[Vision2020] Tet Offensive

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Matt,

I tried to find the show tonight at 9, and it wasn't there.  So I did some 
reading about Tet here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_offensive

and browsed through Stanley Karnow's 'Vietnam, a history.'  I think Kai is 
right in that neither the Vietcong nor the NVA could claim a traditional 
military victory after Tet.  But I think they scored a propoganda victory, 
and I don't think that was media's fault or doing.  After years of our 
government claiming we were close to victory, they struck all over South 
Vietnam, even hitting our embassy.  Until Tet, the media went along with 
whatever the government was saying.  Tet changed that, and led to more 
critical reporting.

Ultimately, I think Tet points out some of the problems inherent in wars 
like Vietnam or Iraq: when you end up in the middle of someone else's civil 
war, how do you define victory?  How can you win?  That we had a military 
victory at Tet was not enough in the end.

This is a quote I came across several times in the last couple of months, in 
articles comparing Iraq and Vietnam:

'This brings to mind a story from the Vietnam era, as written up in the 
March-April 2005 Military Review: "While negotiating in Hanoi a few days 
before Saigon fell, U.S. Army Colonel Harry Summers, Jr. [later author of On 
Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War], said to a North 
Vietnamese colonel, ‘You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield.' 
The Vietnamese colonel replied, ‘That may be so, but it is also 
irrelevant.'" '

People often blame the media for the outcome of the Vietnam War.  Would it 
have been right for the media not to cover, for example, the bombing of 
Cambodia?  If Americans and Vietnamese had continued to die without news 
coverage, would that really have changed the outcome or made what we were 
doing right?

I don't think a lesson we should draw from Tet is that the media should not 
cover what is happening.  While I agree that some good things may occur in 
Iraq, I think there's a civil war going on.

Seems to me if you're in the middle of someone else's war, they've got more 
to fight for than we do.  And if you're there for the wrong reason, how do 
you answer the question 'Why are we there?'  If the question can't be 
answered, public support for that war is going to wane.  I don't think that 
question could be answered in Vietnam, and it isn't being answered in Iraq 
either.

I don't think we should crap on the troops sent off to war by politicians 
and generals.  I think when the politicians and generals send off troops for 
no good reason, the leaders deserve to get crapped on.  I think that's what 
they did in Vietnam, and again in Iraq.  They put troops in situations where 
victory might only be reached at a price that is obscene, and the troops pay 
for it first, and then the nation as a whole.  They owe the people an answer 
about what they're doing and why.

Today the question is 'What do we do now?'  I think the only way out is for 
us to give up our idea of permanent bases in Iraq, and undo the economic 
decisions made by Paul Bremmer.  He privatized the Iraqi economy (such as it 
is), basically into our hands.  I think the only way out for us is to get 
other nations to join in stabilizing Iraq.  I don't think we can do it 
alone, but it may happen if others get involved.   But no one's going to 
help if they think it's just going to cement our control over Iraq.  Why 
would they risk their kids for that?  How would they explain that to their 
people?

Well, I thought that was the question.  I just saw a report that Rice said 
the election will not change our objective in Iraq, and that Iraq has to be 
successful.  I don't know what that means or how we will get there.

Anyway, that's my two cents.  Sorry if I rambled.

Sunil


>From: "Matt Decker" <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>
>To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Tet Offensive
>Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:47:27 -0800
>
>Sunil,
>
>I would think that the negative media towards our troops and how "they" 
>dictate the battlefield would be a start.
>
>Take Care
>Matt
>
>