• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

2000 US Soldiers Killed to Save the Administration's Face

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
3,213
Location
Amerikan Twilight Zone
June 22, 1972

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0529kissinger0529.html
Envoy told China U.S. could accept communists in 'Nam

Calvin Woodward
Associated Press
May. 29, 2006 12:00 AM


WASHINGTON - Henry Kissinger quietly acknowledged to China in 1972 that Washington could accept a communist takeover of South Vietnam if that evolved after a withdrawal of U.S. troops, even as the war to drive back the communists dragged on with mounting deaths.

President Nixon's envoy told Chinese Premier Chou En-lai, "If we can live with a communist government in China, we ought to be able to accept it in Indochina."

Kissinger's remarks surfaced in a collection of papers from his years of diplomacy released by George Washington University's National Security Archive. The collection was gathered from documents available at the government's National Archives and obtained through the research group's declassification requests.

Kissinger's comments appear to lend credence to the "decent interval" theory posed by some historians who say the United States was prepared to see communists take over Saigon, later renamed Ho Chi Minh City, as long as that happened long enough after a U.S. troop departure to save face.

But Kissinger cautioned in an interview Friday against reaching easy conclusions from his words of more than three decades ago. "One of my objectives had to be to get Chinese acquiescence in our policy," he said.

"We succeeded in it, and then when we had achieved our goal, our domestic situation made it impossible to sustain it," he said, explaining that he meant the Watergate scandal and its consequences.

The papers consist of about 2,100 memos of Kissinger's secret conversations with senior officials abroad and at home from 1969 to 1977 while he served under Presidents Nixon and Ford as national security adviser, secretary of State and both. The collection contains more than 28,000 pages.

The meeting with Chou took place in Beijing on June 22, 1972, during stepped-up U.S. bombing and the mining of harbors meant to stall a North Vietnam offensive that began in the spring. China, Vietnam's ally, objected to the U.S. course but was engaged in a thaw of relations with Washington.

Kissinger told Chou that the United States respected its Hanoi enemy as a "permanent factor" and probably the "strongest entity" in the region. "And we have had no interest in destroying it or even defeating it," he insisted.

He complained that Hanoi had made one demand in talks that he could never accept: that the U.S. force out the Saigon government.

"This isn't because of any particular personal liking for any of the individuals concerned," he said. "It is because a country cannot be asked to engage in major acts of betrayal as a basis of its foreign policy."

However, Kissinger sketched out scenarios under which communists might come to power.

While America cannot make that happen, he said, "if, as a result of historical evolution it should happen over a period of time, if we can live with a communist government in China, we ought to be able to accept it in Indochina."

Pressed by Chou, Kissinger further acknowledged that a communist takeover by force might be tolerated if it happened long enough after a U.S. withdrawal.

He said that if civil war broke out a month after a peace deal led to U.S. withdrawal and an exchange of prisoners, Washington would probably consider that a trick and have to step back in.

"If the North Vietnamese, on the other hand, engage in serious negotiation with the South Vietnamese, and if after a longer period it starts again after we were all disengaged, my personal judgment is that it is much less likely that we will go back again, much less likely."

The envoy foresaw saw the possibility of friendly relations with adversaries after a war that, by June 1972, had killed more than 45,000 Americans. "What has Hanoi done to us that would make it impossible to, say in 10 years, establish a new relationship?"

Almost 2,000 more Americans would be killed in action before the last U.S. combat death in January 1973, the month the Paris Peace Accords officially halted U.S. action, leaving North Vietnamese in the South and preserving the Saigon government until it fell in April 1975.

What was that again?

The meeting with Chou took place in Beijing on June 22, 1972, during stepped-up U.S. bombing and the mining of harbors meant to stall a North Vietnam offensive that began in the spring. China, Vietnam's ally, objected to the U.S. course but was engaged in a thaw of relations with Washington.

Kissinger told Chou that the United States respected its Hanoi enemy as a "permanent factor" and probably the "strongest entity" in the region. "And we have had no interest in destroying it or even defeating it," he insisted.

Where do we get the 2000 number?

Almost 2,000 more Americans would be killed in action before the last U.S. combat death in January 1973, the month the Paris Peace Accords officially halted U.S. action, leaving North Vietnamese in the South and preserving the Saigon government until it fell in April 1975.

Need someone to mutter something about "phased withdrawal and it
couldn't be helped" here.....:rolleyes:
 
Kind of like Truman, and Churchill, giving Eastern Europe to Russia? Or Kennedy abandoning thousands of Cubans in the Bay of Pigs?

Kevin
 
Maybe some of us should be grateful for being able to stand by and enjoy the fruits of freedom without having been chosen to make the difficult, dirty,
monumental decisions as well as taking the actions that drench one in the blood of brave men and women in order to maintain it.
 
Need someone to mutter something about "phased withdrawal and it
couldn't be helped" here.....
Actually, it seems to be a bit of a leap to go from the 1972 Kissinger/Chou discussion to the idea that the Nixon administration was in defeat mode by 1972. Being prepared to accept defeat and believing it is inevitable are not the same thing.

It's probably better apply Occam’s razor and to point to simple stubbornness rather than some jet-setting plot to save face.
 
I'm worried about what's going to happen to the troops in Iraq after this terrible business in Haditha. If the marines that were in Haditha are found guilty, while I don't condone what they might have done, I can certainly understand how a kid could wig out in a situation like that. I honestly can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing. A person never knows how he would react in a situation like that unless he is there.

But my real worry is the effects this will have on the rest of the troops. I'm afraid that they'll have to operate under unrealistic rules of engagement and that the casualty rate will skyrocket and morale will plummet. This could be bad.
 
Didn't Nixon campaign on getting the troops out of Vietnam? I thought that was his aim going in.
 
Maybe some of us should be grateful for being able to stand by and enjoy the fruits of freedom without having been chosen to make the difficult, dirty,
monumental decisions as well as taking the actions that drench one in the blood of brave men and women in order to maintain it.

... :scrutiny:

The soldiers, yes, I am grateful for their actions and sacrifices. The leaders? Well, as said here:

"Name me an emperor who was ever struck by a cannonball."
-King Charles V
 
But my real worry is the effects this will have on the rest of the troops. I'm afraid that they'll have to operate under unrealistic rules of engagement and that the casualty rate will skyrocket and morale will plummet. This could be bad.
Correct. The event's ultimate effect will be determined how the command structure deals with it and how our idiot politicians respond. I have no doubt the militiary side will do what is right and legal. How the political zoo responds is a different issue. Based on the actions of some inmates I am not positive about the outcome. . . . . regardless of the facts in the case.
 
"Name me an emperor who was ever struck by a cannonball."

The Russian Czar comes to mind

Marie Antoinette

and countless other despots. tyrants, and dictators.

not a cannonball exactly, but it does seem that tyrany has a way of correcting itself.
 
I would have to disagree with your characterization of events. Using the same logic, a general who conducts a fighting withdrawal has needlessly condemned troops to death by leaving them behind to delay the enemy when he knows he is giving up that piece of ground anyway.

Even when Nixon was ready to leave Vietnam and let the chips fall where they may, it didn't mean that he could just pull every single American out in a day and be done with it. You have to have someone to run logistics for the withdrawal. You have to conduct combat operations to protect the logistics guys from attacks. You can't just abandon your ally, even if you don't much care for him. You have equipment turnover and training issues to consider.
 
Kennedy abandoning thousands of Cubans in the Bay of Pigs?

I know President Kennedy took full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. However, my understanding is that the assualt was initiated without approval of the President with those who had planned it and began it counting on the President to go to the wall with them. When the President found out about it, he was furious and refused to support the invasion.

If this account is fairly accurate, then I'm not sure if "abandoning" is the correct word to describe President Kennedy's lack of support for the operation.

Although I'm no expert on the matter. :confused:
 
Name me an emperor who was ever struck by a cannonball."
-King Charles V

Well lets See should we start with George Washington and go forward, or do you want to start with George H Bush who was shot down by the Japanese, and work our way back.... JF Kennedy who lost his PT boat?????...Teddy Roosevelt....

We dont have emporers here many folks who served in the Whitehouse and congress were "hit by a cannon ball......" or nearly so....

Still its a cute saying
 
Didn't Nixon campaign on getting the troops out of Vietnam? I thought that was his aim going in.
What a quaint concept. Nowadays, the troops are pretty much stuck until "mission accomplished," which I thought happened a couple years back on an aircraft carrier? :scrutiny:
 
Maybe some of us should be grateful for being able to stand by and enjoy the fruits of freedom without having been chosen to make the difficult, dirty, monumental decisions as well as taking the actions that drench one in the blood of brave men and women in order to maintain it.

Gramster, did you make that up??? I like it. I think would rather stand and fall with my fellow soldiers than make the decisions which will always be difficult and dirty.
 
We dont have emporers here

See "signing statements".

And my point was that those safe thousands of miles away pushing around the little game pieces on the board are not the ones who catch an IED's shrapnel when one of their strategies is flawed and based more on personal opinion than the lessons of history. No matter what you call the "stress", air-conditioned press conferences and society dinners are not quite as harsh as baking in 120-degree heat while people constantly try to kill you. I always have more respect for the soldiers in the field.

At this point, it really has little to do with politics. No matter what you think of the reasons or justifications for the war, military historians ARE calling the strategic decisions "blunders"...and they're right. Every bit of advice from everyone from Sun Tzu on has been completely ignored by the "deciders".
 
I just read a book called "How Hitler could have Won the War," a history of the military strategy of WWII. Both sides made tremendous blunders; fortunately Hitler made more blunders than the allied commanders. Most of his mistakes were the result of his being bat's a$$ crazy. I think that when the historians dissect our current conflict, they are going to find that Cheney was nearly as delusional as Hitler, at least when it comes to military strategy.
 
Well lets See should we start with George Washington and go forward, or do you want to start with George H Bush who was shot down by the Japanese, and work our way back.... JF Kennedy who lost his PT boat?????...Teddy Roosevelt....

We dont have emporers here many folks who served in the Whitehouse and congress were "hit by a cannon ball......" or nearly so....

Still its a cute saying
I hear GW's dental work was touch-and-go for a while, there.
 
In my opinion Bush should get the heck out of Iraq, and into Darfur. It is nothing more than a complete genocide happining right now. The US, The UN, everyone is standing idly by, while thousands of people are killed because of their skin color. How can people say " Never Again" while this genocide, and ethnic cleansings are happing before their very eyes?



Sorry for the rant.
 
If you think Bush in an emporer, you really don't know what an emporer is.

If he figures out a way to stay in office after the beginning of 2009, then you can start calling him an emporer.


Teddy Roosevelt was shot while giving a speech. He finished the speech.
Washington is a good example.

I was also going to mention Ceasar and Alexander. Not sure about more modern generals.
 
GW is not the first and won't be the last war time President who never served in the armed forces. I'm sure they all had jokes said about them though.

Andrew Jackson would be another President who had good military experience. Sam Houston might be another though not of the US. I think Sam Houston served under Jackson in his younger days. Can't remember for sure.
 
And my point was that those safe thousands of miles away pushing around the little game pieces on the board are not the ones who catch an IED's shrapnel when one of their strategies is flawed and based more on personal opinion than the lessons of history. No matter what you call the "stress", air-conditioned press conferences and society dinners are not quite as harsh as baking in 120-degree heat while people constantly try to kill you. I always have more respect for the soldiers in the field.

Thanks, and it was closer to 130 at times :fire:

At this point, it really has little to do with politics. No matter what you think of the reasons or justifications for the war, military historians ARE calling the strategic decisions "blunders"...and they're right. Every bit of advice from everyone from Sun Tzu on has been completely ignored by the "deciders".

Not just "historians" but many of the Generals and Alphabet Agency ppl
who recently retired.

I do understand how soldiers/marines can "lose it" (but not condone it
in any way). The question on my mind would be how long the Marines had
been in country and how many 7-month tours they'd already done. The ones
I ran into last year were already on their second tour. I ran into a few
soldiers who'd been there since the initial push and had not left.

The reasons for going to war need to be JUST and the reasons for leaving
clear. Waiting for "stability" in the Middle East will be like waiting for the
Messiah. It may or may not happen in our lifetimes, but I know that His
spirit is not residing in any of the world's "leaders" right now. Just the
opposite :evil:
 
GW is not the first and won't be the last war time President who never served in the armed forces.

I will count his service in the Air National Guard as in the armed forces.

I think it would be more accurate to say that no one in the administration
has served on the front lines during war or even done a military deployment
overseas. A military deployment is far different than an embassy posting.
Food, plumbing, lodging, and transportation immediately come to mind :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top