WI: Another Vietnam After Vietnam

[whitecrow]

Originally Posted by Chris S

Don't know how well the Iranian communists would do. It may not be all that well actually. They would certainly exist and probably get the lion's share of support and may even develop a fair following in Iran after a while (maybe by say 1984 if a war started in 1980), but in terms of bang-for-buck the Islamists would probably have more support and get more done against the US Army (and Iraqi Army maybe) proportionally speaking than the communists in comparison to their respective levels of support.

I thought leftist groups were popular amongst the Iranian population in 1979 and it took maneuvering by Komani to get into power post-revolution and perge the leftists?

[serbrcq]

Originally Posted by Chris S

As Pesterfield and TxCoatl1970 have pointed out the Soviets would be more likely to give aid to leftists in Iran than to Islamists. And I don't think having an Islamist Iran would be any more palatable to the Soviet leadership than the US Army. Both would represent threats that the Soviets would have to take into consideration and deal with. Arguably the Islamists would represent more of a threat because they could stoke rebellion in the southern USSR whereas the US Army represented a conventional threat. Nuclear deterrence could work against a conventional force, but what use are nukes against rebels within your own country? And it isn't as if nuking the ones inciting the rebellion is going set things right. If anything it would only spur on the rebellion.

I believe Soviet support of the Islamists would be like their support of the Socialist Reich Party in the early Cold War - limited support to achieve limited goals. Wider support would be given to communists and leftists with the aim of having them become the most powerful rebel group and capable of coming into power once the US withdraws. Support for the Islamists would be to the extent that they would help to bleed US forces (and thus help the Soviets' preferred rebel groups by weakening the same US forces that would be fighting against the leftist rebels). The hope would probably be to see the US and Islamists bleed each other dry so the leftists can come in to pick up the pieces.

Eh, you're probably right.

Although it could look like their "support" for the Spanish Republicans - encouraging an alliance of convenience between leftist and Islamist groups, and claiming to support that front while channeling all the aid to the doctrinaire Soviet faction and arresting and murdering Islamist leaders in the rear lines. Maybe the Islamists would be sent on Tet-style attacks that will (deliberately) result in high losses, but damage American morale and tie up troops.

[Kome]

Originally Posted by Chris S

I dunno. Maybe I'm thinking of a different 1979-1989 period, but during that time the Cambodian guerrillas stood zero chance of actually winning despite having massive Western and Chinese support. That doesn't seem like Vietnam did too badly to me. Vietnam's leaders didn't care about the losses and it isn't like Vietnam's society was going to change those leaders even if Vietnamese society could not stomach the losses in the counter-insurgency campaign against the Cambodian guerrillas.

Simply put, Vietnam's experience in Cambodia would have most likely been successful (like the British campaign in Malaya, but note, it was not conducted like the British campaign) were it not for the extensive foreign support that Cambodian rebels had including a neighbouring country from which to base their operations. Certainly it was not a case of relatively more popular (than the government) Cambodian rebels versus an out-of-touch government as was the case in South Vietnam where you had nationalist (but communist) rebels versus a government which was initially run by a Catholic minority and then by corrupt generals. After all the Cambodian rebels included the Khmer Rouge who had managed to squander whatever popularity they might have ever had by culling Cambodia's population to such an extent that it actually fell from 7 million in 1975 (which is after the Vietnam War) to 6.5 million in 1980 (with estimates for the death toll seeming to average around 1.7 million). I would bet very good money that without Western support the Cambodia rebels would have basically collapsed by 1985 (if not much earlier) following the 1984/85 Vietnamese campaign which basically drove the rebels out of western Cambodia (eastern and central Cambodia were never in danger in falling under rebel control even if there were sporadic attacks) and into Thailand.

You could also argue that the US forces in Vietnam did not do badly, but in the end the results showed they lost. Similarly even if Vietnam didnt do so badly in Cambodia the end result was still a withdrawal from Cambodia and the end of the Vietnamese sphere of influence in Cambodia.

And the K5 defensive plan which Vietnam had bet its victory on was the very definition of failure.

I agree on your analysis of the Khmer Rouge's foreign support though. Without that Vietnam would have definitely had won and Cambodia would be a closely aligned socialist state like Laos. Unfortunately though, they did have foreign support, leading to the disastrous border defense plan and Vietnamese defeat.

[hairysamarian]

I'm perplexed that no one mentioned the Kosovo campaign. Campaigns, I should say. The US was directly involved in that, and anytime there's a shooting war in the Balkans things have a chance of getting very ugly. The airstrike that hit the Chinese embassy caused some tense moments, as I recall.

So isn't it worth at least a mention?

[Chris S]

Originally Posted by Kome

You could also argue that the US forces in Vietnam did not do badly, but in the end the results showed they lost.

The difference as I pointed out in my post is that the US and Vietnamese governments and societies were quite different. The US society was getting tired of Vietnam and eventually would have elected leaders that would have pulled out of Vietnam. The US was defeated at home (not literally) and in the mind/in their will to fight even though US forces won the battles on the battlefield. Vietnamese society could NOT change their leaders in the same way.

Again, note that Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia when the money ran out. The US withdrew from Vietnam when the will ran out. The US did not run out of money to continue fighting in Vietnam. Had Soviet financial support for Vietnam not started drying up in late 1980s, it is highly unlikely that Vietnam would have withdrawn when it did.

So equating a Vietnamese withdrawal with a Vietnamese defeat is a false analogy with the US situation since we are talking about countries with different societies and forms of government.

Similarly even if Vietnam didnt do so badly in Cambodia the end result was still a withdrawal from Cambodia and the end of the Vietnamese sphere of influence in Cambodia.

This is vastly oversimplifying things. When Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia their main enemy (the Khmer Rouge) did not return to power in Cambodia. The Vietnamese were mainly neutral on the other (less well organized) rebels since the other rebels represented groups which would have resulted in a Cambodia that was not an enemy of Vietnam (unlike the Khmer Rouge which was claiming parts of southern Vietnam and instigating border raids). When the US withdrew from Vietnam it was the North Vietnamese/Vietcong (their main enemy) which did come into power in South Vietnam.

If their was any similarity in the US withdrawal from Vietnam to the Vietnamese withdrawal then the US withdrawal in 1973 from Vietnam would have seen a South Vietnamese government that was able to hold off the Vietcong (as the Hun Sen government in Cambodia was able to do with the Cambodian rebels) while peace negotiations resulted in a comprehensive settlement that saw a neutral South Vietnam emerge after all political factions agreed to lay down arms. Instead what we saw was a US withdrawal followed by 2 years of continued warfare throughout South Vietnam (with the South Vietnamese not being able to properly hold off the NVA and Vietcong as the Vietcong regained pretty much all lost ground by 1974) culminating in the NVA rolling into Saigon in 1975. I certainly don't recall Khmer Rouge and other rebel groups rolling into Phonm Penh in 1993. In fact despite the peace settlement in Cambodia the governing party has remained the same; the Cambodian People's Party (which used to be the Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party but changed its name in the 1990s) still has most of its membership intact from the time of the Vietnamese presence. Hun Sen was Chairman of the Council of Ministers (basically Prime Minister) from 1985 under the Vietnamese and is the Prime Minister today (and in fact hasn't ever really stopped being Prime Minister as he was co-Prime Minister during the 1993-1997 period). Heng Samrin who was head of state of Cambodia is still now in politics as President of the National Assembly of Cambodia.

It would seem odd to term what happened in Cambodia as the loss of the Vietnamese sphere of influence considering that the party that Vietnam supported (the KPRP and now CPP) has been in power in Cambodia throughout the 1980s and up to 1993 and from 1998 to present and the CPP is certainly not anti-Vietnamese. During the 1993-1998 period that same party was the second largest party in parliament (having gotten 38% of the vote) and since then have consistently won the most votes in the 1998, 2003 and 2008 elections. By the time of the next elections the CPP would have been in government for over 30 years in one form or another.

Nothing remotely similar happened in South Vietnam. When South Vietnam ended the General Tran Thien Khiem did not continue as Prime Minister for a further 20 years. He fled the country.

[Kome]

Originally Posted by Chris S

It would seem odd to term what happened in Cambodia as the loss of the Vietnamese sphere of influence considering that the party that Vietnam supported (the KPRP and now CPP) has been in power in Cambodia throughout the 1980s and up to 1993 and from 1998 to present and the CPP is certainly not anti-Vietnamese. During the 1993-1998 period that same party was the second largest party in parliament (having gotten 38% of the vote) and since then have consistently won the most votes in the 1998, 2003 and 2008 elections. By the time of the next elections the CPP would have been in government for over 30 years in one form or another.

Cambodia certainly isnt anti-Vietnamese by any strech of imagination, but you can hardly say that Cambodia remains in Vietnam's sphere of influence. Its not even socialist anymore or an ally of Vietnam, which definitely would not have happened if they remained in Vietnam's SoI.

Saying the interests of the CPP is the same as the interests of Vietnam is inaccurate. Vietnam was fighting for the benefit of Vietnam and the advancement of the socialist cause, with the KPRP existing as an extension of that. The CPP got a victory in the end, Vietnam did not. And while the CPP is the direct descendent of the KPRP, it is not the same as the KPRP Vietnam created. Neither is the Kingdom of Cambodia the same as PRK.

And notice the kingdom there. The Khmer Rouge may have faded into obscurity but the neutral rebel groups were not defeated ether.

Considering the end result, all in all i dont see how its possible to classify Cambodia as a Vietnamese success in the long run. Especially with all the trouble the VPA went through to thoroughly destroy the goodwill they had with the Cambodian people.

[Chris S]

Originally Posted by Kome

Cambodia certainly isnt anti-Vietnamese by any strech of imagination, but you can hardly say that Cambodia remains in Vietnam's sphere of influence.

Why? Just because Vietnam doesn't station troops there? Having troops stationed in a country is by no means the only way to have a sphere of influence. The US doesn't have troops in most of Latin America but few would say that Latin America isn't influenced by the US to some degree.

As of 2010 Vietnam was both in the top 5 export partners and top 5 import partners for Cambodia. And both are in ASEAN (note that Vietnam got into ASEAN before Cambodia).

Its not even socialist anymore or an ally of Vietnam, which definitely would not have happened if they remained in Vietnam's SoI.

Not socialist? Yet run by socialists since the 1970s....

Saying the interests of the CPP is the same as the interests of Vietnam is inaccurate.

I never once wrote that.

I pointed out that the CPP is basically the KPRP with a new name and the KPRP just happens to have been the governing party during Vietnam's presence in Cambodia. Additionally I pointed out that the CPP is not anti-Vietnamese. Just because they are not anti-Vietnamese doesn't mean they follow Hanoi's every wish anymore than the Conservative Party in Britain is going to follow Obama (or Romney's) every command even though the Conservatives are not anti-American.

But since you bring it up, I'm sure the CPP and Vietnam share many interests: a peaceful and stable Cambodia; good relations between the two; security concerns against piracy in the South China Sea and around Indonesia; increasing trade between the two; having a good border between both nations based on the current borders and not on some wild claims like those of the Khmer Rouge

Vietnam was fighting for the benefit of Vietnam and the advancement of the socialist cause, with the KPRP existing as an extension of that.

Really? That must have been a different war. The war I'm thinking of had Vietnam fighting with the very clear aim of removing the Khmer Rouge from power and keeping them from returning so that Cambodia would no longer be a hinderance. They accomplished that mission.

The CPP got a victory in the end, Vietnam did not. And while the CPP is the direct descendent of the KPRP, it is not the same as the KPRP Vietnam created.

So even though Hun Sen was prime minister when it was the KPRP and is prime minister now when it is the CPP and the membership of the CPP is basically the same as the KPRP then the CPP is not the same as the KPRP? So more or less the same people with the same general socialist principles (and the CPP is still quite socialist) but the CPP is not the same as the KPRP?

Neither is the Kingdom of Cambodia the same as PRK.

And notice the kingdom there. The Khmer Rouge may have faded into obscurity but the neutral rebel groups were not defeated ether.

Instead they were basically co-opted into power-sharing. And the idea that Vietnam originally proposed in the 1980s (for a peace settlement involving all parties except the Khmer Rouge) eventually came to pass by 1994 as the Khmer Rouge were outlawed for breaking the peace agreement negotiated in the 1990s and were thus excluded (the Khmer Rouge didn't even bother to contest elections and thus never entered into government). So now we have a kingdom where the socialists are in the majority in parliament and have been in power uninterrupted from before the kingdom was restored AND all of this in a country where a prince (Sihanouk) was head of state during one of the country's phases as a republic. A prince (later king) who by the way in the 1960s "made many speeches calling the triumph of Communism in Southeast Asia inevitable and suggesting Maoist ideas were worthy of emulation".

You seem to be missing my point though that Vietnam was far less concerned about the other rebel groups to begin with except insofar as those other rebel groups had allied themselves with the Khmer Rouge. It was Vietnam which suggested in the mid-1980s that they ditch the Khmer Rouge so that all sides (except the Khmer Rouge) could arrive at a peace agreement. If they were really worried about the other rebel groups being as anti-Vietnamese and inimical to Vietnam's overall interest they wouldn't even have entertained the thought of this kind of deal. They only relented on the exclusion of the Khmer Rouge from the peace deal when the money began to dry up, but even then it worked out for them in the end since the Khmer Rouge once again shot themselves in the foot by not playing ball and refusing to register for elections and refusing to lay down their arms.

Considering the end result, all in all i dont see how its possible to classify Cambodia as a Vietnamese success in the long run.

Wait, what? How?

A country which no longer claims Kampuchea Krom/Cochinchina and which no longer initiates border incidents and raids and expels or kills the Vietnamese minority in Cambodia and which maintains friendly relations and important trade relations to this day (compared to the virtual state of war that existed from 1975-1979) is not a Vietnamese success? And all of this without the need anymore for Vietnamese soldiers to be stationed in Cambodia in order to ensure this state of affairs? And with the Khmer Rouge (the outright enemy of Vietnam) having been outlawed and eventually dissolving itself? All while the set of people that Vietnam helped to install into power remain there?

How is that not success based on Vietnam's original mission in Cambodia?

Sure they don't have a state following the exact model of Vietnam but the majority of Vietnam's aims in Cambodia were fulfilled. If the majority of the aims were met, how is this not success?

Let's compare that to what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan:

- the US withdrew from Vietnam and the people who were in power with the help of American power did not remain in any position of authority (only lasting a few more years). Instead their Number 1 enemy (Vietnamese communists) came to power. Vietnam and the US had terrible diplomatic and trading relations for just over two decades after this withdrawal. The enemy of the US in Vietnam (the Communist Party of Vietnam) did not dissolve eventually after the withdrawal but remains in power today.

- The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and the people who were in power with the help of American power did not remain in any position of authority (only lasting a few more years). Instead their Number 1 enemy (Mujahideen factions) came to power. Afghanistan and the USSR's successor basically had very cool diplomatic relations for just over a decade after this withdrawal.

Especially with all the trouble the VPA went through to thoroughly destroy the goodwill they had with the Cambodian people.

And yet even today quite a few Cambodians view the invasion as a liberation and Vietnamese Cambodians are not being killed as was the case under the Khmer Rouge.....

[Killer300]

Bump, for any other thoughts on this.

[Killer300]

Another thought is if the first Iraqi War doesn't happen, and the US doesn't experience a conflict until... well a gurriella campaign crashes down on us.