The charge that the British were responsible for the re-establishment of French rule in Indochina - and thus arguably for the Vietnam War - is supported by a fair bit of history.

Legitimacy, in my view, doesn't come from the takers of power being able to speak the same language as the people they gain power over. It comes from how they treat those people. Mass murder justified by that most pure and legitimate of votes, revolutionary victory, is still mass murder and vitiates any claim to legitimacy.

In actual practice, you get legitimacy by winning.

In most of the post-colonial world, legitimacy was achieved by whoever threw out the hated colonists. That's one place where the US didn't get it... for us it was all about communists vs capitalists, on site is was all about us vs them. In any event your opinion or mine on what's legitimate for China or Vietnam is about as relevant as the opinion of a Vietnamese or Chinese on what's legitimate for the US.

I know you were there and I wasn't and I say this at my peril, but there was just too much hard fighting and too many South Vietnamese casualties for me to not too see some determined, though ultimately futile, resistance to the communists. A lot of it may have been people doing what circumstances forced them to do, but that can be said about most people caught up in war. In my view, it is plain that South Vietnam fought long and hard, though not too well, to keep the communists at bay.

People in many parts of the (including Vietnam) world fought hard and long, many under the banner of communism, against antediluvian dictatorships installed and/or supported by the US in the name of fighting communism. Does that mean neither side was "legitimate"?

It is true that communist regimes will eventually fail. But I think they fail faster if opposed. That increment of time covered by "faster" means a lot of people not suffering as much as they otherwise would have. And of course, if those regimes are never installed at all, it normally means even less suffering.

If "opposed" means fighting a war on someone else's territory, that's going to create a lot of suffering too... and in many cases a government that has to fight for an extended period will be much more brutal about ruling than a government that takes power without extended conflict, because extended conflict tends to bring the harshest elements and those least amenable to compromise into positions of power. The idea that the US should try to determine who is or is not "installed" on the basis of our assumptions about who will or will not be brutal seems fairly flawed to me.

How do you propose that the US "oppose" the few Communist regimes remaining today? We can't afford an arms race and it would likely do us as much harm (or more) as it would to those we propose to oppose. Militarist posturing and rhetoric isn't going to intimidate them and provides abundant propaganda fodder to help them keep their domestic audience in line. What do you propose that the US actually do, particularly as related to RCJ's proposition that a smaller US military is desirable?

[carl]

Dayuhan:

Your right about legitimacy of government, in practice whoever ends up with the guns is legitimate to the world. They get to kill who they want when they want and the world won't do much about it because it is an internal matter. The Kim dynasty and its minions are the legitimate government of North Korea in that sense. Still not legitimate in my starry eyes though. Mass murder vitiates legitimacy. I can't get around that one.

And ultimately the world can't either. When the Kims fall they will be killed or go to the Hague for a nice long trial. The world won't much care about who killed them and how, like the late lamented Muamar, so in that sense the world will have placed them beyond the pale. Nobody much cares when thugs who pretended to be legitimate heads of state get whacked. And the world normally doesn't put legitimate rulers on trail and pay for it.

You imply that what is important is if the Viets or the Chinese think their government is legitimate, not what we think. Superficially that would be the case...but you forget that what the people who live in a totalitarian police state think about the legitimacy of their government doesn't mean a damn thing. Nothing. They think within the bounds set for them or they are in serious-midnight knock, you might be killed serious-trouble.

You said

"People in many parts of the (including Vietnam) world fought hard and long, many under the banner of communism, against antediluvian dictatorships installed and/or supported by the US in the name of fighting communism."

And what they got to replace those antediluvian dictatorships were...wait for it...antediluvian dictatorships that were more adept at politically correct verbiage and mass murder. Some gain. You forgot to mention all those people who fought against the Commies because they disliked the ideology. To bad they lost, they were prescient.

Sorry I was unclear. I didn't mean going to war. Almost always a bad idea. But you can oppose in many different ways speed up the fall of those brutal creaky states. Reagan and the boys did a good job of that.

As far as determining who would be more brutal, history demonstrated that the Commies mostly took the cake, over and over, on that one. Not always, but mostly. So if you wanted to minimize human suffering, the odds favored anti-communism. I think they still do.

[carl]

How do you propose that the US "oppose" the few Communist regimes remaining today? We can't afford an arms race and it would likely do us as much harm (or more) as it would to those we propose to oppose. Militarist posturing and rhetoric isn't going to intimidate them and provides abundant propaganda fodder to help them keep their domestic audience in line. What do you propose that the US actually do, particularly as related to RCJ's proposition that a smaller US military is desirable?

Well there is a long history of how to do it successfully. Among the things to do are speak up when they behave badly. Don't hold them to a lower international standard of behavior because they grouse about how badly they been treated. Stop thinking they are ten feet tall. They screw up more than most and they aren't fearless. That is bluster. They get scared just like everybody else. Remember what Grant learned at the Battle of Belmont (I think it was the Battle of Belmont). Don't let them shove around allies just because people inside the beltway are feeling windy. Don't fool yourself into thinking we can get them to like us short of complete surrender. They will propagandize their people as they please no matter what we do. It is easy to lie when you control the media completely. The most important thing though is to realize communism is a pernicious evil system that has resulted in more human death and suffering than any other. There is no good in that system, only greater and lesser degrees of evil. Realize to that they lie almost always and about everything. All those economic numbers they put out shouldn't be trusted.

There, that's for starters. Who is RCJ? Oh wait I just remembered. Well he thinks we should have a smaller military which would be consistent with the patterns of American history. But there are others who think we shouldn't cut so much. Mr. Jones has some good ideas at times but I don't accept that we should accept that particular one as the unquestioned basis for further discussion.

[Dayuhan]

Still not legitimate in my starry eyes though. Mass murder vitiates legitimacy. I can't get around that one.

Nor in mine, but our opinions don't matter much.

Nobody much cares when thugs who pretended to be legitimate heads of state get whacked. And the world normally doesn't put legitimate rulers on trail and pay for it.

Nor does the world pay much heed to those who oppose the thugs, unless those who oppose the thugs start looking like they might win. Once you lose, you're no longer legitimate.

You imply that what is important is if the Viets or the Chinese think their government is legitimate, not what we think. Superficially that would be the case...but you forget that what the people who live in a totalitarian police state think about the legitimacy of their government doesn't mean a damn thing. Nothing. They think within the bounds set for them or they are in serious-midnight knock, you might be killed serious-trouble.

How did the Soviet Union fall? The Eastern European totalitarian dictatorships? I think you'll find that more Communist states have fallen to internal opposition than to external opposition, and that internal opposition is by far the greatest threat to the few that remain.

And what they got to replace those antediluvian dictatorships were...wait for it...antediluvian dictatorships that were more adept at politically correct verbiage and mass murder. Some gain. You forgot to mention all those people who fought against the Commies because they disliked the ideology. To bad they lost, they were prescient.

You miss the point. In most fights, and especially when you intervene in someone else's fight, what you fight against is usually less important than what you fight for. Opposing Communism by supporting hated and decrepit colonial masters or doddering tinpot dictators was utterly self-defeating; we ended up handing the opposition the mantle of legitimacy and the moral high ground of opposition to what was obviously unsustainable. Of course what they offered proved no better, but at least they offered something.

Sorry I was unclear. I didn't mean going to war. Almost always a bad idea. But you can oppose in many different ways speed up the fall of those brutal creaky states. Reagan and the boys did a good job of that.

The extent to which "Reagan and the boys" brought about the fall of the Soviet Union is I think much overrated: bad decisions on the Soviet side and the fundamental inadequacy of Communist economics had a lot more to do with it.

As far as determining who would be more brutal, history demonstrated that the Commies mostly took the cake, over and over, on that one. Not always, but mostly. So if you wanted to minimize human suffering, the odds favored anti-communism. I think they still do.

Anti-communism in what form? I can't think of a nation on the planet where Communists are seriously threatening to take power through insurgency; that's yesterday's problem. How do you propose to "oppose" the few remaining Communist states in any way that doesn't do as much harm to us as to them, or that doesn't actually help them? Bearing in mind, of course, that the greatest threat to Communist states has typically been internal unrest...

[davidbfpo]

Dayuhan added and edited down:

When French military units arrived they were transported by British ships. You'd think the British might have had other priorities, but apparently the though of a precedent for colonies breaking away was a matter of some concern.

Thank you. Leaving the French aside now. I was stunned to read that the Dutch massively mobilised to enable a large expeditionary force being sent to what is now Indonesia; something like 250k and again I expect US shipping was used.

Now for Douglas MacArthur who was quoted at the time as follows:

If there is anything that makes my blood boil it is to see our allies in Indo-China ...deploying Japanese troops to conquer the little people we promised to liberate. It is the most ignoble kind of betrayal

I am quite an admirer of MacArthur, albeit based on reading one biography. That aside the quote is a classic, no, not as I am an apologist for British decisions in 1945. Rather that in Manchuria the US intervention, with a US Marine Corps, used Japanese troops to secure the railways notably and IIRC fought off Chinese raids.

In Indonesia IIRC the Japanese Army played a very different role, partly as a large number had defected to the local nationalist cause and the bulk had been disarmed. Ironically the British Indian division that was in Saigon went onto Indonesia, where it was involved in some of the heaviest fighting it had seen in the war against the nationalists.

[wm]

It is true that communist regimes will eventually fail. But I think they fail faster if opposed. That increment of time covered by "faster" means a lot of people not suffering as much as they otherwise would have. And of course, if those regimes are never installed at all, it normally means even less suffering.

Maybe a little terminological clarification would help. Communism is an economic theory. Perhaps your point would be better made by referring to totalitarian regimes.

Everybody spies on everybody else. That is true. But a difference in degree can be a difference in kind. That is the case with Red China's state sponsored effort to steal everything. The Russkies it seems to me are criminals covered by the state. The Israelis are sort of like the Russkies but on a smaller scale and with a bit more state direction. We spy on the French and they try to figure out what we are going to do. All normal stuff. But what the Red Chinese are up to goes way way way beyond that. The state not only tries to get all the skinny on the F-35 and whatever new sonar the Navy is dreaming up, but the state sponsors stealing whatever new manufacturing process TRW comes up with for brakes or the Blackberry keyboard. This is the biggest spy operation and organized state sponsored and approved theft of intellectual property in the history of the world. What the Red Chinese are up to is unprecedented.

Everybody does it in the private sector too. Check out these guys . Competitive intelligence is a nice cover phrase for economic or corporate espionage. Although such practices are illegal in the United States, that does not preclude folks in the private sector from conducting "business intelligence" every day. I can't count the number of non-disclosure agreements I've had to sign to protect the proprietary information of companies competing with each other for Defense contracts. You can bet that Boeing, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin are all using competitive intelligence (nice euphemism for "spy on" )to determine what IR&D the other two are working on to get a leg up in winning business from Uncle Sam.
The difference is that in China, the state (since it practices a form of communism) is the holder of the means of production and is, therefore, the company/corporation that is conducting business or competitive intelligence.

That the Reds would do this shouldn't be a big surprise. Mass murder is a normal part of their behavior so thievery on a behemoth scale isn't such a shock. What gets me is we know it is going on and we don't do anything much about it.

How do you feel about this alternative rewrite of your paragraph that could well have been written about a significant "shadow government" that existed in the US in the Prohibition era or almost any time since?

That organized crime/the Mafia would do this shouldn't be a big surprise. Mass thievery is a normal part of their behavior so murder on a behemoth scale isn't such a shock. What gets me is we know it is going on and we don't do anything much about it.