[Attila The Nun]

Vietnam and orea were not impierlism. They were made to defned already established governments, the governments of South Vietnam and South Korea. Is Afghanistan imperialism because it was defending Communist Afghanistan from Islamic extremists?

[Lokakyy]

They were made to defned already established governments, the governments of South Vietnam

The government of South Vietnam was an established dictatorship and the US intervened to keep it from being toppled by the local uprising of FNL. The US strategists knew that if the Diem government fell, the US would loose all influence in Vietnam.

And yes, Afghanistan was an imperialist war, too.

[Ombrageux]

Well there's different kinds of imperialism, not all of which are bad. It seems that there was economic imperialism, but there was strategic and cultural imperialism in that America sought to impose it's way of life on both Korea and Vietnam. To be fair, I think both South Korea and Japan thank the US for the cultural imperialism that led to their prosperous liberal democracies. Afghanistan, was cultural, but not economic, imperialism.

Economic imperialism is always selfish, cultural imperialism is at best enlightened guidance at worst chauvinism and racism.

[Lokakyy]

In case of South Korea, the path to prosperous liberal democracy was a long and rocky one considering that it wasn't a democracy before 1987. So I guess the cultural imperialism of democracy took longer to root than cultural imperialism of capitalism. Somehow people often seem to think that South Korea went democratic right after the Korean War.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Perhaps I should say that USA went to Vietnam mainly to counter the ideological influence of communism

In the case of Vietnam, there was a fine line between fighting communism and fighting nationalism. Most analysts will tell you that the US lost the war because they misjudged the motivation of the Vietnamese - they thought they were fighting communists, but in fact they were fighting a nationalist movement.

This conventional school of thought has been turned on its head by Noam Chomsky who argues that the US were well aware that it was a nationalist movement - and moreover, that was the very reason they went in. The US certainly were worried about a domino effect, but a nationalist one, not a communist one. One by one, it was feared, south east asia would rise up and break free from the yoke of western imperialism. This makes sense in the case of Vietnam: remember the US went in straight after the French left - and remember also, the US funded about 90% of the French war in the 1950s. A free and independent Asia was unacceptable for US strategic interests. Chomsky's analysis also makes an interesting claim about US objectives and measures of success in Vietnam. The US lost in Vietnam right? Not according to Chomsky: the US was not fighting for control of the country, the US was there to destroy any potential nationalist movement spreading in SE Asia. The idea was to cause as much destruction as possible to destroy the industrial infrastructure and create as much poverty and suffering as possible. The expression "bombing them into the stone age" was not far off the mark. If this was the US objective, then they succeeded.

[Ombrageux]

But the nationalists won throughout all the 3rd world.

I mean, the French/British/Dutch/Portuguese got kicked out of everywhere in the end, from Goa, Mozambique, Indonesia, India, Algeria.

I don't think that was the reason, nationalism had already succeeded in Indonesia by the time of the Vietnam war.

[Lokakyy]

nationalism had already succeeded in Indonesia by the time of the Vietnam war.

Hmm, yes. But after Suharto ousted Sukarno in 1967, Indonesian nationalism came controllable to US. Sukarno was a nationalist, socialist and islamist while Suharto was devoutly anticommunist, economically followed the american way and in foreign policy was strongly leashed by the Washington.

Probably if Sukarno had stayed in power, Indonesia could have possibly faced a conflict similar to Vietnam War.

[GandalfTheGrey]

But the nationalists won throughout all the 3rd world.

You sure about that? Think about how many 3rd world countries are actually trully free.

[Red_Army]

Has anyone heard anything about the Vietnam war being fought for drug money? I've discussed this with a teacher of mine before and was wondering if anyone else has heard this.

As far as fighting a war for ideological reasons, I think that's almost worse than for imperial reasons. Invading a nation because you don't agree with what the majority of the people in the country want is stupid and fascist.

[Ombrageux]

You sure about that? Think about how many 3rd world countries are actually trully free.

Few are free, but from homegrown corrupt dictatorships as much as Western-backed ones.

Invading a nation because you don't agree with what the majority of the people in the country want is stupid and fascist.

Not when you blatantly know that ideology will not be democratic, or likes Islamists today, believe in 1 man, 1 vote, but only once.

[Lokakyy]

Not when you blatantly know that ideology will not be democratic, or likes Islamists today, believe in 1 man, 1 vote, but only once.

Creates an interesting dilemma on Vietnam war. US intervened and prevented the reunification vote because it thought that communists would win and this would be the end of democracy. To prevent this, they propped up the nationalist Diem government, that was also dictatorial. Simplified, the US cured the patient (south vietnamese democracy) by killing it.

[Ombrageux]

Only because the war failed. Had the US had the ability to impose some sort of peace (and given US military might relative to Vietnam and the experience of Korea, one would have thought America would have been able to) then the dictatorial regime of the south would have then busily gone to work creating a rich, cosmopolitan and liberal middle class. It would have become a Taiwanese or Korean-style democracy. Which, albeit imperfect, are a lot better than North Korea or mainland China.

It is indeed a very long-term policy.

[Lokakyy]

Had the US had the ability to impose some sort of peace (and given US military might relative to Vietnam and the experience of Korea, one would have thought America would have been able to) then the dictatorial regime of the south would have then busily gone to work creating a rich, cosmopolitan and liberal middle class. It would have become a Taiwanese or Korean-style democracy.

Like I said, South Korea wasn't democratic before 1987. And how can you know that Vietnam would have taken the path of Korea and Taiwan, instead of the dictatorial reign by nationalist despot like in Indonesia? I think the latter is much more probable - Diem would have been Vietnams Suharto.

And where exactly was the rich, liberal and cosmopolitan democracy creating middle class in South Korea?

[Ombrageux]

Well, we don't know, but since Vietnam had no major natural resources (unlike, say, Indonesia or Iran) I don't think America would have been enticed to support conservative corrupt elements for the sake of resources. America would most likely push the South Vietnamese to reform, or at least, back the liberal elements of the country.

There was neither an economic motive (as in Indonesia) nor an immediate strategic motive (as in Greece) to back conservative elements, so I think it would have followed a development much like Taiwan and Korea. Of course, we can never know.

[Lokakyy]

I just checked Wikipedia for Taiwanese political history. Taiwan was ruled during the 1960s and 1970s by an authoritarian one party system. During the presidency of Chiang Ching-kuo, the political system of Taiwan was gradually liberalized and the martial law ended in 1987. In the same year South Korea held its first democratic elections.

1987 seems pretty late to me. Neither Korea or Taiwan reached democracy before the latter half of 1980s. Why Vietnam then? I think that pretty much indicates that US didn't have any interest to democratize countries nor "support their liberal elements". Or at least it didn't do so. It is far too retrospective to think that the US strategists thought that if they could save these countries from communism, they would democratize after the cold war.

Not to mention how the US fight against communist guerrillas in sake of saving democracy was also in a way fighting fire with gasoline. The widespread destruction of infrastructure, massive bombardments, sowing mines and poisoning the land with Agent Orange left Vietnam in ruins. Certainly not a fertile soil for liberal democracy to bloom, right?

[Ombrageux]

Well, mind you, the US tried far too hard and used means far too violent for the ends they were aiming for, that is, an authoritarian economically liberal South Vietnam.

However, death and destruction per se do not mean democracy cannot grow, both Germany and Japan went through terrible loss of life and infrastructure before becoming model democracies. Although, granted, the Vietnamese had done nothing wrong to deserve this, unlike the Germans or Japanese.

[Lokakyy]

However, death and destruction per se do not mean democracy cannot grow, both Germany and Japan went through terrible loss of life and infrastructure before becoming model democracies.

Yes, but they are hardly comparable to Vietnam.

Germany had existing parliamentary system and tradition, even if the Weimar Republic was hardly stabile and probably not even what we call democracy nowadays. It was also totally impossible for (West) Germany to lapse back to totalitarianism because it was heavily occupied.

Japan on the other hand indeed developed democracy. However, it was also industrialised like Germany and didn't have the similar colonial legacy as Vietnam had. I must point out also, that I have always considered the Japanese democracy a bit odd case, if you think that the local conservative party has been ruling the country since the end of occupation 1951 and not until now the opposition is developing to be a real opposition. I believe that has very much to do with cultural differences between the Japanese and the West. After all, not even their view to capitalism is quite the same.

Vietnam on the other hand had colonial past of a century and no existing examples of such requirements for democracy as established journalism etc.

It is interesting to note that communists were so popular in (South) Vietnam, because the population consisted mainly out of impoverished peasantry. In the same time, North Vietnam was redistributing land and thus dismantling the old colonial system, something that really appealed to South Vietnamese landless or substenance farmers. On the other hand, under Diem government there was no way such redistribution would happen. I think this is what ties Vietnam much closer to Indonesia than Taiwan or Korea - affecting much more than western interests for resources - the appeal of communism to the landless peasants and that communism had to be suppressed violently.