Legally, Jubal is correct.

Full Stop.

However, Frank's description of an "occupation" is not without merit. Consider (1) that the RVN government was the result of a CIA coup engineered against (2) a government set up by departing French colonialists, and (3) that the elections that happened along the way weren't even regarded as particularly free or fair even at the time. The RVN government never had broad support, and even this narrow support lessened as the "American War" wore on. So for many Viet Namese, particularly rural villagers, American troops, the brutal North Vietnamese, and sometimes even the ARVN itself were perceived as hostile outside forces --- "occupiers."

"Occupation" is a particularly apt description for the hundreds of thousands of South Viet Namese forced into the "strategic hamlet" program. And as for the Cambodians.....

The term "occupation" does not come close to fitting our role in Vietnam, and frankly, it doesn't work in Iraq either. I find the pacifists and paleo-cons and MoveOn.orgs as amusing as anyone, but their use of twisted vocabulary to poison the well of this dialogue is no replacement for solid argumentation. Kudos, Matt, for calling this out!

A few points of clarification...

* 560,000 American troops in Vietnam by 1969. Australia, New Zealand and South Korea sent another 300,000.

* Over 1 million American contractors (Kellogg, Brown & Root or "KBR" now Halliburton) and State Dept. employees, CIA and others. Unlike in Iraq, State Dept. employees deployed to Vietnam in record numbers.

* In Iraq, there are 180,000 contractors working alongside 160,000 U.S. military personnel.

* People voted with their feet in Vietnam in 1954 when a million or so Catholics moved to the South, some with the help of the U.S. military. Then they voted again in the spring of 1975 through present day. The most recent version of the McCain Amendment, included in H.R. 2764, was extended on December 17, 2007. It will expire on September 30, 2009. http://hochiminh.usconsulate.gov/the_mccain_program.html

* Tylerh, people like my late father believed in the RVN enough to fight in that war from 1954-75 then suffered another 12 years plus in the re-ed prison camps. There were many like him who gave their all. The Joint War Memorial of Westminster is a tribute to the 245,000 South Vietnamese and 58,300 Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

* The U.S. occupied and rebuilt Germany and Japan AFTER unconditional surrenders and years of massive aerial bombardment and two nuclear bombs. In Vietnam the U.S. did not lose; it simply got back its POWs (McCain) then quit. A peace without honor.

* On March 8, 1965, two battalions of Marines from the 9th Marine Amphibious Brigade waded ashore, unopposed, in Danang. Vietnamese girls donning white ao dai (traditional silk dress with pants) presented leis to the Marines in front of worldwide press coverage. Bui Diem, chief of staff for South Vietnam’s Prime Minister, was writing the communiqué “inviting” U.S. troops into South Vietnam—as the Marines were landing. At the time, a Gallup poll reported only one of four Americans thought “sending troops to Vietnam had been a mistake.”

Frank Mickadeit, Gordon Dillow and Martin Wisckol should have asked the protesters (who were in their 20s when Saigon fell) about what they were doing to preserve the sovereignty of South Vietnam when it really mattered.

Quang,

My father and both of my maternal uncles have military service ribbons that were a gift of the RVN. I do not need the lecture about the incredible bravery and commitment of some its soldiers. Your father was hardly alone is his patriotism and professionalism. Viet Nam is a big country, however, and the sacrifices of the your father and mine do not erase the fact of the general unpopularity of the CIA-backed strong men who "ran" an often ineffective army. Indeed, one of my Uncles commented " hell, half of the time we weren't sure which side to shoot at." Many, many who wore the ARVN uniform did not share your father's commitment.

Digging deeper, you correctly noted "People voted with their feet in Vietnam in 1954 when a million or so Catholics moved to the South, some with the help of the U.S. military."

That was actually part of the problem. Much of the core of the support of Diem government came from "Northerners" and from Catholics -- those that had been close to the French colonial regime. Thus the RVN continually suffered a credibility gap vis-a-vis the oppressive Communists who had burnished their nationalist credentials defeating the French. Before Buddhists monks became world famous for opposing oppression in Burma and Tibet, they were world famous for protesting against the dictators of the Republic of Vietnam.

I intend no disrespect your father and his brethren who died for a greater cause. I post because noble men can die for ignoble regimes and their blood demands we speak the truth.

--

P.S. Nothing in my comments should be construed as endorsing the Communists. Tens of Millions of Vietnamese would be better off today if the Communists had lost to the corrupt, often ineffectual RVN. Indeed, Thich Thien Minh himself was jailed for life in 1979, and his Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam was outlawed by the Communists.

TylerH, maybe your father and your uncles don't need my lecture. But if you're going to "speak" for rural South Vietnamese villagers, then I'm going to write about those whom I have interviewed, researched or know first-hand.

I never said my father was the sole patriot. Reread "There were many like him who gave their all."

You wrote, "Tens of Millions of Vietnamese would be better off today if the Communists had lost to the corrupt, often ineffectual RVN." Try reassessing the efforts of the US leaders of the 60s. Or read Robert McNamara's memoirs from 1995.

IN RETROSPECT:
THE TRAGEDY AND LESSONS OF VIETNAM
ROBERT S. MCNAMARA
WITH BRIAN VANDEMARK
(Published in 1995, 20 years after the fall of Saigon)
FROM THE PREFACE:

"We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."

Jubal,

When I read Mickadeit's column I felt the same twinge when I read that we "occupied" 'Viet Nam. I suppose to some its semantics but it really was a low blow whether intended or not. Irregardless of the legitimacy of the government holding power in South Viet Nam, it is undeniable that people opposed to Comunism fled to the south for the protection provided by the US Military. Hardly an occupation.

I used to have arguments like this all the time when I was in college in the 1980s. What's unfortunate is that there are just way too many people who hold Mickadeit's point of view. And I mean people who are otherwise very reasonable and well-informed. I'm glad Jubal brought this up again.

In my own extensive research in college, I can upon some
remarkable, but little discussed facts when looking at the Post
World War II map and geopolitics:

1)The French, British and other Colonial Powers were
told by the Americans to give up their Empires in
the Middle East and allow those countries their independence.

2)President Eisenhower told the French and British to keep their
hands off the Suez Canal after the Egyptians seized it
as their own--after all it was built on their property.

3)Over the objections of Truman and Eisenhower, French President DeGaule insisted on keeping SE Asia as part of the French Colonial Empire in the Post World War II Era( for which the French paid a very high price in blood and treasure.

4)When the French tried to hold their Colonial Empire together
in SE Asia, they found out, after much loss of life and treasure,
that it was not defensible against a people who wanted independence
and refused to stop fighting until the French had left.

5)After the French left Indo China in the 1950's and specifically]
Vietnam, they told the American Government to not waste our time
there since it was not worth it and not defensible.
It was a Civil War against Colonialism.

6)The American Government was approached numerous times by
the Vietnamese and the Indo Chinese for
assistance in kicking the French out of Indo China and Vietnam.

7)One of the little known, but documented facts(which appeared
in a World War I era Time Magazine), was that a
young Vietnamese student studying in France even tried
desperately to meet with the Americans,French and the Allies
during a post World War I Treaty of Versailles conference.
This young student was rebuffed numerous times. This young
student wanted assistance in making Vietnam a free and
democratic country. In fact, this young student activist
had a hand in writing the modern constitution of Vietnam
which was heavily plagiarized from the Constitution of the
United States of America.

8)Well the rest of this story is that the name of
this young student was Ho Chi Minh.

You can draw many conclusions from these facts
and one would be that the short sighted, boneheaded
decisions made by government policymakers about Indo China
without regard to historical facts drove a democratic
leaning independence movement against colonialism
into the arms of our opponents the Communists.

Quang,

I salute your passion, but I do ask you to read more carefully.

I wrote Your father was hardly alone is his patriotism and professionalism and I also wrote I intend no disrespect your father and his brethren who died for a greater cause to which you responded "I never said my father was the sole patriot."
Uh,yeah. I already pointed that out. Twice in the same post.

I wrote I post because noble men can die for ignoble regimes and their blood demands we speak the truth. You generously provide the Robert McNamara quote "we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."

Thank you for providing the wonderful supporting quote; I plan to use it in the future.

Perhaps your response was intended for someone else?

-tylerh