Theirs but to do or die Article by BY Robert Messenger

[Artimi]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/theirs-do-and-die?nopager=1

 

I found this article at this site

 

http://www.aldaily.com/

 

 

(I have such a difficulty posting links so they are clickable)

 

I found this article very thought provoking. Especially the link (in my mind) of the French government after the battle and the American government and Iraq and Afghanistan, the inability to carry a war to completion. One can have battles but not war.

I have often thought and my mother( she was an uneducated-unschooled first generation immigrant) before me thought that we create our soldiers, use them and then throw them away if they do not revert to civilians immediately. And now we not only throw them away, we revile them. This common thought was remarkable because we were so different philosophically and psychologically.

 

I am considering trying to find copies of Jean Larteguy's books. The Centurions and Pretorians as titles appeal greatly, but is only because they remind of Rome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kosmo]

I think the author of the article it's wrong in his praise of gung-ho military types and scolding of politicians because war it's supposed to be a political tool, not the other way around.

His assessment of Dien Bien Phu it's wrong because he fails to see the French dilemma: in order to rally the locals, divide the nationalists from the communists, appease the anti-colonialist elements of the public opinion and enlist US support it was necessary to give independence to Vietnam, but if they did that there was no reason for France to keep fighting. The french fought to keep Indochina a colony, when that become impossible they did not care enough if it was the nationalists or the communist or both that kicked them out. It was not worth fighting for anymore and the french government realized that before the battle but the Army wanted a victory.

In Algeria, after the arab terrorists did their ethnic cleansing of the millions of Europeans living there, it was little left to fight for except the political goals of the far right.

American contemporary campaigns are plagued by the ideological approach that pushes on those countries a political system unsuited for their level of development. They fail to acknowledge that democracy fuels ethnic conflicts and corruption in weak states and complicates "state building". Whatever US and NATO do in the end this countries will have a political system that suits them and repulses us.

[Artimi]

After reading your post Kosmos, Laeteguy's focus on the issue seems much narrower than yours,which is not necessarily a bad thing. Speaking the role of the military and government, the book Barca commented on in another postings appears to be related.

 

I remember learning about difference's between France divesting itself of colonies and the way the British did. Unfortunately I don't remember many of them but what struck me was how it reflected the countries governments and their perception of the roles they played in world politics.

 

 

If the war is a political tool but being used badly (which is possible by virtue of it being a tool- which can be considered neutral until used) why is it wrong for people who know how to use the tool effectively to do so?

 

this discussion got me thinking of the role perceived by the military in Brazil around the 1900, There were ultruistic military officers that thought if the politicians couldn't help the country, it was their duty to do so.

[Guest SassinidAzatan]

The french fought to keep Indochina a colony, when that become impossible they did not care enough if it was the nationalists or the communist or both that kicked them out. It was not worth fighting for anymore and the french government realized that before the battle but the Army wanted a victory.

This has to be clarified.While the war began as a Colonial War, by 1950, it evolved into a front of the Cold War and holding Vietnam was no longer France's goal. Rather they were already developing the steps for an independent. Vietnam. What people fail to realize was that the reason why the French continued fighting from 1951 onwar was because they were trying to gain the edge on the negotiation tables and that they intended TO GIVE INDOCHINA FREEDOM but they wanted to create independent Indochina states that favored the French in trade and other international affairs.

 

Secondly by this period, so many former VietMinh were going to the French side. As Ho Chi Minh's true colors were slowly being revealed by his policies towards non communist members of the VietMinh, many VietMinh who were not communist joined the French as they realized France was already going to grant freedom and that they did not a communist dominated Vietnam. Basically while some Nationalists naively stayed with the VietMinh believing the oranization to be fighting for Vietnam's freedom, by Dien Bien Phu a large number of noncommunists Viet Minh member abandoned the VM and joined the French. In fact during the battle, half of the paratroop reinforcments were former VietMinh members!

 

 

Thirdly, contrary to popular belief, the French government wanted Dien Bien Phu to be a victory as badly as the French army did. In fact the whole purpose of the battle was not necessarily to gain a French victory but to bring a military result that gave the French diplomats bargaining power during the Genevea Conference over the issue of Vietnamese independence.

 

Basically, while the French no longer seeked to hol Vietnam, they still wanted to have their influence in Indochina specifically in trade and politics.

 

A word of note, while the French lost Dien Bien Phu, contrary to popular belief, the French army did not evacuate from Vietnam. IN FACT much of the French army that was in Vietnam during the battle of Dien Bien Phu still remained after the battle!Its just that the elements of the French army that was in North Vietnam ended up evacuating to South Vietnam. The French army would continue to remain in Vietnam until US began getting more and more directly involved in Vietnam, just not the Northern region.

 

Also,contrary to what you will hear in most general history books, the war was not unwinnable.See thread below to understand how at one point in the war, the French would have won.

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am7h9hrII6wiw6VKQZv6xoMjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20110109140823AANUkUo

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12418

Edited March 29, 2011 by SassinidAzatan