Quote:
Originally Posted by Pogo
I'll do better, and merely point out that our having him removed from power was a pretty clear indication that he wasn't living up to our expectations.
|
And that’s the problem, Diem was doing very well until Lodge became ambassador. Then slowly but surely it became unwound. Kennedy needed to be rid of him regarding an ongoing political feud; he feared he would be the rep. nominee in the next pres. election and thought he would be rid of lodge by sending him to Vietnam, lodge accepted as he thought he could make enough hay over this issue and others to make a case against Kennedy in 64.
His understanding of Vietnamese interests, as seen from the south’s perspective and in fact based on the Vietnamese culture as strider alluded to was infantile at best, and in effect hamstrung Diem at crucial times and forced him to make decisions antithetical to Vietnamese cultural mindset and there by own and the souths best interest(s).
Quote:
What led you to this conclusion?
IMO, the general population would've preferred not to have undergone the war that was a result of our choosing to prolong the partitioning of the country. Given the end result, can there really be any doubt that the people would've preferred not to have undergone the violence and havoc that we unleashed on them?
|
thats slippery question with no answer before the events. Ho and the north wanted the French out, there belief being that th french had zero interests in governing their country other than as a colony, and they were correct. Hos form of gov. And because he did eject them doesn't mean his form of gov. was nay better that say Diems vision of gov. Ho used the ussr and china as sppt. and as a lever to make his fashion of gov. the predominat one.
Quote:
You're separating out some possible positives from the hell that came about and was inherent in choosing to maintain partition. There was no way that we were going to win, short of extermination, and we came very close to crossing that line. That, IMO, was decidedly contrary to the interests of the South Vietnamese people.
|
Not true, diem was winning, and as I have said a number of times, our destruction of diem etc. made the rest of the decade possible. IF Diem had been left to do what he had been ding that war there after would have been avoided on the scale it was practiced.
Quote:
Again, I'll point to the fact that our having him removed from power shows clearly that he was seen as a puppet, and whether or not Diem saw himself that way is beside the point, I think.
|
He fought us tooth and nail, and was forced to make decisions, ala allowance of factionalism etc. that lost him sppt. amongst the public and amongst his generals, resulting in confusion, perceived weakness and loss of face, which was the core of that loss of sppt. for himself despite gains on the ground which evaporated once those factors became prevalent as the flag went up that diem was weak subservient not to Vietnamese interest, but the US’s, and could be toppled.
He told Lodge et al that always giving into factionalism etc. would surly spell the death of the south viet regime. He know it, and said so, we in our western arrogance ( see; Iraq) thought we could move in, install democracy and the Vietnamese would go merrily upon their way. wrong.
Quote:
|
By definition, a client is a subservient role, though we can certainly argue as to what degree. The salient question is whether or not the client role is adopted voluntarily. Diem's ouster, IMO, clearly indicates that he was expected to be a puppet -- or else -- hence it wasn't up to Diem to choose whether or not to be a client, and under what terms.
|
yes , he was expected to be a puppet, and he was assasinated because the US did not understand what was called for, or, lets say they went in with eyes wide shut from the git go.