Why Mubarak Can't Leave

[theaustinescorts]

Look at how Saddam Hussein ended up...

[saj1000]

10 years from now, the US will be asking itself why they didn't leave Saddam in power....

Like they are asking themselves why they didn't back the Shah of Iran...like they'll be asking themselves why they are crapping all over Mubarak today...

[saj1000]

And, going further back...they can kick themselves for backing Ho Chi Minh to take the French out of power in Vietnam back in the late 50s...

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by saj1000

And, going further back...they can kick themselves for backing Ho Chi Minh to take the French out of power in Vietnam back in the late 50s...

might want to brush up on your history here.

The opposite was true actually. The OSS (precursor to CIA) did in fact support Ho in WWII vs the Japanese but that is about as far as it goes. After the war, the US funded in part the French occupation of VN (as much as 80% after 1950) even as Ho repeatedly sought American support for an independent Vietnam.

Taking into account: Vichy French collusion with the Japanese / German WWII effort, Ho's dislike for the Chinese, Ho's fondness of the United States, and Roosevelt's prior position favoring VN independence (1944); that Truman ignores Ho's repeated dispatches for support becomes one of the most inexplicable foreign policy blunders of all time.

Of course in 1954 the French were defeated by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu and dispatched from Vietnam for the second time within 10 years..

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

might want to brush up on your history here.

The opposite was true actually. The OSS (precursor to CIA) did in fact support Ho in WWII vs the Japanese but that is about as far as it goes. After the war, the US funded in part the French occupation of VN (as much as 80% after 1950) even as Ho repeatedly sought American support for an independent Vietnam.

Taking into account: Vichy French collusion with the Japanese / German WWII effort, Ho's dislike for the Chinese, Ho's fondness of the United States, and Roosevelt's prior position favoring VN independence (1944); that Truman ignores Ho's repeated dispatches for support becomes one of the most inexplicable foreign policy blunders of all time.

Of course in 1954 the French were defeated by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu and dispatched from Vietnam for the second time within 10 years..

This guy knows what he's talking about!

[Billy_Saul]

long story short, but thanks bigtex

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

might want to brush up on your history here.

The opposite was true actually. The OSS (precursor to CIA) did in fact support Ho in WWII vs the Japanese but that is about as far as it goes. After the war, the US funded in part the French occupation of VN (as much as 80% after 1950) even as Ho repeatedly sought American support for an independent Vietnam.

Taking into account: Vichy French collusion with the Japanese / German WWII effort, Ho's dislike for the Chinese, Ho's fondness of the United States, and Roosevelt's prior position favoring VN independence (1944); that Truman ignores Ho's repeated dispatches for support becomes one of the most inexplicable foreign policy blunders of all time.

Of course in 1954 the French were defeated by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu and dispatched from Vietnam for the second time within 10 years..

While I agree with you that the U.S. should have explored more dialogue with Ho after Japan's ouster from Vietnam, you also have to put Truman's actions in context with the time. Ho was an ardent communist, as far back as the 1920's.
It could be argued that Woodrow Wilson, whom Ho Chi Minh petitioned for help in removing the French from Indochina following WWI, would have had a better chance in keeping Ho Chi Minh from falling under the spell of communism had he agreed to help Ho Chi Minh at that time. Once Ho was rebuffed at the Versailles peace talks following WWI, he sought help from the Communists who were more open to his vision of an independent Vietnam. By 1944 the dice has long been cast and Truman was well aware of Ho's Communist intentions for Vietnam.

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by DTorchia

While I agree with you that the U.S. should have explored more dialogue with Ho after Japan's ouster from Vietnam, you also have to put Truman's actions in context with the time. Ho was an ardent communist, as far back as the 1920's.
It could be argued that Woodrow Wilson, whom Ho Chi Minh petitioned for help in removing the French from Indochina following WWI, would have had a better chance in keeping Ho Chi Minh from falling under the spell of communism had he agreed to help Ho Chi Minh at that time. Once Ho was rebuffed at the Versailles peace talks following WWI, he sought help from the Communists who were more open to his vision of an independent Vietnam. By 1944 the dice has long been cast and Truman was well aware of Ho's Communist intentions for Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh writing a letter to Woodrow Wilson in 1918 (or the convention of Versailles 1919) would have about the same effect as you or I writing Obama or the UN a letter today. None. Zero. At the time he was unknown. A commoner who worked various odd jobs and globe trotted. So I would consider it inconsequential and probably more legend then substantiated fact.

Ho had dabbled with communism but renounced it in 1945 and didn't fully embrace it again until a 1950 meeting with Stalin and Mao when they agreed to support Vietnamese independence.

The OSS had supported him. Roosevelt had supported him. Truman sat on his hands. 1945-50 was the window.

[DRorchia]

Billy_Saul, I am not taking a side, simply pointing out that the West had a documented fear of Communist expansion around the World. We supported communist partisans against the Germans, against the Japanese etc but that didn't mean that after we had used them to defeat a common enemy that we would support a Communist country. The OSS personnel who worked with Ho against the Japanese were well aware of his Communist views. I've read different accounts of his "renouncing" communism. I believe it's accepted by historians today that Ho was going to play whatever side he needed to in order to secure a free Vietnam. I'm not blaming the man, he wanted his people free and did what he had to in order to make that happen. I have a lot of respect for what the Vietnamese were able to accomplish against the French and later against us. They had a lot of help from Russia and China but that doesn't diminish their effectiveness in utilizing the resources they were given and their ingenuity. I'm currently reading a book by a captured American Special Forces POW in 1963. He states how he saw them turn a hand held cheap fm radio and turn it into being capable of intercepting U.S. Army radio transmissions. In fact, he heard his CO from the reaction/rescue force talking on the helicopter over this cheap store bought FM radio that the Vietnamese had converted. You've got the respect that kind of ingenuity.
I still think that by 1944, Truman was already looking at a future Europe divided between the Communists and us and though he didn't necessarily support French colonialism, he preferred it to a Communist Southeast Asia.

[DRorchia]

I apologize for my part in hijacking this thread. I enjoy history and like a good debate about it. We started out talking about Mubarak. I think he's done, if not now, within the year. I agree with one of the above posters that we are too quick to pull our support from leaders without having a clear picture of who will take over. It seems to me we need to cultivate solid relationships with people who may lead in the future. The problem is, those kinds of relationships are usually seen as a threat by the people currently in power so we're usually behind the curve when a crisis, like the current one in Egypt, develops.

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by DTorchia

Billy_Saul, I am not taking a side, simply pointing out that the West had a documented fear of Communist expansion around the World. We supported communist partisans against the Germans, against the Japanese etc but that didn't mean that after we had used them to defeat a common enemy that we would support a Communist country. The OSS personnel who worked with Ho against the Japanese were well aware of his Communist views. I've read different accounts of his "renouncing" communism. I believe it's accepted by historians today that Ho was going to play whatever side he needed to in order to secure a free Vietnam. I'm not blaming the man, he wanted his people free and did what he had to in order to make that happen. I have a lot of respect for what the Vietnamese were able to accomplish against the French and later against us. They had a lot of help from Russia and China but that doesn't diminish their effectiveness in utilizing the resources they were given and their ingenuity. I'm currently reading a book by a captured American Special Forces POW in 1963. He states how he saw them turn a hand held cheap fm radio and turn it into being capable of intercepting U.S. Army radio transmissions. In fact, he heard his CO from the reaction/rescue force talking on the helicopter over this cheap store bought FM radio that the Vietnamese had converted. You've got the respect that kind of ingenuity.
I still think that by 1944, Truman was already looking at a future Europe divided between the Communists and us and though he didn't necessarily support French colonialism, he preferred it to a Communist Southeast Asia.

That the British were strongly pro French on the issue presumably because they were concerned Vietnamese freedom would influence events relating to their own colony's, (specifically India). This no doubt factored in on Truman's decisions significantly.

Anyway, a fascinating slice of history as world powers divided up the world.

[Billy_Saul]

Originally Posted by DTorchia

I apologize for my part in hijacking this thread.

Egypt was controlled by British installed monarchy in 1945 so perhaps a related discussion somehow.

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

That the British were strongly pro French on the issue presumably because they were concerned Vietnamese freedom would influence events relating to their own colony's, (specifically India). This no doubt factored in on Truman's decisions significantly.

Anyway, a fascinating slice of history as world powers divided up the world.

"presumably because they were concerned Vietnamese freedom would influence events relating to their own colony's, (specifically India)."

Now that's an angle I never considered. Good point.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

Ho had dabbled with communism but renounced it in 1945 and didn't fully embrace it again until a 1950 meeting with Stalin and Mao when they agreed to support Vietnamese independence.

The OSS had supported him. Roosevelt had supported him. Truman sat on his hands. 1945-50 was the window.

What is being implied here is that Ho was primarily a nationalist who merely used the Chicoms and Soviets for assistance in his liberation struggle.

I think that's a distortion.

Regardless of what pronouncements he may have made, his ACTIONS reveal him to have been a viciously pro-Stalinist communist.

After 1954 North Vietnam settled into a rather ordinary one-party command economy state, integrated only with the communist block. The communist party became wildly popular in the South because their ideology addressed the grievances of the people, i.e. it was anti-colonialist AND opposed to the land ownership/feudal system which most people in the South despised.

Consequently the US cancelled the 1956 elections which had been agreed upon in Geneva in 1954 as the means for determining the fate of the South.
After that the US supported Diem in a vicious culling of communist organizers in the South. It was this reign of anti-communist terror by Diem which galvanized the communists in the South [with which about 80% of the population sympathized] into armed struggle against the Diem government.

Ho and his successors used the communists in the South, the National Liberation Front, very cynically. After Hanoi liberated all of the south in 1975 the southern communists were shunted aside and the party apperatus of the North ran everything. Even in the 1980s when all other communist parties had discredited Stalin the Vietnamese communist were still singing his praises. They were among the most retrograde, unreconstructed, top-down and mindlessly ideological Leninists on the planet.

Given all this it's hard for me to swallow the often heard saw that the Vietnamese communists were really only nationalists seeking self-determination who were wearing communist uniforms to further their otherwise noble goals.

During the war the left in the US sang this tune constantly, and it was based in communist propaganda.

The US should have stayed out of Vietnam altogether, not because the communists there were not real communists, but rather because it was never in our vital national interests.

After Vietnam fell in 1975 no one in the US was harmed thereby - no harm was brought to the US....AT ALL.

But during the US involvement those here who defended our actions claimed that the most essential of our interests were at stake, and that we must continue sacrificing life and limb in the cause.

It only illustrates what I preach all the time:

War is not conducted for rational reasons of national interest.

It is conducted for emotional/institutional reasons which are not rational, but which possess doctrinal and ideological pretexts.

[DRorchia]

We were debating whether or not Ho would have turned hard core communist PRIOR to 1954....IF the U.S. would have taken a more pro-active approach in 1944, then immediately following WWII. I don't think anyone has argued that once the struggle began and Ho was dependent on communist Russia and China for support that he took a hardcore communist stance. Vietnam's clashes with China and Russia's limited role after the U.S. left certainly give the impression however that the leadership in Vietnam did not consider themselves anyone's lackey's whether it be Russia or China.
I agree that our national security was not at stake in Vietnam however I can certainly understand the reasoning (at the time) of wanting a friendly, allied non-communist nation to take hold in that part of the world. There was a fear that (may seem irrational now) a completely communist Southeast Asia WOULD be detrimental to our national interests and security.