VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:32:45 10/14/05 Fri
Author: Anonymous
Subject: Re: VIETNAM:LOOKING BACK
In reply to: Rigo 's message, "VIETNAM:LOOKING BACK" on 06:59:18 10/14/05 Fri

Wow, this article really brings out some things I didn't know like:
Why was Jane Fonda never charged for treason. Turns out, if Congress would have declared war then maybe she could have been charged with that- read here- another thing , it explained to me how cowardly the draft dodgers found a loophole to go to college, while we had to sludge our way through rice paddies and a hail of bullets- it really gets me mad cause I didn't have to go to Nam, but felt I was doing something for my country. Anyway, here is the part that refers to draft dodgers-
"   Looking back it is now clear that the American military role in "Vietnam" was, in essence, one of defending international borders against a conventional cross-border communist invasion. Exactly as they had done in Korea. Contrary to popular belief, they turned in an outstanding performance. Again: The US military was not driven from Vietnam. They left under the terms of the Paris Peace Agreements. They were then barred from returning by the US Congress. This same Congress then turned around and abandoned America's former ally, South Vietnam. Should America feel shame? Yes! Why? For kowtowing to the wishes of those craven anti-war / draft dodging voting hoards, and for bugging out and abandoning an ally that America had promised to protect.
Johnson's Fatal Mistakes
   Johnson made two colossal "Vietnam" blunders. First he failed to get a formal Declaration of War, which he could have easily had. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which LBJ regarded as the "Functional equivalent of a formal Declaration of War." was passed unanimously by the House and there were only two dissenting votes cast in the Senate. A formal Declaration of War would have altered the judicial state of the nation, exactly as the Founding Fathers had intended.
   The Constitution begins with the words "We the people of the United States…" and it spells out what government is, and what it should do and cannot do. The Founding Fathers were mostly all veterans of the Revolutionary War, and fully understood how difficult it is to maintain public support during wartime. At one point 80% of the "American" people were against their war. Intentionally, the Framers of our Constitution crafted the requirement for a Congressional Declaration of War, in a manner which makes it a double-edged tool. It was designed to insure that America will not go to War without at least the initial support of the People's Representatives, and through the Treason provision, it also creates impediments to public dissent once the battles are joined. The Constitution makes it perfectly clear that Congress shall have the "Power to declare War…" It then specifies that "Treason against these United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or, adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It makes a last reference to this issue by stating "The Congress shall have the power to declare the Punishment for Treason…"
   Much modern thinking assumes the Constitution is all about law and government. Not totally. It was written for "We the People…" The government does not fight wars. The People's Representatives, authorize War, and, the appropriate entities of government to plan, staff, organize, direct, control and finance them. But, "We the People" do the fighting. And, when those of us "We" types are engaged on the field of battle, then "We" are entitled to every bit of protection that is provided for in Our Constitution.  
   A formal Declaration of War is an act which alters the judicial state of the nation. It not only provides measures for control of the press, but also to handle public dissent and deal effectively with traitors. Declaring War does not mean we have to impose martial law, reinstate universal conscription or launch the nukes. Control of the press in wartime is not for protection of the government. It's for the protection of our soldiers. Control of the press does not mean absolute control. Only their reporting from the War zone, and their treatment of our enemies. The Constitution guarantees a free press, but not a responsible press. During WW II all news dispatches from the battlefields (in fact not only news dispatches but personal letters from the soldiers as well) were censored, and, the US media was not allowed to publish the picture of a single dead American GI, until after the Normandy invasion (D-Day, 1944) was successful. 
   Johnson's second blunder was to grant blanket draft deferments to college students. This draft exemption loophole soon became a system of super loop highways, and the nation's campuses quickly filled to overflowing with students evading the draft. The overwhelming majority of these men knew they were acting in a cowardly manner. Subsequently, they took to appeasing their consciences by convincing themselves the war was somehow immoral. Once this "immoral" concept emerged and became creditable, it spread like wildfire across the nation's college campuses. In turn these campuses became boiling cauldrons of violent raging anti-war descent that swiftly overflowed onto the main streets of America. Anti-war protests and violent demonstrations became the accepted norm. Miraculously, acts of cowardice were transformed into respectable acts of defiance. However, when one goes back and scrutinizes those anti-war demonstrations, one promptly finds they were not really against the war. They were only against the side fighting the communists! This of course turns out to be the side which had the army from which the dodgers were dodging. Hmmmm! (From Dr. Sears)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Re: VIETNAM:LOOKING BACK -- Anonymous, 16:50:51 10/24/05 Mon [1]

> Wow, this article really brings out some things I
>didn't know like:
> Why was Jane Fonda never charged for treason. Turns
>out, if Congress would have declared war then maybe
>she could have been charged with that- read here-
>another thing , it explained to me how cowardly the
>draft dodgers found a loophole to go to college, while
>we had to sludge our way through rice paddies and a
>hail of bullets- it really gets me mad cause I didn't
>have to go to Nam, but felt I was doing something for
>my country. Anyway, here is the part that refers to
>draft dodgers-
> "   Looking back it is now clear that the American
>military role in "Vietnam" was, in essence, one of
>defending international borders against a conventional
>cross-border communist invasion. Exactly as they had
>done in Korea. Contrary to popular belief, they turned
>in an outstanding performance. Again: The US military
>was not driven from Vietnam. They left under the terms
>of the Paris Peace Agreements. They were then barred
>from returning by the US Congress. This same Congress
>then turned around and abandoned America's former
>ally, South Vietnam. Should America feel shame? Yes!
>Why? For kowtowing to the wishes of those craven
>anti-war / draft dodging voting hoards, and for
>bugging out and abandoning an ally that America had
>promised to protect.
>Johnson's Fatal Mistakes
>   Johnson made two colossal "Vietnam" blunders. First
>he failed to get a formal Declaration of War, which he
>could have easily had. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,
>which LBJ regarded as the "Functional equivalent of a
>formal Declaration of War." was passed unanimously by
>the House and there were only two dissenting votes
>cast in the Senate. A formal Declaration of War would
>have altered the judicial state of the nation, exactly
>as the Founding Fathers had intended.
>   The Constitution begins with the words "We the
>people of the United States…" and it spells out what
>government is, and what it should do and cannot do.
>The Founding Fathers were mostly all veterans of the
>Revolutionary War, and fully understood how difficult
>it is to maintain public support during wartime. At
>one point 80% of the "American" people were against
>their war. Intentionally, the Framers of our
>Constitution crafted the requirement for a
>Congressional Declaration of War, in a manner which
>makes it a double-edged tool. It was designed to
>insure that America will not go to War without at
>least the initial support of the People's
>Representatives, and through the Treason provision, it
>also creates impediments to public dissent once the
>battles are joined. The Constitution makes it
>perfectly clear that Congress shall have the "Power to
>declare War…" It then specifies that "Treason against
>these United States shall consist only in levying War
>against them, or, adhering to their Enemies, giving
>them Aid and Comfort." It makes a last reference to
>this issue by stating "The Congress shall have the
>power to declare the Punishment for Treason…"
>   Much modern thinking assumes the Constitution is
>all about law and government. Not totally. It was
>written for "We the People…" The government does not
>fight wars. The People's Representatives, authorize
>War, and, the appropriate entities of government to
>plan, staff, organize, direct, control and finance
>them. But, "We the People" do the fighting. And, when
>those of us "We" types are engaged on the field of
>battle, then "We" are entitled to every bit of
>protection that is provided for in Our Constitution.  
>   A formal Declaration of War is an act which alters
>the judicial state of the nation. It not only provides
>measures for control of the press, but also to handle
>public dissent and deal effectively with traitors.
>Declaring War does not mean we have to impose martial
>law, reinstate universal conscription or launch the
>nukes. Control of the press in wartime is not for
>protection of the government. It's for the protection
>of our soldiers. Control of the press does not mean
>absolute control. Only their reporting from the War
>zone, and their treatment of our enemies. The
>Constitution guarantees a free press, but not a
>responsible press. During WW II all news dispatches
>from the battlefields (in fact not only news
>dispatches but personal letters from the soldiers as
>well) were censored, and, the US media was not allowed
>to publish the picture of a single dead American GI,
>until after the Normandy invasion (D-Day, 1944) was
>successful. 
>   Johnson's second blunder was to grant blanket draft
>deferments to college students. This draft exemption
>loophole soon became a system of super loop highways,
>and the nation's campuses quickly filled to
>overflowing with students evading the draft. The
>overwhelming majority of these men knew they were
>acting in a cowardly manner. Subsequently, they took
>to appeasing their consciences by convincing
>themselves the war was somehow immoral. Once this
>"immoral" concept emerged and became creditable, it
>spread like wildfire across the nation's college
>campuses. In turn these campuses became boiling
>cauldrons of violent raging anti-war descent that
>swiftly overflowed onto the main streets of America.
>Anti-war protests and violent demonstrations became
>the accepted norm. Miraculously, acts of cowardice
>were transformed into respectable acts of defiance.
>However, when one goes back and scrutinizes those
>anti-war demonstrations, one promptly finds they were
>not really against the war. They were only against the
>side fighting the communists! This of course turns out
>to be the side which had the army from which the
>dodgers were dodging. Hmmmm! (From Dr. Sears)


Thanks Rigo.

This is a thoughtful piece; one with which I generally agree. The two mistakes he charges the Johnson administration are on target. However, I believe another huge mistake made by Johnson, one with far-reaching and paradoxical consequences, was his refusal to mobilize either the Reserve or National Guard. The Joint Chief's on a number of occassions made the request, but he thought it was political suicide to do so.

Perhaps the primary reason Bush the Elder enjoyed so much success in the first Gulf War was his mobilization of those reserve forces. In doing so, he not only mobilized those units, he also mobilized the nation. When hometown units are sent in harms way, people (as do politicians and news media) pay attention. When it was one or two draftees from a town, nobody noticed - or cared.

Today it is standard practice and it serves our nation well as they are generally well-trained and ready units. During Vietnam, many, perhaps most, guard and reserve units were not combat ready and indeed, served as a means for many as a way of avoiding the draft. And it is a better and more popular way of raising manpower than is conscription. These units are comprised of 100% volunteers and they are manned by people who know each other, have grown up together or have some sort of relationship, and, they have a sense of responsibility for their role in the unit.

Still the key is that hometown support as evidenced by the well-attended farewell ceremonies when those units depart for the mobilization stations and the equally well-attended parades when they return home. The hometown spirit for these units is akin to that of the spirit for the high school football team.

Had Johnson realized this, things would have been different in Vietnam and the ignominious ending to that ill-fated war may have been different.

Would be interested in others thoughts on this subject.

JT


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.