On December 20, 1960, the day I turned 12 years old, Le Duan organized the National Liberation Front (‘NLF’) composed of various groups in North Vietnam that were dedicated to getting rid of President Ngô Dinh Diêm’s regime in the south and, to effect the overthrow of the South Vietnamese government and the reunification of North and South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese had never liked the division of the country after the defeat of the French in the colonial war. They accepted that division reluctantly.

Frankly, there was nothing unreasonable about that goal. Vietnam had been one country until the Geneva accords of 1954 and the government of the south was corrupt, undemocratic, and unpopular. What gave the colonial powers like France and the United States, their patron, the right to divide the country?

The NFL called their forces the Peoples’ Liberation Armed Forces, but their enemies in the south preferred a more disparaging name—i.e. Communist Traitors to the Vietnamese Nation or Vietcong or V.C.

Like English Prime Minister Churchill at Dunkirk, the Vietcong leaders said that they would fight the South Vietnamese regime to the last person. Those are brave words. Yet there were many times in the 14 years that followed that this proved to be true. No matter how heavy their casualties they always kept coming back for more. Their dedication and determination was extraordinary. The Americans were stunned. It was the sort of dedication that few soldiers have unless they are defending their homeland. The people agreed with their leaders that they would fight to the last man, but they really had no idea at the time how heavy a price they would have to pay to fight as promised, against the regime in the south, after it obtained the support of the most wealthy nation on earth equipped with the most advanced and expensive weaponry known to man. Their task was immense. “History will judge if the sacrifice was worth the war, for that war turned out to astonishingly brutal.”

President John F. Kennedy also eloquently described the American resolve once the Americans got into combat: “Let every nation now, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any force, to ensure the survival and success of liberty.”

Thus with the statements from their leaders the two sides were irrevocably bent on a war to the finish, no matter what the cost. That cost on both sides, but particularly the north would be immense. The cost of course was born on both sides by the fighting men and women as well as civilians. It was not born on either side personally by the political leaders who pronounced the brave words. As is so often the case the leaders utter fierce and brave words, but they are seldom the ones who must pay the awful price. That falls to others.

There are many problems with brave words uttered by political leaders far from the front where people are dying. Often they are made to win favor with the people back home who are lusting for war. They are lusting for war, but they want others to fight that war. Often those people uttering brave words are political leaders whose own children are also far from the war front, safe in comfortable schools or places like the National Guard.

More important even than that however is the fact that such brave words make any kind of negotiated peace very difficult to achieve. No one negotiates with the devil. That’s one reason why we must always be wary of demonizing the enemy. That’s one reason why we must always be wary of brave words from our leaders. When it comes to leaders there are many  things we should worry about, this is just one of them.

Soon after Kennedy was inaugurated as President in 1961, one of the first things he did was to quietly increase the number of American military “advisors” that would be helping the South Vietnamese. Often these were combat soldiers in everything but name. He did not want Americans to know what was going on. Within 2 years of taking office the number of advisors increased to 11,300. Such numbers allowed them to give a lot of “advice.” These advisors were officially allowed to teach the South Vietnamese forces and even accompany them into battle. Most now agree that this was a violation of the Geneva Accords that had been negotiated in 1954. This was not the first nor the last time that the United States chose to ignore international law. Obedience to international is what they expect of others. It is not what they demand of themselves.

Of course, Kennedy was not entirely truthful with the American public about what he was doing in Vietnam. This started what became a long-standing tradition among American Presidents. If the truth would hurt policy, ignore it, conceal it or lie about it. Kennedy was fearful that Americans would not be support a more active role in Vietnam. So President Kennedy did what all his successors in office did—he lied. He said there were no American combat troops in Vietnam, when there really were.

Lying to the American public and then asking them to put themselves or their children in harm’s way is about the worst thing a President can do. And they all did it. All the Presidents involved in the war did it from Kennedy to Nixon. It is like going to a doctor who recommends dangerous surgery. You are entitled to the know the truth so that you can freely make an informed decision. This is what the American Presidents did not allow Americans to do. This was a major crime.

In the spring of 1962 President Kennedy told a friend “we don’t have a prayer of staying in Vietnam. These people hate us, but I can’t give up a piece of territory like that to the Communists and then get the people to re-elect me.” These were amazing words, but they were never told to the public. In fact they were highly similar to words that Richard Nixon would late use to describe his predicament. Kennedy may have been more attractive than Nixon, but was he morally better? Over and over again American Presidents continued fighting a losing war for fear of being defeated at the next election. They did that despite misgivings (or worse) about the chances of success. They did that despite giving no hint of their true feelings to the young men and women or their parents or loved ones, who were being asked to put their lives at risk in a cause that was dubious at best. In the case of each of those Presidents who were less than truthful they have earned our scorn and forfeited our respect.

It did not take long for the French Colonial War to end after the debacle at Dien Bien Phu. The signing of the 1954 Geneva Accords followed soon after that. In those accords, France agreed to withdraw its forces from all its colonies in French Indochina, while agreeing that Vietnam would be temporarily divided at the 17^th parallel. Control of the north which was to be called the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, was given to Ho Chi Minh the leader of the Viet Minh. The south became the Republic of Vietnam, nominally under Emperor Bao Dai, and by its existence it prevented Ho Chi Minh from gaining control of the entire country.

Ngô Dinh Diêm  (the US-supported President of the first Republic of Vietnam [RVN]) refused to allow elections in 1956, as had been stipulated by the Geneva Conference. In time this led to what we now call the Vietnam War. The people did not want him as a dictator. He never had much support, except from the U.S., the friend of dictators around the world. As a result the U.S. supported a leader of Vietnam who refused to permit fair and free elections. This was the “democratic” state the Americans fought for and sacrificed nearly 60,000 lives. Did this ever make sense?

My mother used to say to me that I would be known by my friends. That is a lesson the U.S. had not learned. Of course it still has not learned that lesson as we can see from the brutal regimes it continues to support around the world.

While the French were conducting and losing the colonial war in Vietnam, they tried to get more help from the Americans, but the U.S. Congress refused to increase their help. Senator John F. Kennedy long before he became President, said, ‘before the U.S. agrees to commit to increasing military help to the French, the Vietnamese should be granted independence as the French were fighting a colonial war that was bitterly unpopular with the Vietnamese people.’ It did not make sense for the Americans to enter the fray in defence of the colonial powers. After all they had similarly revolted against European imperialism and now it was the turn of the Vietnamese. They supported the wrong side! Kennedy understood this long before he became President. Why did he forget it when he became President? This was a pattern that was repeatedly repeated by American Presidents.

Barbara Tuchman described this in her aptly titled book The March of Folly. This is what she said,

All the conditions and reasons precluding a successful outcome were recognized or foreseen at one time or another during the thirty years of our involvement. American intervention was not a progress sucked step by step into an unsuspected quagmire. At no time were policy-makers unaware of the hazards, obstacles, and negative developments. American intelligence was adequate, informed observations flowed steadily from the field to the capital, special investigative missions were repeatedly sent out, independent reportage to balance professional optimism—when that prevailed—was never lacking. The folly consisted not in pursuit of a goal in ignorance of the obstacles but in persistence in the pursuit despite accumulating evidence that the goal was attainable, and the effect disproportionate to the American interest and eventually damaging to American society, reputation, and disposable power in the world.

The question is why did the policy-makers close their minds to the evidence and its implications? This is the classic symptom of folly: refusal to draw conclusions from the evidence, addiction to the counter-productive.[1]

The French colonial war ended shortly after the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and the signing of the 1954 Geneva Accords. France agreed to withdraw its forces from all its colonies in French Indochina, while stipulating that Vietnam would be temporarily divided at the 17^th parallel, with control of the north given to the Viet Minh as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, and the south becoming the State of Vietnam, nominally under Emperor Bao Dai, preventing Ho Chi Minh from gaining control of the entire country The refusal of Ngô Dinh Diêm  (the US-supported President of the first Republic of Vietnam [RVN]) to allow elections in 1956, as had been stipulated by the Geneva Conference, eventually led to the Vietnam War.

John F. Kennedy and all of his advisors were profoundly affected by what had happened in the Second World War. His advisors included Dean Rusk, Walter Rostow, McGeorge Bundy, General Maxwell Taylor and above all Robert McNamara. McNamara had been President of the Ford Motor Company and gave up a lucrative job to serve his country. He was a pioneer in systems analysis. These men (and interestingly they were all men) were among those that David Halberstam called “The Best and the Brightest.”    Based on their experience or knowledge of World War II, all of Kennedy’s advisors believed, a dictator had to be stopped in his tracks. Appeasement would lead to disaster they all believed. Appeasement was intolerable.

David Halberstam was a journalist who wrote a book with that title in 1972 well before the war was over but long after it was realized by nearly everyone that it was a disaster. He focused his book on the foreign policy that was crafted by academics and intellectuals who were part of Kennedy’s administration. Some called them at the time “whiz kids,” though few were kids. They were leaders of industry and academia that John F. Kennedy persuaded to join his administration. Halberstam referred to some of their policies as “brilliant policies that defied common sense.” Often their advice ran directly counter to advice Kennedy got from career American Department of State employees.

It must be remembered that Kennedy was a young President who had narrowly defeated a much more experienced political opponent, Richard M. Nixon, the former Vice-President of the United States. The first couple of months of his administration were disastrous. Kennedy had approved the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that turned into a complete debacle. Many Americans believed that Khrushchev the Premier of the archrival Soviet Union, had bullied Kennedy at a Summit meeting. Kennedy failed to stop the Soviets from building the Berlin Wall. Kennedy also failed to intervene to stop Communist insurrection in Laos. Americans hate to think of a leader as weak. To many it looked like Kennedy was a weak President.

Kennedy did not want to seem weak. Many Americans called their new President immature, weak, and unable to stop the mounting Communist threat. He was of course, the youngest President ever at 43 years of age. Kennedy was, as a result eager to prove that he was a tough and capable leader of the country. All of these antecedents helped to position Kennedy for disaster in Vietnam.

There were even more factors that led to the ultimate debacle that was the War in Vietnam. For one thing there was politics. The Democratic Party was still haunted by claims that it had “lost” China to the Communists, and it did not want to be said about it that it also lost Vietnam.

While Kennedy was getting advice from his inner ring of the Whiz Kids instead of the State Department that was not entirely because he preferred his specifically selected inner advisors. It was also because the State Department had been decimated by the McCarthy era when the government was forced to shred experts on Vietnam and its surrounding countries. As a result Kennedy did not have the benefit of as many career diplomats as he should have. This is not entirely dissimilar to the situation of Donald Trump whose current Secretary of State has been doing his best to cut down the State Department. As a result Trump has to rely more on private advisors than I would say he should.

Apparently there was an early study that indicated the United States would have to commit close to one million U.S. troops to completely defeat the Viet Cong. However it was inconceivable that the administration would be able to convince the American Congress or the U.S. public to deploy that many soldiers.

At all times the Americans were concerned about how their actions would influence the Chinese and Russians. The Americans, like the Chinese, had recently completed a costly war in Korea and had little taste for doing that again. The Americans were also worried that any precipitous actions by them would repair the growing Sino-Soviet rift. They liked that rift and wanted to see it maintained not repaired.

Very importantly the American military in conformity to the long standing military tradition that armies should prepare to fight the last war instead of the next war, the American military was not prepared for a long and guerrilla war. And as we all know, that is precisely what they faced in Vietnam.

Apparently some of the American war games indicated that a gradual escalation by the United States could be evenly matched by North Vietnam. Every year nearly 200,000 North Vietnamese came of draft age and could be sent into the meat grinder of the war if necessary. As a result as some pundit pointed out, the Americans and their allies in the South would be “fighting the birthrate”. Johnson as well wanted to concentrate on other important issues when he came to power such as Civil Rights laws and establishment of the Great Society. He really did not want to get bogged down in a war in Vietnam that he had not started but he was stuck with.

Of course as happens in wars—as always seems to happen in wars—there was the effect of inertia. Wars develop their own inertia. Once the Americans committed to sending troops they did not want to lose the war. Better to send more troops than face the difficult task of explaining why any forces had been sent at all. Political and military leaders continually worried about being accused of throwing good money after bad, and more lives after those that had already died.

Thus were aligned the forces that encouraged more war with more soldiers.

For all of these reasons (if these should be sanctioned by calling them reasons) John F. Kennedy in 1961 confided to an aide that he could only make so many concessions and still swim. Too many concessions made it certain that he would be considered weak. And that would not do. For all of these reasons, Kennedy felt that he must act in South Vietnam. He could not acquiesce with business as usual. He could not stomach one more loss to the Communists.

For all of these reasons Kennedy thought he had no choice but to commit ground forces to fight in Vietnam and stop aggression from the north despite his initial assessment that this was foolish. As a result he set aside his earlier sound judgment that it made no sense for the Americans to fight in Vietnam.

This is the mistake that each President made in Vietnam. Each one of them started his first term asserting he would not do exactly what he ended up doing. With Kennedy that mistake was to commit ground troops when he had earlier correctly assessed that this would be hopeless. This is the precise mistake Barbara Tuchman referred to in her book and aptly called “the March of Folly.” It was exactly that.

Kennedy had earlier said that he would refuse to send troops because sending the first troops was like taking a first drink. There would inevitably be demands for more drinks. Over and over again the American Presidents made the same mistake and paid the same horrific price and it always led to tragic consequences.

John Gray, the relentless pessimist, was right; President Barack Obama who vowed not to do anything stupid, was right. Donald Trump who promised not to get involved in foreign adventures and abandoned that position within weeks of assuming office is nuts, but his initial position was right.

As a result of many factors, the young President Kennedy, against his initial better judgment, got lured into the War in Vietnam. As the Burns film said, “Over the next 3 years the United States would struggle to understand this complicated country it had come to save, fail to appreciate the enemies resolve, and misread how the South Vietnamese people really felt about their government. The new President would find himself caught between the momentum of war and the desire for peace, between humility and hubris, between idealism and expediency, between the truth and lies.

[1] Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly, (1984) p. 234

Introduction

I have been watching a television series I will never forget. I don’t want to forget it either. I wish everyone would watch it. It really is deeply compelling. I don’t know if television gets much better than this.

The series is called The Vietnam War (2017) and it was produced by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick for PBS. The series gets all the credit. I just want to add my personal comments to those in the series from time to time.

I grew up during the time of the War in Vietnam. It is thus very personal for me. I started off as many others did at the time–I believed what I was told by the authorities. I believed it made sense for the Americans to be fighting a war on the far side of the world in order to keep the Communists at bay. I believed the propaganda I had been fed.

When I was in Grade 12 I made entered a public speaking contest in order to make money. I had a chance to win $40. That was a lot of money at that time. I selected as a topic the War in Vietnam and I urged the Americans to do their best to kill those Communists. I am not proud of the position I took. My only excuse is the ignorance of youth and the effectiveness of American propaganda.

Before I had completed the first year of University I had changed my views completely. I joined anti-war marches and could be heard chanting: “Yey, hey, LBJ How many kids did you kill today?”

Even though I had become an opponent of the war, I did not know much about it. What little I had learned convinced me that it was a horrible mistake. After watching the television series I have learned a lot more. Not all I have learned has reinforced what I once thought.  In part this was because the producers of the film wisely chose to give the point of view of all sides. They interviewed not just Americans, but also Vietnamese from the south and the north. As the producers have said, “There is no singled truth in war.”

I will deliver a series of reports from my viewing of the series, but I urge everyone to watch the series for themselves. It really is worth the trip.