Years ago, I ran into former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Bill Colby at a conference in Washington, DC.
I was with an acquaintance who had participated in the agency’s secret air operations in Laos during the 1960s. After exchanging cards, my friend popped a question: Did Colby think that history could have been changed and over a million deaths averted if the US had accepted Ho Chi Minh’s offer of an alliance at the end of World War II?
Colby, who oversaw a CIA counter-insurgency program in Vietnamese villages that killed upwards of 40,000 civilians, thought for a moment. “Guys, we’ll never know the answer to that question,” he said with a haunting twinkle in his eye.
Forty-two years after the last American helicopter left Saigon, it still rankles some that history might have taken a different turn.
Max Boot, a military historian and foreign policy analyst, revisits that question in a well wrought and entertaining biography of Edward Lansdale, the legendary CIA operative whom he credits as the first to advocate a “hearts and minds” approach to winning wars in the Philippines and Vietnam.
Boot argues in The Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in Vietnam that the maverick advertising man turned covert-action specialist actually championed a policy that relied on winning popular support by focusing on the causes of insurgencies, rather than brute military strength.
US bombing military and strategic targets in north Vietnam during the Vietnam War on February 8, 1966. Photo: AFP
Needless to say Lansdale’s prescriptions were ignored by an entrenched US military bureaucracy and ruling class that favored B-52 bomber strikes over winning popular trust.
“It is no exaggeration to suggest that the whole conflict, the worst military defeat in American history, might have taken a very different course — one that was less costly and potentially more successful — if the counsel of this CIA operative and Air Force officer had been followed,” Boot writes in his book.
All things considered, it’s unlikely that a single strategy, however visionary, could have salvaged the US war in Vietnam. But in the post-mortem that emerged from the conflict, Lansdale’s approach did become a template for future US military adventures, most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But as in all things, there’s a difference between theory and practice. The struggle for hearts and minds in the Middle East and elsewhere has proved maddeningly elusive and usually falls prey to expedience, ineptitude and corruption on the US side.
Misunderstood hero?
Lansdale, who died in 1987, has been a target of vilification for his involvement in clandestine CIA military activities in Laos and post-WWII efforts to preserve French rule in Vietnam.
He is also a favorite of conspiracy theorists who see his hand in everything from the Kennedy assassination to US efforts to recover a horde of gold stashed in the Philippines by Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita.
But Boot notes the “T E Lawrence of Asia” had another side — the one that bitterly opposed the US-approved assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem and who forged close bonds with Cao Dai rebels and Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay.
“(Lansdale) argued that the American emphasis should be on building up legitimate, democratic, and accountable South Vietnamese institutions that could command the loyalty of the people, and he thought that sending large formations of American ground troops was a distraction from, indeed a hindrance to, achieving that all-important objective,” Boot contends in his book.
Nor was Lansdale a racist. In a time when even educated men like John F Kennedy routinely referred to Chinese as “chinks”, Lansdale avoided such epithets. As an itinerant man from ordinary roots who had been raised as a Christian Scientist, he was a religious and social outsider who identified with non-white underdogs.
“He saw people of other racial and ethnic background as individuals, and sought to appeal to them as equals. This made Lansdale an unusual, and unusually effective, agent of American power — if not always a successful one,” Boot wrote.
As a military intelligence officer in the Philippines in 1945, Lansdale was more interested in “tracking societal conditions to ensure that new enemies did not arise out of the rubble of old wars”, than reporting about enemies in the field.
Is there a present-day lesson for the US? Boot argues that Lansdale’s legacy “stands as a rebuke both to anti-interventionists who assume that fragile states should stand or fall on their own and to arch-hawks who believe that massive commitments of American military forces are necessary to win any war.”
Such contradictory policy strains have bedeviled American “boots on the ground” in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it’s equally true that a Lansdale-inspired struggle for hearts and minds in the Middle East and Afghanistan has disintegrated amid the bloody intricacies of Muslim sectarian strife and an over-stretched US military’s inability to provide security to friendly communities.
At the same time, Lansdale’s more nimble grasp of political warfare and propaganda in gaining popular support contrasts with ham-fisted US psy-war efforts against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that failed to contain the insurgency. This may be the most important lesson.
In final analysis, Boot’s musings about roads diverging in a historical wood sound all the more relevant in a Trumpian world that appears to be inching towards another abyss.
Your conviction that Vietnam does not deserve to be united is a Chinese and (stupid) American view. Patriotic Vietnamese know better.
Your conviction that Vietnam does not deserve to be united is a Chinese and (stupid) American view. Patriotic Vietnamese know better.
The story that the ARVN (saigon army) was crushed in 1975 because the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) had vast arms shipments from the Communist states and the Americans failed to give lots of arms to ARVN is a tired old lie and excuse by foolish Americans out to save face and Saigon crooks who ran away when they could have fought. Frank Snepp, a top CIA official in Saigon right up to the end in 1975, exposes this lie in his famous book "Decent Interval" (1977). In fact the Communist nations sharply cut back on their aid to Hanoi after the peace agreement in 1973, and Hanoi was on poor terms with Beijing, by then befriending the US. The Soviets refused to give their latest T72 tanks to the NVA and the Hanoi forces had to make do with the old fashioned T54. Communist generals like Tran van Tra constantly complained of their forces being starved for arms. A US historian like George Veith anxious to plug the line that ARVN only lost because Hanoi had so much superiority in arms gives the game away when he artlessly cites instances where the NVA was badly short of arms even in 1975. For example, the NVA was only able to capture Phuoc Binh province, which began the crumbling of ARVN forces in sheer panic and disorganisation, because General Tran van Tra happened by enormous good fortune to capture 6400 rounds of artillery ammunition the Saigon forces had abandoned along with artillery guns ! See George J. Veith, "Black April", 2012, pp. 106. When they captured Da Nang, the NVA was stupefied to find ARVN had abandoned 6 billion 1970s US dollars worth of arms ! The captured ARVN arms made united Vietnam the world’s third greatest military power for a while, in sheer numbers of tanks and planes and ships and whatnot. No, Saigon had lots of arms. It simply lacked the will to fight and keep fighting. When the B-52s went, Saigon’s guts crumbled.
Today the Vietnamese know America is a very important ally to have in the face of Chinese expansionism. Which shows up yet again the unbelievable stupidity of Americans like Lansdale in waging such a stupefyingly destructive war against Vietnam – supposedly to stop the Chinese !
The US should have accepted Vietnamese independence in 1945.
When the US pulled out in 1973, the war had been won on the battlefield. The Communist were defeated. North Vietnam was bombed back to the "peace talks." They were out of SAM’s and open to total destruction. The war, although badly mismanaged, was lost after the US left. A weak presidency and an unwilling Congress resulted in an end to support for the South.
The author is famous in America as a statist, neocon and war-monger. You are correct, so please discount his thinking.
Boot is a die-hard neocon, and gives us a false choice: Engaging in a 10 year war in Vietnam, or using other means of American power to counter Communist insurgency. Both are failed forms of meddling, and both were tried.
Isn’t it ironic that America "lost" Vietnam after spending $Trillions, killing 1 million vietnames and 50,000 American dead, while 40 years later the USA has suddenly "won" a new friend in Vietnam by literally, doing nothing except trading with them?
What if, what if, etc……Truth is, no one can say today what advantageous outcome might have resulted if different policies had been undertaken.
War was won after failure of North’s invasion across DMZ in 1972. But Deep State" decided to give back the victory by denying South logistical support as Soviets and Chinese ramped up thier support to North. A coordinated plan?
USMC General Krulak’s plan in 1965 to extend DMZ at 17th parallel across southern Laotian panhandle to Mekong would have ended war on terms beneficial to South and anti-communist efforts. A strategic barrage similar to Iron curtain in Europe and DMZ in Korea. North validated this point after war. And a fraction of caualties to ALL sides.
this article obscures the real tragic omission by the US.
(a) It was not just Col Lansdale or any such small person whose words needed to be heeded. No less than President Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) , was insistent that European Colonialists should get out of Africa and Asia after WW2. Roosevelt was contemptuous of the Brits/French/Dutch , and was friendly with Soviets. US supported and trained the communist Viet Minh during WW2.
(b) At the same time, the Republican Right and the moneybags in Wall St were linked right through the war with the Nazis. General Motors continued to draw dividends thru WW2 from its joint venture with Krupp of Germany. With every coffin of an American soldier, GM shareholders saw their dividends rise. FDR had decided to nab these traitors , one & all, but, alas he died even before war’s end.
(c) Over FDR’s dead body, the Repiblican Right and the tycoons lost no time and started a huge propaganda against "communist menace". They made it appear that it was "American" to oppose communism. Fact was that FDR was friendly to US Communist Party with it even rumoured that Earl Browder of the US Communiust party had an office room in the White House during FDR’s Presidency where he dveloped policy suggestions for FDR.
(d) There were three major Summit Meetings during WW2 of the Big Three (FDR/Stalin/Churchill) , at Cairo/Tehran and Yalta. At Tehran in 1943, Roosevelt and Stalin had agreedn that the French and the Dutch (whose countries were then under Nazi occupation), would not return to Asia. Vietnam/Indonesia would all be under UN trustreeship for a year or so after WW2 and then elections would decide their respective zgovernments. Churchill , of course, furiously disagreed as he did not wish the corollary to this , which was that Brits would have to leave India.
(e) As WW2 drew to an end, FDR’s initial impulse was to ask the Chinese Nationalist army of Chiang Kai Sheik to occupy whole of Vietnam as initial Trusteeship under the proposed UN . Chiang said he could occupy North Vietnam , but Southern Vietnam or Cochin China would have to be occuppied by the Americans themselves. Churchill,insisted at that time on maximum contribution of American troops for the liberation of Europe, as Churchill, ever the racist was unwilling to deploy Indian soldiers (2.5 million of them!) for liberation of France/Europe. He did not wish to be under any "obligation" to brown-skinned upstarts. Result was that with US troops diverted to European theatre, FDR had to agree to the BRits picking up the role in Sotheast Asia. Indian troops under British command entered Vietnam. Brits were 360 degrees ungrateful. In his VE day radio broadcast, Churchill mentioned even New Zealand and South Africa but not India , though 2.5 milliuon Indian soldiers had fought with the allies in the Middle East. ( A larger number than the total poulation of New Zealand or of White South Africans) British General Gracey in Vietnam , entirely contrary to what FDR had desired , ordered Indian troops to arm Frenchmen to attack Vietnamese nationalists. The US liaision mission in Vietnam was led by Col Dewey, a nephew of the Republican Presidential candidate in 1944. Dewey sought an appointment with Gracey when the disarming of Viet Minh was ordered and Gracey brusquely refused. (Why I say it was 360 degrees betrayal!). Gracey refused to allow Dewey to fly the US flag on his vehicle and Dewey had to fly the allied flags other than the US flag. As a result , Dewey’s vehicle came under attack by Viet Minh and he lost his life,. Later, Ho Chi Minh wrote an apology to Truman (by then, FDR’s successor) and even today , when Saigon has become Ho Chi Minh City, a street is named after Dewey. Gracey with his pulling of rank ("you’re not a staff oficer, you cant fly your flag":), was responsible for Dewey’s death. And the wretched fellow Gracey’s salary was effectively paid by the US , given Brit dependence on the US at that time in WW2. The Brits insidiously ignited the Cold War and rest is the unhappy history of a Vietnam War which would have left FDR turning in his grave,. ( Incidentally, the Central Legislative Assembly in India , passed a motion of censure of the British Govt in India for having used Indian soldiers to restore French colonialism in Vietnam).
(f) This history goes unmentioned in thouisands of tomes written on th Vietnam war. Even the fact that the representative institution of the largest population in teh world, of undivided India had censured the Brit attempt to restore French colonialism, even that is hidden from view. A pro-Brit narrative of a non-existent "special Relationship" takes its place.
Words of wisdom that are likely to be ignored by Corporate Capitalist West.
But no one will be happier than I if proven wrong.
The US should learn from their mistakes and improve their image. We have seen again and again wars and forced regime changes does not work. America have a superior military and more rockets than Mr. Kim, the rocket man. No doubt, the US 5.000 nukes can eradicate all life on earth. This does not impress Asians. Asians are more interested in trade, tourism and investment. Asians focus on education and reduction of poverty. Asians does not live a life far above their earnings on borrowed money. Asians build their countries one brick at the time. China and Russia have discovered the huge possibility Asian cooperation and built infrastructure enabling a bright future. Building bridges, ports, and rail roads is profitable investments. The US is doing the opposite building walls and increase mining of coal while China/Asia seems committed to green and renewable energy.
The US must accept the reality, Asia is in the post-American era. No more US bullying and regime changes, be respectful and trade on equal terms. The Vietnam war and all other wars in Asia has failed. Sure, in hindsight we see the mistakes, but we must learn. US started 2018 with take it or leave it deals to Palestine and Pakistan. We see the US want a Pakistani military coup and have IMF on their team. Pakistan-China relations is the real issue. The terrorism problem created mostly due to the Afghan war is a scape goat. How many Americans or US allies have been killed due to Pakistan terrorism? The victims of Pakistan terrorism are mostly Pakistan citizen and there has been some terror in India, due to the many grievances between India and Pakistan. Sure, the US has given $36 billion to fight the US created terror problem, but the total cost for the Pakistan economy is much higher, do not forget all the refugees and IDP created by the Afghan war.
US should completely withdraw from all military operations in Asia and send trade delegations instead. As soon as the dust has settled in the Middle East, the entire Asia region will experience an economic bonanza. Reduction of poverty alone, will increase purchasing power and demand. China has very good experience with poverty reduction and it has had a huge positive effect on the economy. The US gives tax reduction to the rich/middle class and the rest of the population struggle from pay check to pay check. The only reason for the growth in the US GDP is the one trillion dollars of borrowed money infused in the economy.
It is like India in Kashmir.
US at least got out after 15 years, India is still stuck after 70, lol.
From the classical days of Athens to Trump today, Democracies’ Demos (5% moneyed males) ruling over the 95% rest (women, plebs, slaves) have always ignored their Socrates.
Quiet unlike Asia where people honour their greats – Confucius, Buddha, Gandhi.
A civilization that shelved Jesus and comitted suicide 1914-45 killing 120,000,000 (or 1 in 4) of their own and allegedly 6,000,000 of an alien race is today below replenishment. What is in store for them? No kids no future.
Why doesn’t Boot write the biography of Nguyen Can Do, who is known to Vietnamese as the "Lawrence of America"? He was the one who was parachuted by the Vietnamese Communist Party into Alabama in the Fifties to sort out the desperate struggle between whites and blacks. Several people on the Vietnamese Politburo wanted to make a full scale invasion of Alabama and strikes with B52 bombers, but Nguyen Can Do told them;
"No ! You don’t understand the complicated psychology of these American savages. Send me to fix it. I have my own methiods !"
The rest is history.
All this is based on the patronising illusion that Vietnam’s problems have American solutions. Leave the Vietnamese to sort things out, will you? There can no more be a Lawrence of Vietnam from America than there can be a Lawrence of America from Vietnam. Vietnam does not send anyone to solve American problems. Learn from that.
An interesting spy is Lansdale. A man ahead of his times.
The best spy is not one who reports back as to what is right or wrong or strengths or weaknesses from the point of view of the country or its people spying. That is called one sided or one-eyed intelligence or analysis.
Lansdale was halfway there in being a good spy by seeing the fight for liberation or freedom from the native or indigenous Vietnamese rather than from the hegemonistic American World Sheriff point of view.
But spying aside, it is best to refrain from interference in the internal or domestic affairs of any sovereign state, no matter how harsh, incongruent or obnoxious or an upheaval to the senses of an outsider, as long as it does not spill over to neighbouring countries or is somehow ‘exported’ to other parts of the world.
The best way to treat a ‘rogue’ state is to quarantine it totally like a ‘leper’, make it a pariah state, in all sense of the word, so that no trade or commerce or any intercourse of any kind is transacted with that nation at all, regardless of what vital resources it may have. Build a wall around it with one controlled exit, to allow ‘approved’ refugees or regime victims to ‘escape’.
Had this course been taken, most of the oil rich nations of the Middle East and in fact the entire Islamic world would have been left alone like zoo animals in their private pristine environment of their own, left to their extreme religious beliefs and antiquated heresies, and we will not have what we call Islamic terrorists terrorising the West today. Let them be! Let them and leave them to their own religious values and resources. Treat them like the plague and duly quarantine them so as to protect ourselves from their scourge.
It should be – each to his own. Let the Chinese be Chinese and Indians be Indians and the Europeans be Europeans. Trade with each other by all means and have an amicable diplomatic if there is friendship or rapport. But let each not tell the other how to run their respective ‘houses’ or ‘marriages’ (metaphors for their culture, religion or values).