Vietnam the Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America's Most Disastrous Military Conflict

Book Review: Vietnam the Necessary War, by Michael Lind C-Span has run and rerun tapes of a live debate (with callers) between Michael Lind, author of Vietnam, the Necessary War and Tim O'Brien author of July, July. Lind, who is defending the purposes behind the war is no conservative war-hawk. He wrote a book about how he has rejected conservatism and adopted a center-left perspective in line with Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. He is a convinced advocate of Truman's policy of containment. He rejects a McArthur style "there is no substitute for victory" and a worldwide fight against Communism. He embraces limited wars as in Korea, Vietnam, and the Afgan vs Soviet war - because in these three cases, the great communist powers of Russia and/or China were actively involved in the war for expansionist objectives. He rejects involvement in Communists insurgencies where Russia and China were not seriously involved or have no strategic interest.. Lind has studied the treasury of documents released by Russia in the nineties which decisively proves that Russia and China were deeply involved in Vietnam from beginning to end. Ho Chi Minh, the North Vietnamese leader, was a member of the Comintern and was co-conspirator with Russia and China from beginning to end. Lind rebukes the war-hawk conservatives who wanted to invade the north. He has found records which reveal Mao Tse Tung's plans to send troops into Vietnam if America invaded the north - just as he sent troops during the Korean War. Lind rebukes the anti-war liberals for undercutting America's purposes in the Vietnam war and contributing to the defeat. He also blames American generals for fighting the war incorrectly and stupidly.. George Kennan crafted the policy of containment during the Truman administration. America and NATO were pledged to contain the expansionist designs of Russia and China by fighting limited proxy wars such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. The objective was to hold back the tide and buy time until Communism collapsed from its own dead weight - as it did in Russia in 1990 and which it is now on the verge of doing in North Korea. After the American defeat in Vietnam, America lost prestige and world Communism gained prestige. Communist insurgencies increased around the world - until Russia got bogged down in the proxy war in Afghanistan. President Reagan sent covert aid to the Afghan rebels. Then Russia lost the war, lost prestige and the red tide waned throughout the world. The C-Span debate was a classic of facts versus feelings, and moral clarity versus moral confusion. Tim O'Brien, a Vietnam veteran's comments were deeply colored by his emotional horror of war which he ventilated at great length. He was morally confused in his attribution of evil motives to America and benign motives to the Communist dictators. When he debated with Mr. Lind on the facts, O'Brien seemed to reinterpret the facts in a "blame America" leftist fashion. Lind gen

Lee Kuan Yew (the George Washington of Singapore and one of Asia's senior statesmen) has stated over and over again that America's involvement in Vietnam was a noble cause. So did Ronald Reagan. So does the author, and he documents why. Nice to see the truth told for a change. I spent a year there (June 1968 to June 1969) and agree 100% with the author's very persuasive history and logic.

Michael Lind has created a much-needed counterbalance to the leftist media dribble we hear constantly about Vietnam. He shatters many myths of the left and right about the war. He also puts the war in a geopolitical context, claiming that if the United States had abandoned Indochina without a fight we would have lost the battle with the U.S.S.R. for world influence. This would have become especially critical in the early 1980's when Western Europe came under threat of the Warsaw Pact. Lind puts the blame for the war where it belongs: Communist aggression. Lind also calls Communism what it was: the most murderous form of government ever (responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people). He rightly points out that without the U.S.S.R.'s (and China's) initial backing there would have been no so called "civil war" in Vietnam. Lind shatters all myths about the war as well. He destroys the myth (widely believed, thanks to Oliver Stone) that if John F. Kennedy had lived we would have had no involvement in Vietnam. Lind proves without a doubt (through Kennedy's own quotes indorsing the war, made just month's before his assassination), this is not true. He also points out how this plan to withdraw must have been very secret indeed, because John Kennedy didn't even tell his own brother (Robert)! Lind also takes on the right's myth that if U.S. forces had invaded North Vietnam there would have been a quick end to the war. On the contrary, Lind shows another Korean War would have resulted. He proves this through newly released documents that show China's commitment to Vietnam if it was invaded. He also takes the U.S. Military to task for its strategy in Vietnam. Overall, this is an outstanding book. I would recommend it to anyone.

Michael Lind has done an admirable and necessary job of taking on the myths of the Vietnam war that have been promulgated by a self-serving, highly biased media. He has exposed the myths for what they are, at best leftist apologies for Communist atrocities in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, and at worst the lies of avowed Marxists hoping for the overthrow of the United States. What makes this book even more appealing is that Lind himself is politically left of center. He points out the mistakes made by the military, the Nixon administration and the Johnson administration without prejudice. It is even handed, well documented and insightful, an analysis based on examining the Vietnam War as a proxy battle between the U. S. and the Soviet Union as part of the Cold War, which Lind considers WWIII. Along with Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the 60s by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, former editors of Ramparts; Radical Son, the memoir of former Communist and 60s radical David Horowitz; Big Story, by Peter Braestrup; Stolen Valor, by B. B. Burkett and Glenna Whitley; Phoenix and the Birds of Prey, by Mark Moyar; and The Sacred Willow by Duong Van Mai Elliott, this book is necessary reading for anyone who really wants to understand the Vietnam war, the 60s and 70s, and the war's after effects.An important contribution of this book is the historical perspective provided on protest, not just against Vietnam, but against all the American wars, including WWII. So much of this has been forgotten by Americans, or is simply not taught in our history texts, for reasons that are clear on reflection. I remember a friends father, well read and well carefully considered, telling me about the protests in favor or Hitler in Madison Square Garden before we entered WWII while we discussed the Vietnam War protests. He, as much as anyone, helped me make the right decision, which was to serve in Vietnam. Besides the isolationist tradition and the anti-war tradition of certain segments of American political thought, the actions of Presidents Johnson and Nixon are put in the perspective of the actions of former presidents during earlier wars, and in the end both Johnson's and Nixon's come off looking soft in enforcing existing laws. For example, Jane Fonda could have been tired for treason under the laws of the United States, as they applied to Vietnam, and scould have suffered the fate of those WWII traitors she emulated, which was prison. Another traitor, Tom Haydn, was given a Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter for actions that were actually legally treasonable.I have found two errors that should be corrected in any further editions. First of all, the author refers to Marine Corps CAP units as Combined Action Patrols, rather than as Combined Action Platoons, which is what they were. They were so called because they joined about 12 Americans, a rifle squad of Marines and a Navy Hospital Corpsman, with a Platoon of Vietnamese

The author does an excellent job of reviewing the geopolitical importance of the Vietnam war and the various theories of geopolitical power that explain the conduct of nations. The book attacks the views of both liberals and conservatives on the reasons for military and political failure in Vietnam. While the reasons for failure and the possible solutions are subject to attack themselves, at least they pose a new way of looking at the war and its aftermath which should lead to a better way of examining our current foreign policy. The book asks the right questions and it helps develop answers to current and future problems of a geopolitical nature. The author's writing style is excellent. The book reads quickly and the concepts are well explained. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in history or politics.