Dear all,

This week, hundreds of Vietnam veterans will make their way to the small town of Dien Bien Phu to remember their fallen comrades.

Dien Bien Phu was the site of a seminal battle, a battle that was to signal the end of the French empire the world over.

It was fought between the Viet Minh and the French, and recieves little attention despite its enormous significance.

The Viet Minh were lead by Ho Chi Minh, who was later to inflict such terrible damage on the American occupiers.

But at the battle of Dien Bien Phu, it was the legendary General Vo Nguyen Giap that was the hero of the hour.

This week, the 92 year old General will take the salutes from those veterans that surive, and in turn salute those that fell on that day fifty years ago.

The Viet Minh had been harrying the French for months, sapping morale with their drip by drip stealth attacks and ambushes

They were a rag-bag peasant army trying to stand up to the might of a colonial power - an impossible task.

Dien Bien Phu lies some 420km North of Hanoi, and lies in a valley surrounded by imposing, misty mountains.

The Viet Minh would attack and then melt away into the night, leaving the French frustrated and helpless, like a giant trying to swat a fly.

The French motto, 'three colours, one flag, one empire' was emblazoned across maps of Indochina.

The French government insisted that the French war in Vietnam was a noble one, aimed at protecting the majority of the Vietnamese people from Ho Chi Minhs communists. This was about the right of the Vietnamese people to live freely and without fear.

There was talk of 'turning points', 'light at the end of the tunnel' and one political commentator, Andre Mercier wrote,

'The Viet Minh will will not be able to face us, our potential armament being greater than theirs. Their fight is without hope of victory'.

The French government said that they would never abandon Vietnam and its people, that they would do their duty and see this war through to the end.

And the French had a plan.

They realised that they could never win against these 'terrorists' that were being aided and abetted by outside agencies, namely Laos and China, while the war was being fought on their terms.

These insurgents, though the Viet Minh called themselves freedom fighters, could only be beaten if they were bought into the open and crushed in conventional battle.

So the French assembled a huge force, ready to take on the 'few diehards' that were causing them such disproportionate collateral damage.

They built themselves a heavily fortified garrison in the valley around Dien Bien Phu.

General Giap realised that the French had walked into a trap of their own making.

In a feat of logistical miracle, he ordererd the dissassembling and transportation of heavy artillery pieces across the mountainous region, and rebuilt them above the French firebases and garrison.

Then began a 56 day siege that was to choke both the French army and eventually the empire.

They surrendered on May 7th 1954.

At least 2,200 French troops died in Dien Bien Phu, contributing to the total of some 58,000 that the French were to lose overall in Indochina.

The Vietnamese lost four times that number in the siege.

Colonel Pierre Langlais, who was there at the surrender, was later to observe in his memoirs,

'The Viet Minh fought to throw us out of their place, where we had no business being.'

and,

(the French people)  had learned a simple lesson: A modern power can't force its will on distant populations determined to run their own affairs'

Patrice Lorenzi, a defense ministry official noted several years ago,

'That place (Vietnam) shows clearly enough that you can't make a people do what they don't wan't, unless maybe you're prepared to burn their country to the ground and start all over from scratch again'

The French were to suffer a similar defeat seven years later, when they were forced to withdraw from Algiers suffering similar, sapping, guerilla insurgencies in the North African country.

'Even if you have ten times the military force you can't win'

remarked Jea-Guy Marenco, an Algerian veteran.

In Paris, General jacques Bourry, President of the French Veterans Union, noted that

'We could not stay any longer. There were too many deaths, and we just didn't have the means or the political will...'

Fifty years later there are obvious comparisons here to the situation in Iraq.

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself, especially when its lessons are ignored.

Today one year after George Bush's cheap, self serving publicity stunt of flying onto USS Abraham Lincoln in a flight suit and posing under the banner 'Mission accomplished', what of Iraq?

The recent photographic evidence showing US and British troops torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners may yet prove to be the straw that broke the camels back, the 'Omega' point.

'A year on from 'Mission Accomplished', an army in disgrace, a policy in tatters and the real prospect of defeat. Against the odds, America has earned the hatred of ordinary Iraqis,the battle for hearts and minds has been comprehensively lost' (Patrick Cockburn, The British Independent)

The photographs of torture and humiliation that have caused such opprobrium in the West come as no suprise to most Iraqis. What also comes as no suprise is that Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has not read the Army report on prisoner mistreatment. He said it was working its way up the chain of command. The report was finished in February

Pictures shown on al-Jazeera that CNN chooses, or is not allowed, to air show on an almost daily basis the full brutality of the occupying army.

Many Iraqis now see little difference between the jackboot of Saddam and the jackboot of Uncle Sam.

There have been a high number of unnecessary shootings of people at checkpoints, on patrols, following ambushes. None of the killings are recorded. None of the killings are investigated.

Iraqi people understand all too well that their lives are worth less that those of Americans who regard them as an inferior people whose lives are not even worth noting when they are shot.

'Another simple reason for disillusionment with the US is simply the Americans' failure to restore normal life. Iraqis in Baghdad continually say that Iraq recovered more quickly from the damage inflicted by the first Gulf War under Saddam in 1991 than it did after the second war in 2003...it is still more dangerous than it was under the old regime' (The Independent).

The failure of the US army to wrest Fallujah away from the militias, has shown a dangerous weakness, one that will have been noted with interest all over Iraq.

The feeling now is that the 'brutal occupiers' that torture, humiliate and murder innocent Iraqi people are on the run.

The US has next to no political support outside Kurdistan, the paramilitaries are growing in number and champing at the bit, Fallujah is the start, the Omega point.

As with France in Indochina, there is now a palpable expectation in Iraq , a clear understanding that the Omega point has been reached:

The US can no longer win.

It may be one of the most extraordinary defeats in both modern and military history.

yechydda,

 

 


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 03, 2004

Uh, do you even know why we're in Iraq? Why we invaded? To remove Saddam Hussein.

He's gone. Victory has long been achieved. The mission as accomplished a year ago. 

Right now the US is trying to help the Iraqi's build a stable government. It is in our interests and their interests to do so. But it is more so in their interest than in our interest. The US can't "lose" because we have Saddam in costody. So unless you can envision a scenario where Saddam Hussein is back in charge of Iraq this whole comparison is a bit off.

on May 03, 2004
Uh, do you even know why we're in Iraq? Why we invaded? To remove Saddam Hussein


Interesting, Brad. I notice you're often saying that WMD was never the reason to invade Iraq. Well, that may be your opinion, but the bush administration saw it differently. They actually considered it to be the main point for going in.
Link
Link
Link

When it was clear that no WMD's were found, the argument switched to INTENT. Hussain had a program to develop WMD.


Link

Link

Now the question is irrelevant. Now it's "We caught Saddam - mission accomplished, let's go home". As you say, the US can't lose. With arguments like that, you just change the playing field whenever things are looking bad. And it's looking worse by the hour...

There is really no given situation where you wouldn't back up US foreign policy, is there?
on May 03, 2004
And instead of continuing this, you write your own counter-blog about it. Telling, isn't it?
on May 03, 2004

. Give me a break.

https://www.joeuser.com/forums.asp?MID=3&CMID=3&AID=14114

As this article makes clear, people like me were arguing for the removal of Saddam before the war. It's the left that's trying to redefine why we went in there. Nice try though.

That's the nice thing about blogs, you can go back and read them and see if someone's arguments have changed. Mine sure haven't and I was pretty representative.

 

on May 03, 2004
I'm not commenting on your articles or your personal view, I'm referring to facts made by the US administration at the time. It's pretty clear to me that it's the right-wing that redefines why you went into Iraq. I'm arguing that the official selling-point was WMD, and now it's...fuzzy. You or I could have differing personal reasons as to why someone should or should not have gone in, but that's irrelevant.

And what were you representative of? The majority? That's a pretty weak point....
on May 03, 2004
btw, forgot to say....nice article valleyboyabroad!
on May 03, 2004
Really good article!
on May 03, 2004

Corio: I'm "right wing" on this issue and my reasons for going into Iraq have not changed. It is the left that keeps changing why they think we went into Iraq. It certainly was never primarily over WMD.

If you researched advocates "from the right" who wrote BEFORE the war you would find that the reasons they (we) advocated going into Iraq have not changed. The left has changed the reasons we've gone in over and over from "oil" or "capturing Saddam" to "Getting stockpiles of WMD".

I'm sorry but it's hard to take anyoen serious who argues that the main reason we invaded Iraq was so that we could capture barrels of mustard gas. The lunatic fringe of the left may find that argument convincing to their sheep-like friends but few Americans are going to buy into that.

on May 04, 2004
Draginol,

Uh, do you even know why we're in Iraq? Why we invaded? To remove Saddam Hussein.He's gone. Victory has long been achieved. The mission as accomplished a year ago.


It's interesting to see that you actually believe that this was simply about removing Saddam, you've certainly been suckered here hook line and sinker.

But okay, let's run with the idea.

According to you the mission was to topple Saddam and take him dead or alive.

And then what?

You know, I can almost believe that you're right.

Since Iraq fell Bush and Co have demonstrated on an almost daily basis that they never did have and certainly do not today have a plan as to what to do once they had toppled Saddam.

However, show me one statement from Bush, prior to the invasion that says the sole justification for waging war agains Iraq is to topple Saddam and that is it.

Right now the US is trying to help the Iraqi's build a stable government. It is in our interests and their interests to do so. But it is more so in their interest than in our interest.


I agree that the worst thing possible for the Iraqi people would be for the US to pull out. However, continued incompetence on a daily basis is exacerbating the situation, not helping it.

Militias armed to the teeth are champing at the bit, there are more private armies that the poorly trained Iraq poilce that refuse to fire on their own people.

These are simply statements of fact.

Forget the 'noble cause' of toppling Saddam, the Iraqi people are more concerned about their future.

As the article states, noble causes do not win wars or the hearts and minds of the occupied people, especially when the occupying forces to not provide basic security, shoot civilians indiscriminately and torture and humiliate its people.

The comparative article is to serve as a reminder that what appears to be impossible can all to often happen.

As it has throughout history.

yechydda,
on May 04, 2004
Draginol,

As this article makes clear, people like me were arguing for the removal of Saddam before the war.


I'm certainly not trying to argue that your own personal reason for justifying the invasion of Iraq was other than to simply remove Saddam full stop.

But it is intellectually dishonest of you to claim that this was Bush's sole reason for invading Iraq.

If your position hasn't changed fine, I'll take your word for it, but there's little point pretending that the US administrations position hasn't changed, many times.

It's the left that's trying to redefine why we went in there. Nice try though.


That's interesting, are you implying that I am 'left' or are you being more general?

Just curious.

yechydda,






on May 04, 2004
Corio,

btw, forgot to say....nice article valleyboyabroad!


Thankyou.

I'm currently travelling through Thailand, heading up towards Laos and the Vietnam,

The story about Diem Bein Phu is uppermost in the regions mind with the anniversary coming up on the 7th.

What struck me were the similarities in the quotations and justifications that were being used fifty years ago. They could have been written today, or rather they have been re-written today.

I recall before the war shaking my head and saying, they can't possibly secure a country the size of Iraq with that number of troops, it has never been done before.

My reasoning was simply based on that of Northern Ireland.

There, British troops were cheered as they marched in to restore peace, and the Catholic population welcomed them with open arms and cups of hot teat (very important to the British is hot tea).

The rest is history as the province erupted into sectarian violence that only today seems to be settling down.

Per capita, the British failed to subdue Northern Ireland with about 50% more troops than the US has in Iraq.

Whereas the conquest of a largely defenceless country can be achieved with relative ease, as the US invasion demonstrated, nothing has changed with regard to urban warfare and controlling a country by occupying it.

It took the British three years to unite the Sunnis and the Shiites against them, the US has managed it in one.

yechydda,

on May 04, 2004
Draginol,

I'm "right wing" on this issue and my reasons for going into Iraq have not changed.


What I do not uderstand is why being right wing means that you necessarily approve of illegally invading and occupying Iraq. I knwo of many right wing people that did not and do not support this war in Iraq, and I also know of left wing people that did support the war in Iraq. Why is it a case of being right or left wing?

Is this another example of that ridiculous motto you are either with us or against us?

It certainly was never primarily over WMD.


Hang on, now you're shifting your arguments. First it was never about WMDs and now it was never primarily about WMDs. What else was it not primarily about?

I'm sorry but it's hard to take anyoen serious who argues that the main reason we invaded Iraq was so that we could capture barrels of mustard gas


So if there were just a few barrels of mustard gas rotting in the Western Desert, why Powells speech to the UN where he dramatically showed pictures of mobile biological laboratories? Why did they refuse to believe insepctors who time and again said that he didn't even have barrels of mustard gas? Why did the US despatch a special unit specifically to search for WMDs and disband it when its mission failed?

If all Saddam had was a few barrels of mustard gas and the US administration knew that, why bother with all the amateur dramatics?

You seem want to pick and choose your facts at convenience, but you're logic ends up being circular.

At the very least Bush has presided over an incompetent administration, and for most people this is justification enough for his removal. Put another Republican president in for all I care, for me this has nothing to do with left or right wing idealogies, and everything to do with the practical application of diplomacy, sanctions and when these fail the prosecution of war.

In only one instance in this sorry mess, has the US demonstrated unparalelled competence and efficieny.

The seizing of Iraq.

Everything else has been a colossal cock up that continues to cost young American troops' lives and innocent Iraqi lives.

Finally a word from the BBC diplomatic correspondent, Barnaby Mason, who takes a slightly different tack but reaches similar conclusions:

Essentially, the same dilemma faces the Americans in Iraq - how to separate the fighters from bystanders, this time in run-down towns and cities rather than tropical jungle....A purely military solution was and is impossible. But then, as now, a superpower staked its prestige on victory, so the question became: how to get out?...One striking similarity is Washington's declaration of an ideological, even altruistic motive. In Vietnam, it was resistance to the spread of communism: the theory was that if it was not stopped there, the rest of south-east Asia would fall like a row of dominos. The reasons for the invasion of Iraq are more muddled, but the Bush administration has often sought to present it as part of a war against Islamic terrorism - as well as an effort to establish Iraq as a beacon of western-style democracy in the Middle East. In both cases, the United States said it was defending freedom: but its involvement in Vietnam stimulated a national resistance struggle and a similar phenomenon may be emerging in Iraq'

yechydda,









on May 04, 2004
Hey, first I just wanted to say good post valleyboyabroad...

Now, I must say I do agree with alot of the comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. Alot of people mention the fact that were not even close to the number of American dead in the Vietnam war. If you think that, think about this....the first several years of involvement in Vietnam the United States only sustained less than 1000 dead. The number shot up after LBJ started commiting more combat troops. I'm not necessarily saying we're heading in that direction....I really hope not. Also in Vietnam the United States did absolutely no homework to find out about the history of the people we were fighting. The Vietnamese had about 1000 years experience in insurgency. First against the Chinese, then the Japanese, then the French. We should have known that there was no way we were going to win by sending in sheer numbers to try and fight a conventional war. The same thing is going on in Iraq. No matter how many troops we throw in there, if insurgents want to blow up roadside bombs and ambush convoys more Americans are going to keep dying. And no matter how long we stay and no matter how many insurgents we kill there will always be more to take their places. Every day we continue to occupy Iraq we're breeding more hatred toward the US. Everyday theres some 15 year old kid that decides he's had enough of the Americans in his country and decides to join the insurgency. And until the US military leaves, there is no end in sight.

Also, I'd just like address Draginol in saying that if you're trying to say that ousting Saddam was the reason we went to war with Iraq, thats ridiculous. I was over there last year and believe me I was watching and listening to what was going on intently since I was waiting to see if I'd be going to war or not. The purpose of the whole build up over there last spring was repeatedly stated by the President and others to be because Saddam Hussian was known to possess dangerous weapons of mass destruction that posed an IMMINENT DANGER to the US. Theres no way polically that President Bush could have justified invading another country and deposing the leader for no other reason than because he wanted him gone. I'm not sayin Saddam wasn't a fucking scumbag who killed alot of his own people, but I am saying that its insane to claim that getting him out was our admitted goal from the start. In addition, to say that our mission was accomplished a year ago?? Then why are Marines and Soldiers still coming home in bodybags? The reason is because there never was any plan whatsoever for what we were going to do after toppling Saddam. See generally when you are say... President of the United States, and you plan a war....it helps to actually do some fucking planning. Now, I agree with Corio that it would be catastrophic for the Iraqi people if we were to leave now, but honestly I don't think the lives of any of our Marines or Soldiers are worth the safety and freedom of these people. Now its not racism or anything else, its just become apparent that they really do not want a US presence there. If they don't want us there, regardless of how bad it affects them later, I say lets just leave. Clearly, just like Vietnam, the US military has done no research to understand these people. They're not gonna stop bombing us or shooting at us, it doesn't matter if we have 200,000 troops or 200 million. You can't stop determined insugent forces by force of numbers, it just DOES NOT work. We claimed we were going to make these people free, well then why the fuck are running their country? Clearly what they want is for us to get the fuck out.
on May 04, 2004
VBA - This was a fantastic article.

It's such a shame that the US went to Iraq in the first place, because if they left now, the country would fall to pieces.. Yeah Saddam is gone, I ask any Republican in 6 months time, maybe even 3 months, if they consider it worth it.

BAM!!!
on May 04, 2004
regime change in iraq was certainly the issue as put forth by the project for a new american century. im glad it has finally been described here as a 'right wing' --rather than conservative--cause since that is much more accurate. the two terms are not interchangeable anymore than left wing and liberal. as to regime change, the question requiring a truly honest answer is...why?
a frontpage column in the wall street journal (i lost the damn paper but i believe it was published march 13, 2003) drew upon statements from bush, his cabinet members and advisors, the pnac document (www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) and other sources close to the administration to conclude the point was a stabilization of the middle east by rebuilding iraq in our image and likeness.

altho the preceding may have seemed offtopic, valleyboyabroad, youre not far from dead-on in the comparison to france in dien bien phu and the us in iraq. or the us in vietnam. youre certainly correct when invoking the penalty of unlearned historical lessons..

one might be forgiven for thinking a country-- born of fierce determination for self-rule that successfully repulsed a colonial master fielding one of the most powerful military forces in the world at the time and did so despite overwhelming odds--might occasionally see obvious parallels or similar dynamics.

a motivated force defending its right to home territory while refusing to engage in conventional stand-and-fight strategies should never be underestimated.

if we were invaded by an extraplanetary culture tomorrow...a culture whose sole interest was to improve our world by exchanging our chosen regime for theirs and complicity was all they required to establish a brave new world, how many of you would join me in taking arms to resist them?
2 Pages1 2