
An oldie that somehow escaped being scanned until recently. It's a borrowed pose from one of the mice that illustrated Paul Kidd's doggerel, "Hot Buttered Mice."
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1213 x 1280px
File Size 189.3 kB
Every time I wonder why the Vietnam war was lost, and why so many innocent Vietnamese live in squalor, being ill-treated by the corrupt bastards in the Vietnamese government, I look at this picture, and say:
"Oh yes, that's why. Because these good for nothing potheads enjoy living off the backs of others."
"Oh yes, that's why. Because these good for nothing potheads enjoy living off the backs of others."
Rubbish. There were never that many full blown hippies, for one thing. But, also, there's a long history of counter-culture groups of which the hippies were only one brief episode. Most of them were young people from Iowa or Michigan who were disenchanted with their middle-class upbringing who, in some cases, felt they were being prepared to be send as canon fodder to a place the didn't give a shit about, so experimented with this "hippie" thing that the media unintentionally popularized. Most of them went back to Iowa or Michgan eventually, because the counter-culture that preceded them actually took work to sustain, and wasn't all flowers, sex and pot. Today they're retiring from careers as insurance adjusters, car salesmen, payroll accountents, plant managers, information technology workers, etc.
The reason Vietnam was lost was because it couldn't have been won. It was a big country, with 90 million people living in it. The US was bigger, with about 250 million at the time, but would have had to put itself on a major war-footing, as it had with WWII. Vietnam was only about 0 years after WWII ended, and 20 years after the Korean War. Washington feared the public would not stand for another general war, so was never able to make the kind of effort it would have taken to overwhelm a nation of 90 million -- half of which were the enemy, and most of the other half completely indifferent to who won.
There was also the problem that Vietnam was on the border of China. The previous war the US fought was on the border of China, and the threat of a UN/US victory over North Korea on the Chinese border led to an intervention by the Chinese. Nobody wanted that to happen again, since China in 1950 was a lot more backward than it was in 1965. There were also the Soviets to consider ... while not a neighbor of Vietnam, it was the Soviets who actually supported them militarily. What the USSR would do if it seemed as though the US would overcome its ally was hard to predict!
So, Washington thinkers tried to win the Vietman war by proxy -- they would equip the South Vietnamese forces with superior equpment ... but it didn't work. So they slipped limited numbers of US troops into the conflict. But that wasn't enough. Eventually, the US had over half a million soldiers in the country, but it was clearly not enough to deal with an enemy who wouldn't face the US in a textbook battle, and was nearly invisible amongst the civilian population, who as often as not supported them. Since most civilians in the south hated their own government, and did not believe what the Americans told them (for good reason, it turned out), there was no likelihood of a favourable outcome. All that kept the US in the war so long was pride ... and an unwillingness of politicians to admit they backed an unsuccessful program. In 1975 it was finally too obvious to ignore that the war couldn't be won without the same effort as went into a world war -- the public knew it, so the politicians had to follow.
The reason Vietnam was lost was because it couldn't have been won. It was a big country, with 90 million people living in it. The US was bigger, with about 250 million at the time, but would have had to put itself on a major war-footing, as it had with WWII. Vietnam was only about 0 years after WWII ended, and 20 years after the Korean War. Washington feared the public would not stand for another general war, so was never able to make the kind of effort it would have taken to overwhelm a nation of 90 million -- half of which were the enemy, and most of the other half completely indifferent to who won.
There was also the problem that Vietnam was on the border of China. The previous war the US fought was on the border of China, and the threat of a UN/US victory over North Korea on the Chinese border led to an intervention by the Chinese. Nobody wanted that to happen again, since China in 1950 was a lot more backward than it was in 1965. There were also the Soviets to consider ... while not a neighbor of Vietnam, it was the Soviets who actually supported them militarily. What the USSR would do if it seemed as though the US would overcome its ally was hard to predict!
So, Washington thinkers tried to win the Vietman war by proxy -- they would equip the South Vietnamese forces with superior equpment ... but it didn't work. So they slipped limited numbers of US troops into the conflict. But that wasn't enough. Eventually, the US had over half a million soldiers in the country, but it was clearly not enough to deal with an enemy who wouldn't face the US in a textbook battle, and was nearly invisible amongst the civilian population, who as often as not supported them. Since most civilians in the south hated their own government, and did not believe what the Americans told them (for good reason, it turned out), there was no likelihood of a favourable outcome. All that kept the US in the war so long was pride ... and an unwillingness of politicians to admit they backed an unsuccessful program. In 1975 it was finally too obvious to ignore that the war couldn't be won without the same effort as went into a world war -- the public knew it, so the politicians had to follow.
I guess that's always justificable. While in full flower, there's little that's annoying as a hippie. But even Al Capp, who detested anyone who wasn't a short-haired, rolled-sleeve, patriotic working man (not that he was one himself, mind you), fantasized about easily laid hippie girls.
Comments