Any similarities between Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea and Haiti?
Ho Chi Minh was actually America’s man in Vietnam fighting the Japanese in World War II.
After the fall of Japan and the liberation of France the French wanted back their colonies, to include Vietnam, that were part of French Indochina, but Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese weren’t having it.
He asked his former ally the USA to assist but they couldn’t do anything as France was their ally so he turned to the Soviet Union, and a communist State emanated from this assistance.
The Americans came in to stem the flow of communism and the war began.
It was a lost cause from the outset.
The Americans had hoped to contain the newly created country of South Vietnam and not invade the enemy state of North Vietnam, which was the communist part — so they were, in effect, trying to contain a massive country which had the support of the north within. It also had support of a large percentage of the south because they didn’t want the Americans or any foreign power there, irrespective of the internal threat. This could only be done by occupation, which came at the cost of American lives.
This is not dissimilar to Afghanistan. The attempt to contain the Taliban required a consistent presence that costs money and lives. In the case of Afghanistan they were trying to contain a group that, apart from being adequately funded by hostile Arab nations, was reasonably popular with extremists and fundamentalist Muslims.
Couple this with an insurrection movement that didn’t want the Americans there and you have not only a need to always be there, you also have a capacity issue.
In Vietnam the capacity was solved by an unpopular draft. In Afghanistan, it was solved by sending any and all you could, to include troops who never expected to be sent overseas.
We are now preparing to send troops to Haiti to fight the criminal takeover of that nation. We are making a few mistakes.
Firstly, I agree that an incursion is required to bring back governmental control. It, however, has to be done correctly or it will fail. Capacity is the first consideration.
I understand it’s 3,000 troops in total. Experts are saying you need 30,000. It’s made up of African and Caribbean troops only. Why?
It’s a Pan-American problem. Where are the USA and Canada? In fact, where is Britain who normally runs behind the USA wherever they go?
Is this Rwanda all over again where large nations are missing in conflicts in which blacks are slaughtering blacks?
The Americans invaded Kuwait to liberate it from a hostile Iraq. They went into Korea and Vietnam. They went into eastern Europe, ie Kosovo and Bosnia, after the fall of the Berlin Wall caused a break-up of the former Soviet Union. What is it about black nations that make them unworthy of committing American, Canadian and British lives? Unless, of course, there is a communist threat like in 1983 Grenada.
And, to be fair, they did help in Sudan.
The reality is that if we don’t do this properly then it doesn’t make sense we do it at all. We need a troop count of 30,000. We need the major military players in the region. It is important this incursion takes place. It is important that Jamaica is involved as we are qualified at repealing threats such as what will be faced. We have been fighting criminal gangs for 50 years.
It, however, must be done correctly. Lives are going to be lost. Let it not be for an effort doomed from the outset. This is what happened with Vietnam. General William Westmoreland was constantly calling for more troops, hence the very unpopular draft — especially because it was for a cause that didn’t threaten the United States.
The conflict in Haiti is important enough to warrant the intervention of any country in NATO, except France. It’s very important that actual criminals don’t control an entire nation. The reason I excuse or bar the French is that not only is their history in Haiti despicable
— from slavery to the collection of extortion up to recent decades
— it would be a cruel irony of history to have them spill blood in the country they helped to wreck.
Which brings me to my other point. We need to be careful of Haitian nationalism. What starts as an action to combat criminals could easily become a full out war against Haitian citizens fighting to combat what they view as foreign invaders. So, the bombs that are commonly used in modern combat cannot be used there. Too many innocent lives are lost by the use of bombs, whether it is the carpet concept or drone-manned and deployed.
Panama was invaded by the United States in the 80s for far less than what is transpiring in Haiti. It was necessary, just like Grenada was, and just like Haiti is.
But as I said before, do it properly or none at all.
Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com