The US Deploys Mercenaries In Vietnam

[Grimm Reaper]

fhaessig, the Taliban currently 'controls' a portion of the countryside by virtue of fleeing the country whenever faced with actual combat.

It is no secret to anyone that in the territory they do hold they will not even try to resist and will instead withdraw, which does not lead to a strong base of support. Thus the Taliban is currently able to damage/delay the rebuilding of Afghanistan to some degree, but nothing more. Nor does being without a position other than 'death to <your name here>' appeal to many.

Meanwhile the government controls the major cities and, through certain ethnic groups, a majority of the countryside, and is certainly working well to improve conditions. Certainly when we first went in to Afghanistan, the critics would have scoffed at the idea we would be doing as well as we have done at this point.

I might point out that Iraq is as much a coalition effort as Afghanistan, and the poor level of support by so many NATO(and other) allies in Afghanistan is a worrisome state of affairs. If Afghanistan is the support level the US can expect on an effort agreed to be right and proper, then I see the US taking an even less respectful attitude on allied involvment/support in the future.

It is one thing when the US assumes that X will not involve itself in action Y for its own reasons(validity not an issue). It is another matter entirely when the US starts to assume that X is unable/unwilling to provide meaningful support even if they want to.

 

[Tielhard]

Live with it girls.

<PORKIE_PIES_ARMED>
I had no idea that on this board there would be so many apologists for the USA's actions and utter defeat at the hands of a tiny argarian nation.
<PORKIE_PIES_OFF>

<TRUTH ON>
In this war the Communists were the good guys, the Americans and thier South Vietnamese and Red Khemer clients were the monsters. Any time you forget this watch the old film as fire falls indescriminately from the B52s.
<TRUTH OFF>

 

[wkwillis]

We could have won in Vietnam easy. All we had to do was change sides.

 

[fhaessig]

US proxy?
.

I was refering to the role originally envisionned for the Talibans when they were first subsidiezed through the Pakistani secret services, in order to throw out the warlords and impose a rgime supposedly friendly to western interests, esp about the war on drugs. Not that this seemed to have worked the first time round.

I thought the problem in Afghanistan was that the warlords of the Northern Alliance were busy growing opium again (and occasionally shooting each other, though flybys by US aircraft tend to put a stop to that). I am aware that the Taliban are still active, but I was under the impression their activities were largely confined to the southeast of the country.

The warlords certainly seem to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. Not that flyby by western aicrafts ( I'm not sure how many US planes are still affected to the region, but they are far from the only western ones ) do anything except temporarily.

The Taliban are not only still active, they are resurgent. They are actually claiming new territory, for now only in the southeast, and the West, after calling them anathema, doesn't seem to be able to do anything about them. We are distracted by other adventures and our manpower is needed elsewhere.

 

[wkwillis]

My sister points out that we didn't invade Afghanistan until after the Taliban had successfully shut down opium poppy production in Afghanistan for an entire year. My opinion is that they were probably trying to jack up the price, not save America from itself. She believes that 9/11 was a gangster attempt to give their people in Washinton an excuse to invade Afghanistan and get poppy production going again.
Hey, maybe she's right. But I don't think so.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Personally if the choice is war with Al Q and the terrorists, or the endless so-called war on drugs to save people from their own choices, however misguided they might be...

Tielhard, my fine Stalinist apologist, the communists were the murderous scum in the situation, which is why the death toll shortly AFTER the US left was so much higher than when there was a war going on.

Also, the Khmer Rouge was a communist group organized and based in HANOI until the 1970s. Blaming the US for the actions of Ho Chi Minh's partner, Pol Pot, goes beyond ignorance.

Then again, why I am arguing with someone who still believes in Stalin and Mao? It's morally equivalent to debating with an unrepentant Nazi.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Question of Morale...

Here's a quick question, what if the actions of the mercenaries make the situation. Remember the reason that nations employ mercenaries is if there are actions so reprehensible to be taken on the offensive that a nation-state can hardly afford to have its regular army to be charged with certain crimes. Second, another reason why mercenaries are employed in democracies is the fact that morale and public support for the war has slumped to such a level that regular recruitment and draft methods can hardly afford to meet troop requirements. Either way, if the United States Army or the CIA are employing mercenaries, things have gotten bad.

As for morale amongst troops, most professional officers have a low regard for mercenaries. For instance, "from friends in the mill", most professional soldiers are P.O.'d that a "civilian security contractor" will get close to $100,000 to drive a truck in Baghdad for 2-6 months, while a recruit will be lucky to make enough money to pay his family's rent at home for combat service. Worse, V.A. benefits for soldiers have recently been short by close to $1 billion until Senate Democrats complained to the Bush administration. Another shortcoming of mercenaries is that many are B.S.er's. Case and point, check out Sean Bean's character in Ronin (1999) who claims to be a former SAS-member.

 

[Victor Marik]

For some reason I was reminded of the movie The Wild Geese. Would the mercenaries we are talking about be handling major combat operations or act as more support/special operations units?

 

[Nik]

Ronin

Um, my impression was that Sean Bean's character in Ronin (1999) who claims to be a former SAS-member was for-real, but undercover, pretending he was a fake...

Snag is there were so many double-crosses, triple-crosses and hidden agendas that I could not watch it without getting a migraine...

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Um, my impression was that Sean Bean's character in Ronin (1999) who claims to be a former SAS-member was for-real, but undercover, pretending he was a fake...

Snag is there were so many double-crosses, triple-crosses and hidden agendas that I could not watch it without getting a migraine...

Actually, Robert De Niro's character shows that Sean Bean's character is a fraud. In one of the more tense scenes, De Niro's character proves it by "ambushing him with a cup of coffee" and asking him what was the color of the boathouseat the SAS training facility. That is why he is told afterwards,"We best hope you forget about us, because we will certainly not forget about you..."

 

[Melvin Loh]

Nungs

The US did actually employ mercs in Vietnam, the ethnic Chinese Nungs who served alongside the Mike and Hatchet forces in SOG during the covert war.

BTW, Tielhard, I strongly disagree with your stating that the VC defeated the ANZACs- the Australian Task Force in Vietnam thruout ops during 1965-71 consistently defeated all VC forces in its AOR and successfully pacified Phuoc Tuoy province thru the successful application of COIN principles learned in Malaya and Borneo.

 

[Wozza]

<PORKIE_PIES_ARMED>
I had no idea that on this board there would be so many apologists for the USA's actions and utter defeat at the hands of a tiny argarian nation.
<PORKIE_PIES_OFF>

<TRUTH ON>
In this war the Communists were the good guys, the Americans and thier South Vietnamese and Red Khemer clients were the monsters. Any time you forget this watch the old film as fire falls indescriminately from the B52s.
<TRUTH OFF>

Well, aside from the fact that the North Vietnamese waged a war of aggression, otherwise why could they not get southerners to do their fighting for them? After 1967 VC are overwhelmingly from the north.

facilitated by the murder of about 30,000 village headmen
also when the VC took Hue they massacred about 6,000 people, including such agents of capitalist oppression as postmen.
They also broke the laws of war by attacking an embassy and not observing the conventions regarding treatment of POWS

Also the tiny agrarian nation recieved vast support from Soviet arms factories, such so that NVA forces had vastly more integral firepower than US forces (think AK-47s and RPGs vs M14s)

Sadly the American conduct of the war was pretty inept, unsubtle and us usual obssessed with firepower.

 

[Melvin Loh]

Yeah that's right, the atrocities committed by the VC and NVA aren't usually remembered very much, are they, compared to the likes of 'imperialist' atrocities such as My Lai ? Case in point- the infamous photo of Saigon police chief Loan executing the captured VC during the Tet offensive- the majority of ppl who see this photo of so-called RVN brutality don't get to know that this fella who got blown away murdered the family of (can't remember exactly) either the police chief himself, or of a close friend.

That's 1 fouledup legacy of the antiwar movement, being so happy to highlight American atrocities, yet glossing over the Commies' murderous rampages, as with the intended 1967 Bertrand Russell Commission to investigate only AMERICAN war crimes.

 

[Tielhard]

"BTW, Tielhard, I strongly disagree with your stating that the VC defeated the ANZACs- the Australian Task Force in Vietnam thruout ops during 1965-71 consistently defeated all VC forces in its AOR and successfully pacified Phuoc Tuoy province thru the successful application of COIN principles learned in Malaya and Borneo."

Pity all that counts for squat Melvin, maybe Australia should have kept of Americas wars? Anyway, bottom line, however well you performed on the battlefield, you lost. The Vietnamese won. In Ho Chi Min (I do like the name change, it is sooo petty) and Hanoi the people in charge are Vietnamese not Ockers. You lost live with it.

 

[Wozza]

"BTW, Tielhard, I strongly disagree with your stating that the VC defeated the ANZACs- the Australian Task Force in Vietnam thruout ops during 1965-71 consistently defeated all VC forces in its AOR and successfully pacified Phuoc Tuoy province thru the successful application of COIN principles learned in Malaya and Borneo."

Pity all that counts for squat Melvin, maybe Australia should have kept of Americas wars? Anyway, bottom line, however well you performed on the battlefield, you lost. The Vietnamese won. In Ho Chi Min (I do like the name change, it is sooo petty) and Hanoi the people in charge are Vietnamese not Ockers. You lost live with it.

Are we discussing morality or reality?

Sadly Hanoi's political and ethnic enemies do live with it and they have been merrily driven into the sea for the past 30 years.

In truth we do not have to live with this in the west (unless we are those who fought there) we did not have to live with the bombing nor the political oppression when it failed (yes, I know there was some before)

We are still debating today, over a new country, whether bombing or political oppression is better for other people. Trapped in the selfl-indulgence of our own power, prosperity and safety - whichever side of the argument we take.

 

[Tielhard]

Ah! Dear, dear Wozza, one step away from the crooked cross as always.

"Well, aside from the fact that the North Vietnamese waged a war of aggression,"

Please confirm that the Vietnamese liberation forces never agreed to the partition of the country in the first place.

How could the Vietnamese fight a war of agression? It was thier country, all of it. The agressors came from far away, lived in castles, fought from helicopters and drank coke, they were known as Americans, they hardly new the country they were in.

Question 2) What percentage of the more than 2 million people killed in the Vietnamese-American war were due to the Americans, southern puppet state and thier allies? What percentage were due to the ARNV and VC? Clue, it should add up to 100.
Question 3) Please confirm the USA used ghettoisation and similar Nazi techniques agains villagers sympathetic to the freedom fighters.
Question 4) What percentage of the strong mutagens and weapons of mass desruction were deployed by the Americans and what percentage by the ARNV and VC. Round figures will do.
Question 5) Turning back to this daft ATL. What percentage of the fat bitches on the third rate chrome mountains are going to survive contact with the enemy. What percentage are going to die of drugs and booze. How many will be left to send home to the Veterans hospital?

PS Bet you don't have the courage to 'tell me true'.

 

[Wozza]

Ah! Dear, dear Wozza, one step away from the crooked cross as always.

Maltese?? From Anyone else I would be offended of course!

"Well, aside from the fact that the North Vietnamese waged a war of aggression,"

Please confirm that the Vietnamese liberation forces never agreed to the partition of the country in the first place.

This is a mixed one, for much of their history the two countries have been separate. That also does not mean the North can impose its unity on the south - as it resolved to do in 1959. What right did the Hanoi government have to speak for all Vietnam on this topic?

I am not sure that the Germans consented to the separation of Germany come to think of it...

How could the Vietnamese fight a war of agression? It was thier country, all of it. The agressors came from far away, lived in castles, fought from helicopters and drank coke, they were known as Americans, they hardly new the country they were in.
Distinct differences of opinion existed in the Northern and southern parts of the country, demonstrated by the great difficuly in recruiting southern born VC after the original ones were wiped out

Question 2) What percentage of the more than 2 million people killed in the Vietnamese-American war were due to the Americans, southern puppet state and thier allies? What percentage were due to the ARNV and VC? Clue, it should add up to 100.



Question 3) Please confirm the USA used ghettoisation and similar Nazi techniques agains villagers sympathetic to the freedom fighters.
i never denied it. I have never looked into this It does not make the other side heroes.

Question 4) What percentage of the strong mutagens and weapons of mass desruction were deployed by the Americans and what percentage by the ARNV and VC. Round figures will do.
You win on on agent orange etc

Question 5) Turning back to this daft ATL. What percentage of the fat bitches on the third rate chrome mountains are going to survive contact with the enemy. What percentage are going to die of drugs and booze. How many will be left to send home to the Veterans hospital?

PS Bet you don't have the courage to 'tell me true'.

What was this thread about BTW? Where were these mercenaries going to come from?

You have ignored such US restraint as existed in this war - you are going to lauch at that. But there were bombing restrictions, flagrant breaches of neutrality were ignored for a long time and the northern government was never threated.

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

The Vietnamese people kicked the crap out of the USA, Australia, Thailand, France and China. Like a few fat gits on hogs and a hand-full of British sadists are going to make a difference.

What?!!! The Auzzies did very well in 'Nam! As did most of the US Forces btw. Sigh....

It is worth to mentiond, that the Brits were and are experts at these kinds of operations - look at their track record. Basically, the Anglo-European way of handling insurgent are at bit different, so to say, from the American one. The US overpowers their enemy, at least in theory, with massed firepower, which was were they made a big mistake in 'Nam, besides their policy of alienating the Vietnamese in general, that is.

But it has to be said, that mercenaries as in drug dealing maniacs as seen in 'Nam OTL is not a good idea, but competent advisors with a flair for the local culture could have been.

If the USA could have won it would have done. It was defeated by Vietnam as was everybody else that fought them in the last century. (...) America was defeated by Vietnam anything else is Alternative history, live with it.

Have a go with the search function - both in the archives and on the new board there's a loooong debate about Vietnam. Basically, the US could have won. They ran a very effective SF-programme early on, but slowly began to shift from a focused effort to huge bomb-the-stuffing-out-of-everything-and-force-relocate-the-locals-mssions. Second, North Viernam was a no-go area for most of the war etc etc. A lot of inept political decisions made in Washington cost the US the war. The US was defeated by the US, not by the Vietnamese, who never, ever, won a stand-up battle against US forces.

Are you aware that the Talibans are back as a major faction and currently control a big part of the country? And I don't think they do it as a US proxy this time.

No, they do not! They do, however, swarm over the border from Pakistan quite frequently. And, as you might know, the CIA pumped money and guns and what not into Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation, but did not distribute them, so to call the Taliban a direct proxy is a bit over the top. A Pakistani (Secret Service) proxy is more correct.

The USA is currently loosing its war in Afghanistan, what it gained on the battlefield it is loosing to better diplomats. As for Iraq, nobody has won anything yet.

Again, I'm tempted to scream What?!! With all due respect, that is a rather alternative view on things, but then again media coverage is rather sucky nowadays as disaster apparently is more fun than success. Iraq is a good example, as is Afghanistan to a lesser extend. The Amerio-centric view is that Baghdad is at fire and thus the whole country is going ot hell in a hand absket. The US has lost, what 1,700 men so far, which isn't really that much, to be cynical, but one has to be cynical in dealing with matters like war - where people tend to die - now and again. Right, the Coalition has taken out a country the size of France, a country ripe with ethnic and religious problems and more weapons and nutjob neighbours and residents than one could count in a life time, and things are going badly?!!! This a site for history, people should know better. What were the German casualties in the USSR or in the Balkans after two years of occupation - only counting those killed during occupation duty? Seen in comparison, casualties are low, and only parts of the country are really troubled - as could be expected, unless one has a MTV-fast-view outlook on things. Look at Germany after the a war, records states that in '49 a lot of the Germans were still Nazis and looked with hatred on the occupation, but things did turn around at some time. These things, however, take time, and the US clearly underestimated the task at hand, but things are moving in the right direction. Ask fx. any Dane stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Good points as always, Grimm!

Ooops, this turned into another post mostly concerned with Iraq - sorry, couldn't help myself.

Best regards!

- B.

 

[Fenwick]

Question 4) What percentage of the strong mutagens and weapons of mass desruction were deployed by the Americans and what percentage by the ARNV and VC. Round figures will do.

Pray tell what are those numbers?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

How about asking why the death toll in Vietnam, north and south, was much higher in the first 3-4 years AFTER 1975, when there was supposedly no army left for the NVA to fight with?

Not to mention what Hanoi's Khmer Rouge allies did in Cambodia?

On a technical note, it could be claimed that any soldier receiving wages or other compensation might be classed as a mercenary in the classis meaning of the word.

In general, however, the sheer usefulness of mercenaries to the US is debatable. What can they do that the regular military, now or in Nam, can't do, other than be a propaganda disaster waiting to happen?