"The moral case against the damage done to the Vietnamese population and landscape by U.S. firepower and Agent Orange defoliation is compelling. But the U.S. effort in Korea was even more devastating, and the U.S. efforts in World War II included the incineration of German and Japanese cities by conventional and atomic bombing. To the historian, the case that the Vietnam War was a unique atrocity in itself is hard to make"

Surely one war crime doesn't justify another? Churchill called the bombing of Coventry and London war crimes, until he ordered the bombing of Hamburg, Koln and Berlin. Needless to say no one was found guilty of war crimes at Nuremburg for bombing civilians. It was only with the destruction of the twin towers that bombing civilians again became immoral. Basically, when you wear the white hats, nothing you do is immoral, while nothing your enemy does is moral.

The Vietnam occupation was quite clearly an illegal act under international law that we decried when others did it (e.g. the Soviet occupation of Hungary in 1956), but it was neither the first nor the last criminal act perpetrated by the various US governments of all political stripes. In fact there is a long pedigree from the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadeq government in Iran through numerous coups and occupations in Central and South America right up to the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2002. Vietnam was just more of the same imperialist "we are the superior kultur" bullying that we have seen now for more than 60 years, and will no doubt see for the next 60 or 600, until political leaders are finally held to account for their actions (don't hold your breath).

JFK was a war monger Blue Dog Democrat, Johnson was a well meaning President that was deceived by the corporatocracy governed administration that he inherited lead by McNamara. JFK Nixon, McNamara and Kissinger are war criminals. JFK was responsible for the assassination of the Democratically Catholic President of South Vietnam and along with McNamara getting us more involved involved in the Vietnamese Civil War which Eisenhower caused by his division of Vietnam. Nixon and Kissinger prolong the war by Four years for political and monetary gain, causing the death of over a hundred thousand.

Although Michael Lind is probably right that McNamara is a scapegoat that allows us to keep the image of John F. Kennedy unblemished--as befits a sculpture in the halls of Camelot--I think Lind misses several key points in his dismissals of the various critiques of the Vietnam War.

First, Vietnamese communism was an indigenous (and highly popular) political movement. We weren't "protecting" the Vietnamese from tyranny. We were trying to stop them from forming a kind of government we disapproved of.

Second, the Korean War reflected a different political and social reality. South Koreans really DID want to be protected from Kim Il-sung, who they rightly viewed as a totalitarian tyrant. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese, both in the North and in the South, regarded Ho Chi Mihn as a hero. South Korea was (and is) an authentic political reality. South Vietnam was a pure creation of American money and American weapons.

Third, China invaded Vietnam in 1979 because Vietnam had invaded Cambodia, which was then ruled by China's ally, the Khmer-Rouge. China has had a historic fear of one united country on the landmass of Southeast Asia, which would form a significant counterbalance to Chinese power. China was afraid of an inverse-domino theory--that Vietnam would swallow Cambodia and Laos and then possibly join with Thailand to challenge Chinese hegemony in Eastern Asia.

Most of all, what Lind leaves out in his critiques of the critiques of the Vietnam War is that the US government did not (or chose not to) understand the true nature of the political changes happening in SE Asia. The biggest failing of Robert McNamara (and the entire defense establishment) was that they simply accepted the notion that South Vietnam was Czechoslovakia circa 1938 and that if we did not hold the line there, we would soon be fighting Soviet and Chinese Hitlers in San Francisco Bay.

A reality-based critique of the Vietnam War would start with the fact that we didn't know what the hell we were doing.

This author has a mistake of fact. Kennedy is on the record (I've heard the tape) meeting with McNamara in late 1963 and they both agree that after 1964 ALL US forces will be pulled out, and that 1,000 US servicemen will be pulled out by the end of 1963. Kennedy goes on to say that this was not a carrot and stick for Diem. There wouldn't be a quid pro quo -- we were leaving.

also bears out the fact that Kennedy was set to withdraw.

LBJ's voice is heard saying that when JFK and RSM were discussing complete withdrawal, LBJ says something like, "I didn't agree with that, but I didn't say anything." And he orders RSM to nullify any withdrawal order.

If RSM bears any bad responsibility it is for following LBJ's orders instead of resigning.

Walt

Are most of the letter writers here far more knowledgable, incisive, and able to process in depth than half of the people who write columns. The vast majority of respondants are way ahead of Mr. Lind who seems to bear out the incredible inability of good analysis by msm decried by Greenwald as "serious" journalists.

Mr. Lind does not realize that part of the great tragedy of America is people like himself, enablers without vision or understanding, who seem unable to comprehend history apart from a jingoistic stance, however papered over it might be.

Thus we get the constant demonization and marginalization of the left by the "centrists" who have helped run this country into the ground and as Gary Kamiya wrote are principle "Good Germans" in this drama.

You see Mr. Lind, it is peope like YOU who bear a great responsibility for your enabling of people like McNamara, or Runsfeld, or Bush, or whomever.

The fact that a letter writer's father who was a postal worker and himself at 10 knew far more about Vietnam than you will ever understand sadly tells it all.

At times these days I weep for America. Is this the best we can do?