Saigon falls, 50 years ago today 4/30/75

What started in Vietnam has poisoned the US military for decades.

So many people forget in the afterglow of the success of Operation Desert Storm how true this really was. My father was active duty Air Force (1965-88) and was in DaNang from April 28, 1970 to April 27, 1971. When he returned in 1971, they had to sneak him out back out of uniform due to fear of attacks by protestors. His barracks was bombed (mortared? I don't know, he doesn't talk about it - ever) with the epicenter in the room next to his. He was by no means in the front lines, but stray bombs and missiles don't care.

What little I know about his time over there is from my Mom, who has said it was bad when he returned and he (for years) drank like a fish, going through a case of beer every weekend. But whenever this "thank you for your service" stuff began - which I'm guessing was sometime either in the late 90s or perhaps right after 9/11 - he had no use for it whatsoever. He's better now, and he doesn't want anything from anyone, but Mom said he once mused, "where was this in 1971, when I went and somehow came home the enemy, was somehow worse than the Viet Cong, worse than the protestors who blew up buildings when I never fired a shot?"

So he's pretty cold to a lot of the stuff. At some point he made whatever peace he was capable of making with whatever happened. And one thing people don't really grasp is that back then - in the 70s and well into the 80s - the military routinely kicked out members with chronic PTSD who sought counseling as being "mentally ill." And things were so bad (and poor) in the US in the 1970s that there was as reluctance to get any kind of help out of fear of losing what little you had left. (Mark Bowden points out near the end of "Guests of the Ayatollah" that even post-Iranian hostage crisis it was not yet known the necessity of psychiatric counseling upon return from a great trauma).

He's never talked about it with me, ever. He never mentions he was in Vietnam, it comes up in the context of when he's asked. He doesn't wear those Vietnam hats you see on the grizzled veterans with ponytails at the VA, literally never talks about it. Occasionally if there's a movie on with a Vietnam scene, he may watch it and more often than not it's, "They don't know what the hell they're talking about."

But the esteem and morale of the military was awful for much of the time during my life that he was serving. The other thing that sank their hearts was the failure of the hostage rescue operation in Iran in 1980, just a reminder that they couldn't do much to stop evil. (In a cruel irony, one of the soldiers involved in that was the best friend of my across-the-street neighbor when it happened).

I know a lot of people were upset with GHW Bush for not going all the way to Baghdad to capture Saddam in 1991. My dad was not one of them, and neither were most of the Vietnam guys. He pointed out that if we did destroy Saddam, we'd be running the government of Iraq and getting Americans killed for the next 25 years - and that regardless of his lunacy, he was respected by Arabs as a strong guy who could keep civil war or an interloper from sinking his country into a quagmire.

Oh wait, that's pretty much what happened when we DID capture Saddam in 2003, even if it wasn't 25 years.........
 
I can't link it here, but I'll just mention there's an amusing scene you can see online of Sam Kinison and Rodney Dangerfield discussing American wars in Vietnam and Korea ("Back To School") - and it's pretty awesome and lightens the mood.

"Can somebody tell me why in 1975 we pulled our troops out of Vietnam"....????
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg
The Birchers have always hated the UN, our construct. Trump says he has no love for NATO. One can argue that his rhetoric is intended to play hardball over anteing-up for Europe's defense costs. Question: Do we REALLY want a re-armed Germany? Japan? One could more easily argue he is parroting Russian talking points.

Is he a liar? Of course. What will he do? I cannot be as sanguine as some here about our alliances.
 
Since WWII, the consistent failing of US war-waging policy has been,
(1) Lack of clear definition of victory before committing boots on the ground, IOW, under what circumstances do we declare victory and go home? And….
(2) Continually moving the goalposts on the unclear definitions we have laid out….to the extent we have laid them out at all.

Happened in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I and II, Afghanistan, and is now happening by proxy in Ukraine. Happened to an extent in the early 90s in Bosnia. Lots of moral outrage, but neither the geo-political nor the economic impact was sufficient to engage American public attention.
 
Last edited:
Do you think the Germans or Japanese are somehow genetically predisposed for war or something?

They are modern, peaceful countries - more peaceful than we are. I've ZERO problem with our allies being armed to the teeth to defend themselves so we don't have to.
I truly want to believe as you do. I truly do.

Over a beer or three, ask your German friends what they "really" think of the French. And then the Poles. And then the English. And then Ukraine. etc.

If you have any Chinese or Korean or Thai or Vietnamese friends, ask them what they really think of the Japanese. And ask your Japanese friends the reverse.

They have old wounds that are much like Middle-Eastern grudges. They are grateful for Pax-Americana. They are not like us Americans, who all speak the same Americanized English and have a common, new history that's not stained with a thousand or more years of blood and genocidal atrocities (at least among the whites).

They are doing great currently but their Shinto and Teutonic tendancies lie just below the surface. For what can / will happen, I give you: Yugoslavia after Tito.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JDCrimson
Since WWII, the consistent failing of US war-waging policy has been,
(1) Lack of clear definition of victory before committing boots on the ground, IOW, under what circumstances do we declare victory and go home? And….
(2) Continually moving the goalposts on the unclear definitions we have laid out….to the extent we have laid them out at all.

Happened in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I and II, Afghanistan, and is now happening by proxy in Ukraine. Happened to an extent in the early 90s in Bosnia. Lots of moral outrage, but neither the geo-political nor the economic impact was sufficient to engage American public attention.
When I was serving in Haiti (1994), I asked my boss what the objective was. He said, "Make sure nothing happens." I thought about it a minute and asked, "How much 'nothing' has to happen before we can go home?"

The military is pretty good at devising how to apply military force to achieve a strategic objective. Politicians stink on ice when it comes to deciding what that objective is.
 
Since WWII, the consistent failing of US war-waging policy has been,
(1) Lack of clear definition of victory before committing boots on the ground, IOW, under what circumstances do we declare victory and go home? And….
(2) Continually moving the goalposts on the unclear definitions we have laid out….to the extent we have laid them out at all.

Happened in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I and II, Afghanistan, and is now happening by proxy in Ukraine. Happened to an extent in the early 90s in Bosnia. Lots of moral outrage, but neither the geo-political nor the economic impact was sufficient to engage American public attention.

I would disagree only on the First Gulf War. I agree we botched some of the postwar strategy, but they kept the objectives limited to unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait by Saddam and restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government. In fact, they thought later they may have been too narrow with those objectives.

Otherwise, we've conducted what I call "feckless and reckless foreign policy" almost every White House term since. There is to me, however, a bit of irony: Reagan was supposed to be the most chest thumping warmongering conservative of our last 13 Presidents or so - and he was one of the few that didn't get us into a full-scale and declared (or for that matter undeclared) shooting war.

(And before anyone brings it up, yes, he thoroughly bungled Lebanon and let a peacekeeping mission turn us into sitting ducks and his covert war in Central America was undoubtedly illegal; but for all of the "he's going to get us into a shooting war" Goldwater type attacks on him, he never came close. Even Grenada was more of "I can't let our medical students become hostages for 444 days" than it was a full-scale conflict). Note also the fighting in Central America was done by.....most Central Americans.
 
When I was serving in Haiti (1994), I asked my boss what the objective was. He said, "Make sure nothing happens." I thought about it a minute and asked, "How much 'nothing' has to happen before we can go home?"

The military is pretty good at devising how to apply military force to achieve a strategic objective. Politicians stink on ice when it comes to deciding what that objective is.

This came up around 2008 or so when there was the whole question of whether Obama (if he won) was going to just pick up everything and leave Asia. One of my fellow church members had been an Army Ranger and pointed out, "That's not how you do it. We have benchmarks. Have we met our benchmark here? Have we met it there?"

The unfortunate thing about Afghanistan is that except for the botched withdrawal, we probably would have gotten the same end result of the Taliban takeover whether we pulled out in 2002 or 2032. And the various White Houses HAD to know it, it's just nobody wanted to be the one who had it linked to their name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDCrimson
This came up around 2008 or so when there was the whole question of whether Obama (if he won) was going to just pick up everything and leave Asia. One of my fellow church members had been an Army Ranger and pointed out, "That's not how you do it. We have benchmarks. Have we met our benchmark here? Have we met it there?"

The unfortunate thing about Afghanistan is that except for the botched withdrawal, we probably would have gotten the same end result of the Taliban takeover whether we pulled out in 2002 or 2032. And the various White Houses HAD to know it, it's just nobody wanted to be the one who had it linked to their name.
I agree on the pull-out of Afghanistan.
President Biden's mistake was not relieving COMCENTCOM of command for failing to plan this out. And I do not have any animus against COMCENTCOM, but as a commander once said to me, "If you walk past a mistake without correcting it, you put your stamp of approval on it."
By not relieving the CENTCOM Commander, President Biden put his stamp of approval on how poorly it was done. And it killed his presidency (look at his polling numbers before and after the pullout).
 
Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement