Has the United States ever been on the wrong side of a war? Just a few to think about:

Links: A. The American Legion breaks down the Vietnam War
           B. Triggers of World War One
           C. Spain did not destroy the U.S.S. Maine   

I've decided that once every week I will have a "random history" day, in which I chose a subject from world history and hopefully present it in a manner which encourages comments.  The majority of my viewers are not from the United States, a fact of which I'm actually very proud.  With that in mind, the subjects I chose will rarely, if ever, be about the United States.  Today, though, we start off with a topic which should be of interest to everyone.  Certainly in my travels around the world, I've heard non-Americans offer opinions on the subject.  Has the United States ever fought on the wrong side of a war?  I have to choose the noun "war" as opposed to "conflict", because including every little scrape and rumble would have made any kind of focus impossible.  And lets not be shy - lets dive right in with the most controversial of wars: Vietnam, or the Second Indochina War (1961-1975).

When the United States started paying closer attention to events in Indochina, France, the former colonial power, and picked up stakes and moved on.  Following the Second World War, France, which had made a tremendous financial investment in French Indochine, decided to fight tooth-and-nail to defeat the communist insurgency that had flared up after the departure of the Japanese.  While the communists were raising hell in Korea with the U.S., they were also raising hell in Vietnam with France.  For many years, though, the French gave back as good as they got.  Both Saigon and Hanoi had been modernized along French lines, with grid-like downtowns, bakeries, streetlights, traffic signals, and a large City Hall.  Unfortunately, not much is left, but Saigon still has a few old colonial buildings standing.  The French Foreign Legion accomplished things in Indochina that are basically impossible to comprehend.  Almost outnumbered and usually outgunned, the Legionnaires just refused to quit.  The famous battle of Dien Ben Phu, standard fodder for all arm chair generals, is replete with examples of bravery and heroism in the face of overwhelming opposition.  The surrender at Dien Ben Phu ended France's efforts to keep its Asian colony, and introduced a perspective that would hit home to the United States in the decade to come; the perspective that its impossible to fight to defend a country when the country isn't your home.

During the Vietnam War, the United States went through three presidents: John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon.  Each man was faced with the decision of whether or not to escalate the war.  Even with the draft in place, at no time did the United State have anywhere near its full combat strength in Vietnam.  If necessary, the United States in 1970 could put millions of soldiers into the field.  But more soldiers no doubt result in more casualties.  As most students of military history are aware, almost all the battles of the war were victories for the United States and South Vietnam (pre-1973).  But while we were winning victories in the field, the north was flooding South Vietnam with both irregular troops and civilians, to put pressure on the economy and spread the ideology at the same time.  Strategically speaking, the famous Tet Offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam.  Nothing was gained and many well-trained soldiers died.  But it created a permanent fear in the heart of the South Vietnamese people, that a North victory was only a matter of time, and the Yankees would be leaving as soon as the winds changed direction. 

Even though Nixon campaigned on ending the war, he did consider certain military options that might have destroyed the Viet Cong permanently.  But Nixon was unable to control the monster of public opinion and pressure from our European allies.  If Nixon had doubles the number of troops and called for a full, non-stop bombing campaign of the north, the war would have been over in a few months.  Unless, of course, the Chinese invaded, as they did in Korea.  Or the Russians decided to up the ante.  Nixon also had the option of introducing Atomic weapons.  But the question today is not whether the war could have been won, the questions is whether we were fighting for the right side.  I think history has answered that question.  After defeating the south in 1975, Vietnam became a violent, reactionary, totalitarian state.  Hundreds of thousands, of not millions, died, AFTER the departure of the Americans.  And, as is the nature of communist regimes, the attempt was made to transport its brand of communism to both Laos (successfully), and Cambodia (eventually).  We were fighting in an effort to support the legal right of South Vietnam to exist (guaranteed by the United Nations, and also to hopefully prevent the genocide that unfortunately, followed.

The justification for going to war is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.  In 1915, if you were to ask any Austrian why a war was being fought in Europe, they would reply that it was because of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by guerillas trained in Serbia.  In Russia, you would be told that Russia went to war to defend tiny Serbia from the military might of Austria.  France would say that they were obliged to go to war with Austria because of a mutual defense treaty with Russia, the same excuse Germany would use for coming into the conflict on the side of the Hapsburgs.  Whew!  The British waited a bit until recognizing an obligation to fight alongside France, and Italy decided to wait a year or two, and see who was winning before deciding what side to join.  The United States stayed neutral until almost the last year of combat.  A powerful and active anti-war movement kept President Woodrow Wilson from taking that final step until the Germans stupidly sent a telegram to Mexico, offering the Mexicans a return of all lands lost to the United States over the years if they came into the war on the side of Germany.  For some reason, the American people were more angry with the Zimmerman Telegram than they were with the continued sinking of U.S. passenger liners full of innocent civilians.

Back to the original question.  The United States declared war on Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire in 1917.  Was the United States justified in going to war over the telegram, and/or the continued sinking of U.S. ships?  I have a different opinion.  First and foremost, if the United States did not want to lose passenger liners (and innocent Americans), then it shouldn't have filled the hold of these liners with military equipment bound for Great Britain.  Secondly, why are Americans willingly sailing into a war zone anyways?  In 1863, if an Austrian ship delivering rifles to the Confederacy were sunk by Union blockading ships, would Austria be justified in declaring war on the United States?  And one must keep in mind that by 1917, the British maritime blockage was causing famine in Central Europe.  Children and the elderly were starving to death in Austria and Germany, while the soldiers were kept fed so they could continue fighting. Germany was searching for any way to combat the British blockage, so they were unsuccessfully attempting one of their own.  The telegram, which some experts continue to claim is a fake, is a red herring as far as I'm concerned.  In other words, it's an effort to distract folks from the truth.  If we go back to 1914, and imagine if the French Vice President were assassinated in Belgium by anarchists trained and armed in Germany, I can assure that France would be preparing for war.  The same can be said for a British Prince, or a Russia Archduke.  Austria's attempt to respond to the assassination of the heir to the Hapsburg throne was to punish Serbia, the guilty party.  At that particular time in history, it would have been a very normal course of action to expect.

Last but not least, my favorite: the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898.  At the time of the destruction of the battleship Maine in Havana, the U.S. Congress was debating several measures regarding the Spanish possession of Cuba and Spain's treatment of the "indigenous" population.  Spain was portrayed as being borderline slave masters to the population of Cuba, save for a tiny class of Castilian plantation owners, civil servants and diplomats.  The same scenario was widely discussed regarding both Puerto Rico and the Far East colony of The Philippines.  In reality, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines basically constituted what remained of a once mighty Spanish Empire (excluding Spanish Sahara, Rio Muni and Equatorial Guinea in Africa, and a few other small enclaves).  Spain itself was broke, and staggering from internal conflicts relating to failed Republican governments and inept Monarchs.  But the new young King showed great promise, and the people of Spain sensed a new beginning.  Some of the ship-building facilities were modernized and orders placed for the beginnings of a new fleet.  In all honesty, the American interest in these Spanish possessions had almost nothing to do with philanthropy.  It had to do with economics and business, and also a growing sense of wider "Manifest Destiny"; something that stretched further than California.  Cuba was less than one hundred miles from Florida, of course it should be part of the United States, not crumbling, decrepit old Spain.  Its very likely that U.S. officials were being honest in their accusations of sabotage against Spanish authorities in Havana.  The battleship, which should never have been sent to Havana in the first place (an effort at intimidation, no doubt), just "blew up".  The Americans claimed that the Spanish purposely mined the harbor so as to come into contact with the Maine, or some such thing.  As you will learn from examining the third link I have provided, Spain has been completely exonerated.  In all likelihood, the explosion of the Maine was an internal, accidental event.  tragic, yes, but justification to go to war?  We did go to war, and Spain fought valiantly both on land and on sea.  But the Spanish fleet was twenty years too old to stand up to the powerful American squadron, and Teddy Roosevelt and his Roughriders eventually subdued the Spanish garrison on Cuba (with heavy losses).  The United States got to keep Puerto Rico permanently, and the Philippines and Cuba temporarily.  I'm not sure if an apology has been delivered to the Kingdom of Spain, but if not, then one is due.  Pure and simple, it was a war fought on false pretenses, and something beneath the fine, commendable, and respectable reputation of the United States government.

What Type Of Battle Would Result From A Chinese Invasion Of Taiwan?

Links: A. China Plans To Invade Taiwan
           B. Taiwan Plans Defensive Strategy
           C. China Prepares.....
           D. As Does Taiwan

As the new year started, I jumped head-first into a series of commentaries on Al-Qaeda.  I've decided to mix things up a bit, just to keep everyone awake.  We haven't paid a visit to

China lately, and the Taiwan issue is always good for discussion.  At one time or another, we've all wondered why the Chicoms haven't invaded Taiwan already.  Beijing seems to be exhibiting a tremendous amount of patience, which does seem to be a strong suit.  Every year, trade between the two Chinas increases, as does tourism.  In fact, more Chinese visit Taiwan than vice-versa.  During the dark years of Mao and the Cultural Revolution, the Chicoms were forced to look across the Strait of Taiwan and imagine the budding capitalist society that was humming away. As China struggled through a bit of an identity crisis under Deng Xiaoping, the Taiwanese economy exploded, the island became weighed down with international companies worth billions, and the Kuomintang (Nationalists) lost an election.  The Kuomintang is the political party of former dictator and "father of Taiwan", Chang Kai-Shek, and for many years, only one party was allowed to contest elections. The Kuomintang carried on as if the war with Mao and the Commies never really ended, and the national goal continued to be the reoccupation of the mainland.  When the people of Taiwan finally insisted on a multi-party system, and almost immediately bounced the Kuomintang from the office of President, the message wasn't so much a repudiation of Chang Kai-Shek as it was a message to the world that Taiwan no longer had a beef with China.  Surprisingly, Beijing responded quickly to the overtures from Taipei, and commercial airline service was started.  Everything was moving ahead swimmingly, until the Chinese started referring to the day when Taiwan would become just another Chinese province, and the Taiwanese responded with a bit of noise about becoming an independent nation.  Since 1949, the United States has vouched for the defense of Taiwan, although recently an administration or two has toyed with the idea of cutting back on our military presence in the South China Sea.  If China attacked Taiwan, the shit would hit the fan in so many directions, I don't believe that the United States military would have a clue how to respond.  You see, Taiwan hasn't been sitting around waiting for the Red Army to come for tea.  The battle for Taiwan would be a military engagement like none that we've seen in our existence.  Here's why:

When it comes to military stuff, I'm a typical guy.  I love reading about tanks and ships and ancient battles, and I am always interested in the state of readiness of the world's armies. China has the world's largest army.  We like to refer to it affectionately as the Red Army, but the Chinese prefer it to be called "The People's Liberation Army".  For many years, China was able to rely on the size of its army to influence conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.  In the last three decades or so, China has dedicated itself to reforming its military and bringing it up to specs with the modern age.  In many ways they have been successful.  China is a nuclear power and has atomic weapons.  Importantly, China has made great progress in the development of missile delivery systems.  A substantial amount of Chinese technology has benefitted from espionage, theft from reverse-engineering, and outright bribery.  China has inserted itself into U.S. presidential elections, and managed to convince a former President to "un-ban" certain technologies from being sold to China.  The Chinese continue to steal technology from our Laboratories and our universities, especially the ones with Department of Defense research contracts.  China has also taken advantage of the Moscow yard-sale that took place following the end of the Cold War.  Beijing was able to buy all sorts of Russian military hardware, re-engineer what was useful and throw away the junk.  China even managed to purchase a Russian Aircraft Carrier (for some reason, the Chinese just can't build an aircraft carrier).  As for Taiwan, they were able to use all that capitalism largesse to buy the latest and best military equipment on the planet, and it's all Made in the USA.

As of 2015 (estimates), China has 2,285,000 frontline troops (trained and equipped), and 2,300,000 reserves (also trained and equipped).  China has about 9100 tanks, but they are of various makes and models (and ages), and are also the local product.  From the few times we've seen them in combat, they were less-than impressive.  China also has over 6100 Artillery pieces, and almost 2000 multi-launch rocket systems.  But the troops and hardware make no difference if you can't deliver them to the battlefield.  The Chinese Navy has a healthy number of frigates and destroyers, and a scary number of submarines (69).  But does China have the necessary size and number of transport/landing craft to deposit the Chinese Army on the beaches of Taiwan?  And a beach-landing will require at least some control of the seas.  Sure, you can deliver troops with an airborne resource, but that requires control of the air.

Taiwan's standing army is 290,000 strong, and its reserve element is 1,675,000.  Taiwan has roughly 2000 tanks, with 600 MBTs (Main Battle Tanks) that are either old or of outdated design.  Taiwan has a real tank dilemma, but rumor is that the Taiwanese Army will soon acquire 200 surplus M1A2 Abrams tanks.  Taiwan has useful number of artillery pieces, considering its an island.  Taiwan's Navy is a decent size, and has undertaken an ambitious program to construct its own submarines by the year 2025 (this issue will be resolved by then, guaranteed).  If China were to attempt an invasion of Taiwan, everything would depend on one factor: air superiority.

For China to invade Taiwan, it must first transport its invasion force to within sight of the beaches.  Ideally, the landing craft then take over, transporting the troops, tanks and equipment to the beach head.  This cannot be accomplished without close to total control of the skies.  The same situation confronted General Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1944, when he was planning the invasion of Europe.  The allies were able to pound any German air resources into dust before the invasion began, ensuring no trouble from above.  I assume the Chinese would also utilize a great deal of airborne troops, who would parachute in behind the beach defensive positions and attack the enemy from both directions.  Here is the million dollar question: is the Chinese Air Force strong enough to defeat the Taiwanese Air Force?  By the numbers (I'm leaving out transport, training, etc.), China has 1,170 fighters, 885 fixed-wing fighters and 856 attack helicopters.  Taiwan has 286 fighters, 264 fixed-wing fighters, and 68 attack helicopters.  On paper, it certainly doesn't look like a fair fight.  But the Taiwanese are flying the latest version of the F16, and who really knows what the Chinese are relying upon this week.  Earlier in 2014, word got out that China was purchasing twenty-four Russian Sukhoi-35 Flanker fighter jets.  Without doubt, the Chinese will take them apart and build their own version.  Again, the Chinese have problems developing an indigenous capacity to build certain items.  Aircraft Carriers are one example, and Fighter Planes are another.  On occasion, whatever it is that the Chinese have reverse-engineered ends up falling apart anyway, because the original design was a piece of shit!  Trust a Russian avionics design?  Fly Aeroflot (Aero-FLOP)?  Not me!

The Chinese Attack Helicopters are also no match for the Taiwanese.  Much of what we are discussing will rely on the pilots and their training.  Again, Taiwan is heads-and-tails above the Chinese, mainly because of the quality and dedication of the U.S. military.  We continue to conduct joint training exercises with Taiwan, and word is, the Taiwanese pilots are sensational.  Back to our scenario: if China decides to invade Taiwan, sheer numbers alone tilt the probability in China's favor (for the purpose of this conversation, I am eliminating the possibility of U.S. military intervention).  Weather could play a factor, but you would imagine that the Chinese would plan the date of their operation accordingly.  If the Chinese Air Force lays an egg against the Taiwanese fighters over the Taiwan Strait, the transport vessels and landing craft will be sitting ducks for modern jet fighters.  And if the Chinese Air Force is unable to pepper the defensive positions, then Taiwanese armor, anti-tank units and artillery will have a field day with the landing craft and vehicles trying to organize on the beach (assuming they have had time to be transported to the beach front).

A victory for Taiwan in the skies over the Taiwan Strait translates to successfully repelling a Chinese invasion.  If the Chinese Air Force is able to stay roughly even or better, then Taiwan reverts back to a province of the People's Republic (?) of China.  I'm fascinated by the different opinions I've heard on this subject.  Please don't hesitate to let me know how you feel.