The Vietnam nightmare
By Charles A. Morse
web
posted May 14, 2001
The avoidance of "entangling alliances," was the centerpiece of American foreign policy tracing back to Washington's 1796 farewell address. In the 20th century, that policy was replaced by our participation in two World Wars under the pretext of defending the sovereignty of small nations from the aggression of imperialistic stronger neighbors. America went to war as a moral imperative. We were told, and believed, that we were protecting the freedom of others, and by so doing, honoring the freedom that we have been blessed with. We were not motivated by conquest or gain of any kind, and, in fact, our involvement came at a frightful cost in lives and treasure.
The same moral impulse imbued our involvement in the Vietnam War in the early stages. The majority of Americans were, at first, in favor of supporting South Vietnam from the brutal aggression of a left-wing, Soviet backed, communist force which sought to impose its iron will through military might and subversion. Our support, entirely moral and quite selfless, was driven by the same high ideals as our support for, as an example, Poland in it's defense against the National Socialist aggression of Hitler. In both cases we were on the side of freedom and liberty, helping a weak ally face down a socialist enemy which sought it's enslavement.
After a couple of years in Vietnam, however, it began to dawn on the American people that our strategy had nothing to do with defeating communism. We were fighting with "one hand tied behind our back" as the saying went at the time. After the Tet offensive of 1968, it became obvious that we had locked ourselves into a no win situation. The American people, overwhelmingly and rightfully, turned against a war that would drag on for a over a decade, result in 60,000 American casualties, and untold wounded and MIA's. The war would empower domestic communism and, finally, would end in a total and humiliating military defeat. In 1975, the communists would sweep into Southeast Asia and conduct, predictably, among other atrocities, a Holocaust in Cambodia. The Marxist Pol Pot was known to carry a copy of the Communist Manifesto in his hip pocket at all times. Vietnam remains amongst one of the world's most repressive left-wing tyrannies.
Who was responsible for the asinine American policy in Vietnam? The rogues gallery of criminals is long and infamous but, for this article, we will focus on one central figure, presidential advisor Walt W. Rostow. Rostow had been denied security clearance for an appointment to the Eisenhower State Department. A State Department investigation, conducted by Otto Otepka, had indicated, among other significant information:
"a long history of close association with a number of individuals who were known to be members of the Communist party. Several of these people had been identified as active Soviet espionage agents."
"The mans father, a native of Russia, had been an active Socialist revolutionary in his homeland...he had continued, ostensibly, as a Socialist activist after migrating to the U.S. in 1905, the year of the abortive Leftist revolt in Russia."
"Air Force Intelligence...flatly declared the man a security risk"
 Johnson and Rustow |
Kennedy would overlook these factors and appoint Rostow special advisor in 1961, where he influenced the Bay of Pigs operation, Vietnam policy, and military disarmament. Rostow would remain with Johnson until 1967.
Rostow was a prolific writer and was quite explicit with regard to his philosophy. In his book "The United States in The World Arena" he wrote:
"It is a legitimate American national objective to see removed from all nations-including the United States-the right to use substantial military force to peruse their own interests. Since this residual right is the right of national sovereignty and the basis for the existence of an international arena of power, it is, therefore, an American interest to see an end to nationhood as it has been historically defined."
Rostow wrote about a "convergence" between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and getting rid of the vocabulary of capitalism vs. communism. Rostow was one of the principle advocates of escalating the troop buildup in Vietnam while at the same time contributing to the "Rules of Engagement" declassified in 1985. These rules insured that we could not win the war. Following are a few fine points:
"US pilots were forbidden to bomb Soviet made SAM missile sites under construction but could risk their lives firing at them after they were fully operational. Pilots and ground forces were not allowed to destroy communist aircraft on the ground but only those armed and dangerous in the air. Truck depots 200 yards from main roads were forbidden targets for American soldiers, but trucks on the road could be attacked. Pilots flying over supply ships with war material on their way to North Vietnam's Haiphong Harbor were ordered to look the other way, even though the weapons on board would be used to kill Americans."
The nightmare of Vietnam was that our policy was rigged from the get
go for us to lose. The result was a weakening of our military, previously
the strongest in the world. Our prestige would be dragged through the
mud as peoples of the world, chafing under the jack-boot of left-wing
socialism, would give up hope of aid from us. Domestic communists, operating
under the fig-leaf of an "anti-war movement," would burn our
cities, trash our colleges, and move us, by their actions, in the direction
of authoritarian Socialism. Our brave young heroes 60,000 of them, would
sacrifice their lives believing that they were fighting for the best American
ideals of freedom and liberty. 
Chuck Morse is the author of Thunder out of Boston which you can buy at Amazon.com.
Other related articles: (open in a new window)
- Necessary
foreign entanglements by Steven Martinovich (March 20, 2000)
Steven Martinovich argues that sometimes it is necessary to get involved in foreign wars, especially if we like having allies