Nixon, China, and Viet Nam

Left – Le Duck Tho | Right – Henry Kissinger

Yesterday Father Orthoduck posted on three reasons why Nixon went to the People’s Republic of China in 1972. The first one that Father Orthoduck brought up was Viet Nam. Here is what most people probably do not realize. President Nixon kept his campaign promise, which was to reduce the level of USA troops in Viet Nam until the conflict had been turned over to the Vietnamese to decide their own fate. In that he succeeded. As Father Orthoduck mentioned in yesterday’s post, within less than a year of his election, President Nixon had pulled out an inital 25,000 troops. And, by the end of his first term, he had reduced troop strength in Viet Nam by 405,000. So, why does President Nixon receive no credit for keeping his campaign promise. Well, there were several reasons.

The strongest, of course, was Watergate and his misuse of the FBI. Unfortunately, just as former President Clinton has become a talk show joke whenever women are involved,–see what happened when he went to help free some women journalists–so has President Nixon has become synonymous with Watergate. The question, “what did he know and when did he know it,” has become the classic question that gets asked anytime any journalist gets any whiff of a scandal, even if it is patently obvious that there was no way that the person involved could have known anything. Watergate was the fulfillment of every Hollywood conspiracy theory ever written. For the extreme right–think the militias, etc.–Watergate was the proof the something akin to black helicopters do exist. [Note: for the militias, Waco, under President Clinton, was an overload of proof.]

But, there was another reason why President Nixon does not receive credit for keeping his campaign promise. The way in which he went about keeping the promise alienated both the far left wing and the far right wing in the USA. The left was alienated because President Nixon partnered with then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The foreign policy they followed was called Realpolitik. What is Realpolitik?

Realpolitik (German: real “realistic”, “practical” or “actual”; and Politik “politics”) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. The term realpolitik is often used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian. Realpolitik is a theory of politics that focuses on considerations of power, not ideals, morals, or principles.

In other words, both Nixon and Kissinger wanted to get the troops out of Viet Nam and, if possible, ensure that the Republic of Viet Nam survived. [Please note that Father Orthoduck said, “if possible” on South Viet Nam’s survival.] In order to do so, they were willing to use whatever policies (politik) could best accomplish their goal. So, when the North Vietnamese proved intransigent at the peace table, President Nixon continued the bombing of North Viet Nam, and approved the “secret” war in Cambodia and Laos. Agent Orange, which later was to prove such a carcinogen to those who served in Viet Nam, was freely used during this time. As part of the negotiations, President Nixon had ended the bombing of North Viet Nam as a carrot. But, in May 1972, he mined the major harbors of North Viet Nam. And, when North Viet Nam proved intransigent at the negotiating table, he waited until after the 1972 elections to begin the bombing anew. The heaviest bombing of North Viet Nam in the history of that war was between December 18-30, 1972 during Operation Linebacker when the North was reduced to rubble. On January 23, 1973, the peace accords are announced by President Nixon.

In passing, it should be noted that, President Nixon actually pocket vetoed a bill to provide increased healthcare to veterans, the Veterans Health Care Expansion Act of 1972. Healthcare to seniors is provided at the due level, learn about Bridgeway medical institutions.

The far left intensely disliked President Nixon because of his and Henry Kissinger’s willingness to do what was necessary without regard to morality. Their only concerns were the “security” of this country and pulling the troops out of Viet Nam with a semblance of honor. The major demonstrations in 1970, with the closing of multitudes of college campuses, after the announced invasion of Cambodia also show that realpolitik did not have unanimous support back home. More than that, we tend to forget the persecutions by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the lies by Sen. Joseph McCarthy during the 1950’s. Many in the universities, in the media, in Hollywood, in places like New York and California had been impacted, and even blacklisted, by those supposedly supporting democracy and protecting it. Many of these people had boomeranged away from that type of “democracy” and were now openly supporting more socialist alternatives. Of course, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1992 showed many the mistakes of extreme socialism (Marxism).

This continues to be an issue today for the Christian. Debates over interrogation methods at Armed Forces holding facilities overseas, debates over Geneva Convention rights for combatants seized overseas, continue to be typified by an attitude by the far right that any tactics are allowed because those are not really combatants. That is realpolitik continues to be a part of the thinking of many in the far right. For those Christians who are tempted towards a realpolitik approach, Father Orthoduck could show several Scriptures that warn the Christian to consider what is always right rather than what is expedient.

But, the far right wing also ended up alienated. You see, for many years, the conflict in Viet Nam had been pictured to be part of the ongoing crusade against Communism.  Communism was equated with all that is evil, while a democracy in the American style was equated with the summit of what is good. But, realpolitik allows for no such considerations. The consideration is simply what works efficiently to accomplish the policy objectives of your nation. And, President Nixon’s objective was to pull us out of Viet Nam. But, because of the cultural propaganda twist that the far right had given the conflict, it was a betrayal of everything the far right believed in to turn a blind eye to the almost inevitable takeover of South Viet Nam by North Viet Nam. This is part of the reason why Hanoi Jane (Jane Fonda) is seen with such hatred to this day by the far right. It was not bad enough that she gave aid and comfort to the enemy–which she really did–but that she stated that the Communist government of North Viet Nam was better than the democratic government of South Viet Nam.

And, so, a mythology grew up on the far right, that if only the generals had been allowed to do what they wanted and given the support that they wanted, that the “war” could have been won. It was a severe blow to the American self-identity that we had “lost.” So, the “loss” was denied and replaced by a mythology. In this mythology, the real President Nixon, the realpolitik President Nixon, who would have done what was necessary in order to “win,” if that were possible, was replaced by a President Nixon who would not give the Armed Forces what they wanted and needed, by a President Nixon who was an uncertain politician. But, history shows the opposite. It shows a President Nixon who was willing to bomb, mine, conduct secret wars, and to do what was necessary to accomplish his objectives. And he and Kissinger could not figure out a way to win.

In a way, Viet Nam prefigured what was to happen to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In the late 1970’s, the Soviet Union committed the same mistake as the United States did when we took over from the French in Viet Nam. And, the Soviet Union did not limit their generals, their troops, or their atrocities. Torture and murder were openly allowed in order to wipe out those “terrorists” who were opposing the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did everything short of dropping nuclear bombs and engaging in massive genocide. But, they also lost, a lesson that also seems to be “lost” upon the far right. Viet Nam was no more “winnable” under our terms than Afghanistan was “winnable” under the terms the Soviet Union tried to impose.

As a result, of the dislike of both the far left and the far right, as a result of the far left’s love affair with extreme socialism, and, as a result of the far right’s mythology of why Viet Nam was “lost,” neither side wishes to give President Nixon credit for what actually happened. He kept his campaign promise and he pulled the USA out of Viet Nam. But, the end result of realpolitik has been a divide in this country that has yet to heal, and has even gotten worse.

And, yet, his visit to China was a success with respect to Viet Nam. China did end up putting pressure on the North. The peace treaty was signed. And, in this respect, President Nixon won this point, a pyrrhic victory.

Tomorrow Father Orthoduck will write on President Nixon and the economic side of his trip.

===MORE TO COME===