The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Big Deals

9.29.04 @ 12:01AM

INDONESIA, INDOCHINA
Re: William Tucker's Who Says We Lost in Vietnam?:

The Indonesian PKI's attempted coup occurred on September 30, 1965, not in 1966. Also, the "Year of Living Dangerously" was from August 17, 1964 to August 16, 1965, not 1966. That phrase came from then-President Sukarno's Independence Day speech of August 17, 1964 and it was in reference to his projection of what the upcoming year would offer as his country was being courted by all sides. That year did, indeed, prove to be dangerous, though not as dangerous as the following year turned out to be.

Perhaps because of this 1966 is often mistakenly given that designation. The phrase later gained widespread acceptance after C. J. Koch used it as the title to a novel set in that locale and time frame. (The novel was later made into a movie starring Mel Gibson and Sigourney Weaver.)

As for what actually occurred in Indonesia during that tumultuous and horrific time, there are as many theories as there are theorists. Not surprisingly, the same crowd that describes the U.S. government's involvement in Vietnam as inept accuses that same government of being deviously cunning in Indonesia. We will likely never know the extent of what transpired. However, this much we do know: in Indonesia communism was stopped dead in its tracks after coming within a hair's breadth of gaining control of the whole country.

Indonesia was then the world's fifth largest county; it is now the fourth largest. It is rich with natural resources and it is the gateway between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. I shudder to think what Southeast Asia would look like today had Indonesia fallen to communism.

Indonesia has its problems, to be sure, and it is far from being a bastion of freedom. However, within the past few weeks it held its first-ever direct election. I don't think any of the countries behind the bamboo curtain can say the same.

While the Soviets and Red Chinese were fighting us in Vietnam, they lost their grasp on the sweetest Southeast Asian plum of them all.

Fine article, Mr. Tucker.
-- R. S. Trotter
Great Falls, Virginia

Mr. Tucker's piece on the ramifications of the War in Vietnam was very interesting and dovetails nicely with the world situation today. While I do not agree that the United States could not have secured a total military victory in that country given a less political and more enlightened strategy, history simply is. And that is why historical record must be studied and taken seriously.

This country is in similar straits today. In the short term, we are facing a semi-organized Islamic extremist movement that has proven that its aim is to dominate as much of the world as possible. And, similar to the Viet Cong and the Khmer Rouge, the movement is composed of quasi-independent agencies that are state sponsored and partially state controlled. Guerrilla fighters are entering Iraq from neighboring countries with the blessing of the leadership of those countries, the modern equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

But the similarities end there. In the 1960s and '70s, we faced a real and viable threat from the Soviet Union in Europe and Red China in Korea. These threats had to be contained using a large deployment of U.S. military forces which had to be positioned and held continuously. This is no longer the case. The US has the option to reduce troop strengths in Europe and Korea and re-deploy forces to the more urgent trouble spots. The forces of radical Islam are worldwide with no clearly defined "fronts", which requires far greater flexibility than in the past.

Now, there is also an new wrinkle in the present world situation, nuclear proliferation. Ostensibly hostile, rogue states, Iran and North Korea, are expanding their nuclear potential and arsenals. Both nations now have IRBM delivery capability and in one case, North Korea, they have a functional nuclear weapon. This further destabilizes the world. Diplomacy is being used to attempt to contain and even mitigate these threats, but diplomacy is doomed to failure if it is not backed up by military might and the apparent willingness to exercise that might.

Our traditional allies during the Cold War are abandoning their unified stance due to internal political considerations. New allies, less encumbered by growing extremist Muslim populations or more enlightened as to the changing world situation, have taken their place. Again, this increases global instability. But it is not the fault of the U.S.

The global conflict, and the lesser one in Iraq, is not a "religious" war on the part of the United States. It is a war to curb aggression on the part of other groups and states that threatens the peace and stability of this planet. The religious affiliation of aggressive groups and nations is irrelevant. The only relevancy is their destabilization of the peace of the global community. The face of future Iraq, will be an Iraqi one. The people of that nation will elect their initial leaders in a representative manner. The evolution of the political system of Iraq will rest solely within the hands of the Iraqi people. The only interest of the U.S. should be that this is done in a peaceful manner.

Peace is the answer. It is more enduring if it is accomplished through mutual cooperation. But for those who would view the peaceful person as a weak person and seek to take advantage of others, force must sometimes be used to achieve peace and prosperity for all. This is one of the lessons of history which must not be overlooked. Such are the times we live in. This too shall be history and people will look back and, hopefully, learn from mistakes made today. In the meantime, historical record should be kept in mind. Great struggles are not short ones. They cost, but the cost is usually less if the potential problem is addressed early rather than late. Peace, and its attendant benefits, can be achieved, but only through a global stability that yields the highest possible benefits to the greatest number of people.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Trade, Television, Social Security, Catholicism, Islam, Books, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Communism