Bill Ayers speaks out! An In These Times exclusive.

Vietnam’s Lingering Voice

By Kim Phillips-Fein

Near the end of the Vietnam War, as the antiwar movement roiled domestic politics and the Viet Cong showed no signs of giving in, a group of black soldiers formed an underground society named the Mau-Maus, in reference to a 19th-century uprising against the British in Kenya. Other soldiers, at about the same time, put up posters at Army bases… return to article

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Zoom OutZoom In Reader Comments (12)

    Page 1 of 1 pages

    Personally I don’t think Iraq is Vietnam all over again; it’s the US variation on the war in Chechnya. Think about it: both are wars that begin between a strong “Christian” nation against a weak “Muslim” one; the “Muslim” government collapses pretty quickly, and the “Christian” nation proclaims victory (or avoids talking about it’s defeats); however in both the warfighting on the “Muslim” side is taken over by popular resistence, and the war drags on forever. Certainly the “Chechen” type of war looks a lot like Vietnam, but it differs in that the target nation (Chechnya, Iraq) is well known to the attackers, with either the leader or the ethnicity of the invaded country being hated by the citizens of the attacking state. Americans hated Hussein thanks to the “incubator babies” story, Russians hated Chechens because they are considered as swindlers and thieves because Chechens would go up north and sell things in Russia (Russians generally dislike foreign salesmen; they always think they are being taken.) Certainly religion plays a part in “Chechen"-type wars, but that’s usually a cover story for the truth; in the Russian case, the goverment feared that other areas of Russia might break away, causing the Russian Confederation to collapse; in the US, it was to continue to punish an Arab state for trying to break the OPEC-American control of Middle-Eastern oil. However, the “Chechen"-type war shares another thing with the Vietnam War; the former will probably wind up being abandoned just like the latter.

    United States Posted by Strelnikov on Dec 12, 2003 at 12:59 AM

    I hope this article will be widely reprinted and read.

    United States Posted by One Small Voice for Peace on Dec 12, 2003 at 8:58 AM

    I think Mr. Nixon’s advice to the protesters “to go out and see the world” was quite wise, but he shlould have added “with an open mind”. Americans must be among the nations with a higher level of people travelling abroad but one has the feeling that they don’t really grasp the culture or spirit of other people, they immediately look for a MacDonald, expect to find a lodge with definite comforts and, as a whole they regard everything they see as “exotic” but imediately their trained minds tend to measure the rest of the world as “below American standards”. They have been told since they opened their eyes to life that their country is the best, their way of life is superior and they don’t have to make an effort trying to understand other ways of seeing one same thing because it isn’t worthwhile. This attitude is at the root of the contempt USA governments exercise over the rest of the world and the reason they need to spend so much on weapons to make sure everybody keeps quiet for fear of being destroyed. The present government is but the product of an attitude of generalized arrogance, which philosophically speaking is called mere ignorance.

    Costa Rica Posted by Maria L. Etchart on Dec 14, 2003 at 12:08 AM

    I don’t want to sound anti American but I don’t understand how the US always views itself as the good guys.

    In Vietnam the Vietaneese were fighting for independance against French colonialists when the US got involved. The US killed, some say, 4 million people in south east Asia and destroyed an entire country and yet some still think the US could have won if the government had gone in properly.

    How many people would have had to die in order for the US to win?

    One thing I respect the viet cong for is invading cambodia and arresting Pol Pot. There was a mass murdering madman who needed to be stopped yet the US supported him.

    Sorry, who’s the good guy?

    United Kingdom Posted by Toby on Dec 18, 2003 at 12:20 PM

    Toby, that’s a fair question. I’m sure Osama thinks he’s the good guy. Countries do things for two reasons, one is money, and the other is because its right (at least thats what they believe). Government can;t just say, “we’re doing it for money” Thats why.

    United States Posted by brad on Dec 18, 2003 at 6:20 PM

    Good point, Hitler probably thought he was the good guy and Stalin as well which is why in a Democracy you’re meant to have people telling you when you’re wrong.

    There was no need for the US to get involved in Vietnam, Vietnameise communism had nothing to do with the Soviet version

    I can see the reasons for invading Iraq, they’re a little more obvious but Vietnam I never understood.

    United Kingdom Posted by Toby on Dec 21, 2003 at 7:35 AM

    Toby, the reason for Vietnam was one word “containment”. We wanted to stop the spread of communism. There was a thing called the “domino theory” which held the belief that communism would spread more and more and we needed to stop it. That;s why we went in. What is truly amazing are the reports that Lyndon Johnson knew that we couldn’t win but went in anyway.

    Actually, we did not support Pol Pot, he was communist. The things we did resulted in his rise to power but we did not support him, there is a difference. We invaded Cambodia because the Vietcong used the country for tunnels. In fact, us invading Cambodia (combined wiht the tet offensive) shifted the war from favorable to unfavorable.

    United States Posted by brad on Dec 24, 2003 at 12:39 AM

    The old 60’s protestor is hoping for another chance to relive the good ole days.He keeps trying to turn the war on terror and Iraq into Vietnam but the people reject him.The American people feel like they have a stake in the outcome of this war and unlike the 60’s will do what is neede to win.

    United States Posted by Rob on Dec 25, 2003 at 11:33 PM

    There was NO reason to invade Iraq. Toby, Brad, PROVE IT TO ME, SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE that Saddam was a threat to the US. For that matter, to other nations. Prove it. Otherwise, this is a crime.
    There are no WOMD. There is no connection to al-Queda, there is no connection to bin Laden and Iraq hasn’t attacked Israel since the 1st Gulf war.
    We sponsored his brutal acts during the first dimwit Bush’s term in office. Thanks to US sanctions, MILLIONS of their children died. These are provable points. Show me the evidence and not just conservative war-mongering speculation that continues to kill US soldiers.
    Using this kind of conservative logic, we should be going into N. Korea. Why don’t we? Because of their 1 million highly-trained troops who will leave our troops bleeding in the snow.
    And, and I’m in no way in support of communism--who are we to say what government they’re supposed to have.

    United States Posted by neil on Dec 29, 2003 at 12:34 AM

    The above statements go for you, too, Rob. You sound like you may be a hater of peace.

    United States Posted by neil on Dec 29, 2003 at 12:35 AM

    The Mau Mau were an indigenous 20th century organization headed by Jomo Kenyatta.

    United States Posted by R.J. Scioaroni on Dec 30, 2003 at 2:52 PM

    Brad, actually, we did support Pol Pot, but only after Vietnam invaded “Democratic Kampuchea” and overthrew the Cambodian dictator. We paid for his little resistance camp on the Cambodian-Thai border; see “Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot” for proof. Actually, overthowing the government of Prince Sianhouk of Cambodia turned into a fiasco because the suceeding Lon Nol government was seen as a US puppet, and the Khermer Rouge began attacking the government with the ferocity that the Viet Cong displayed against the South Vietnamese government.

    United States Posted by Strelnikov on Jan 3, 2004 at 2:40 AM
    Page 1 of 1 pages

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Popular Discussions