Invariably, the terms offered during negotiations after fighting has broken
out and the costs have become clear are worse than those offered initially.
And so it was in Viet Nam: in 1953, the terms offered to the French were far less
attractive than those offered at the start of the civil war in 1950.
If you were the parents or wife or lover of a young soldier who died
in the civil conflict before 1953--- would a monument ease your sense
of lost?
There is a magnificent
monument to Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi. Isn't it beautiful?
You should read about Viet Nam in the 1940's and 50's and 60's, and the
wars, and the betrayals, and the genocides, and the Vietnamese intervention
in Cambodia to put a stop the Khmer Rouge, and then the Chinese putting a
stop to the Vietnamese... you should look at the monument and
contemplate it's stolid quiet complacency, the almost zen-like beauty of
it's ghostly visage against the horizon, and you will see history. You will see
the millions of shattered and destroyed lives, the starvations, the
tortures, the explosions and fires, the bombs and bayonets, the rivers of
blood-- there they all are, asleep, anesthetized, dreaming of the lives they
might have lived, were it not for the grand mission of history embalmed in
the monument by the name of a general or king or president for life...
in this case, a dried up old corpse named Ho Chi Minh.
The Japanese took Viet Nam away from France during
World War II. At the end of the war, France-- it's manhood seriously
in doubt, I suppose-- tried to take it back. To do this-- believe it
or not-- they accepted the assistance of some Japanese forces that had yet
to be repatriated. You can't make this stuff up.
Let's go back a
little further: history is incredibly rich in instructive detail about
empires and irony.
The French chose sides in a
long-standing civil war in Viet Nam, which had it's roots in the 1850's.
Eventually, the French and their proxies simply elbowed aside the natives
and took over. Why?
History books simply tell you that the French "took control" as if there was
something logical and reasonable about a European Nation walking into a
foreign country on the other side of globe and taking control. It's
ours now. Your wealth will now flow into our pockets. You are
now working for us.
With the defeat by Nazi Germany, France lost control of their colonies, to the
Japanese. During the Japanese occupation, Ho Chi Minh agitated for a
end to any foreign domination, and formed a guerrilla movement. When
the Japanese were defeated, Ho proclaimed an independent Viet Nam.
That seemed an insanely rational thing to do.
The French, deeply moved by the sad experience of being occupied by an
evil foreign power, congratulated them and moved on.
Hoo hah! Did you believe that even for a second? No, France
said, not so fast. They offered a
puppet state to Ho; he declined.
It was the French and the Americans who
defied rationality. The French decided to try to take Viet Nam back,
as if they had some sacred title deed to the nation. After the
negotiations failed the French moved their armies in. A little cheesy,
you might think. Having been soundly defeated by the Germans and
restored to power by the Americans and British, they go marching into Viet
Nam all bluster and courage and medals and parades. In fact,
General Gracie, the British commander, allowed the Japanese to be re-armed
in order to help the French retake Viet Nam from the Viet Minh!
Here
is the fork of history-- how many lives would have been saved if the French
had simply admitted that they didn't belong there in the first place, and if
they had simply congratulated Viet Nam on their independence and moved on?
Where would we be today? How many French, Americans, and Vietnamese,
and Cambodians, and Laotians, would be alive and well and perhaps even
prosperous today, if some asshole Frenchmen had not decided that it would do
France's honor some good if it could bully some Asians into submission?
What they wanted, I believe, was the rubber.
Let's not be overly simplistic-- the communist government in the North
were no saints; they destroyed the economy and caused famine into the
1950's. Russia and China interfered, using them for their own
purposes. But the decisive matter is this: Viet Nam resisted both the
French and the Americans because they wanted independence, and once the
French and then the Americans were gone, they turned on the Chinese and the
Russians and did just what they said they would do originally: take control
of their own nation. Had the French departed in 1950 as they should
have, they would have learned their lessons about management of the economy
much sooner. The moderates would also not have been driven from all
levels of government the way they were when civil war broke out.
The Americans, we are told in one documentary, confronted Chinese troops
in Korea, which led them to believe that communist China must be
"contained". The glib voice doesn't tell us how the Chinese came to be
involved in Korea, of the arrogance of McArthur, and the diplomatic
bungling, or the hubris of the allies. (China wanted to stay out, but
the Americans blundered into the border areas in order to crush the
North Koreans. China warned the U.S. that they had an interest in who
occupied the towns near or on their borders-- the U.S. ignored the warnings and were
completely taken by surprise by the Chinese attack.
So the French, in order to cut off a possible Viet Minh initiative into
Laos, moved about 10,000 troops into a valley in North Western Viet Nam
called Dien Bien Phu. Comments on Youtube in response to a documentary
on Dien Bien Phu rhapsodize about the honor and courage of those 10,000
French. Maybe. What is courage, when placed in the service of
foolishness and pride? The French built an airstrip and fortifications
and promptly found themselves surrounded by 50,000 Viet Minh.
Even the possibility of retreat had been excised.
In early stages of the battle, the Viet Minh lost 10,000 casualties to
1,700 French. At that rate, you might think the French might
eventually win.
But all the lessons the U.S.
later took 13 years to learn were in full expression at Dien Bien Phu already in 1954.
- technological superiority may not prevail
- the determination of the enemy should not be underestimated
- an enemy with a deep and abiding knowledge of the terrain and culture will drive you
crazy
- a war should never be about settling scores or proving your manhood
or making points: what, really, was the French interest in Indochina?
- the full support of the nation is required for a long, drawn-out conflict
- God knows that you are sacrificing the lives of others. God knows that you
asked others to risk what you yourself would never risk for anyone: your life. God knows
that you were blinded by self-interest when you assessed the relative risks and
benefits of the military actions you commanded.
How many of these lessons still apply to Iraq? They almost certainly apply to Afghanistan
which, after 10 years of occupation, shows no sign of pacification.
All Contents Copyright
© Bill Van Dyk
2010 All Rights Reserved
Font: Verdana
