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.

Is Mainland China Still A Communist Nation?

Links: A. China Moves Away From Reform
           B. People's Liberation Army

We all have certain phrases and clichés that rub us the wrong way.  One phrase which always brings out the red-ass in me is, "we must compromise with China because they are the world's biggest economy".  Actually, a few variants exist on the same basic theme.  Reading between the lines, the point is that since China has become so powerful economically, we must defer to China and ignore the distasteful laws and actions of the government in Beijing.  The detention and execution of political reformers, religious intolerance as a rule, and hardline support for the likes of Kim Jung-Un in North Korea are three particular issues that I have with China, and if you give me about two minutes I can come up with five more.  While the western world was attempting to peacefully evolve from the age of colonialism, China invaded Tibet and brutally murdered any and all local opposition.  China continues to clamp down on even the slightest display of nationalism in Tibet, which is about as indigenous to China as Tahiti is to France.  I'm not usually an apologist for Islamic "freedom fighters", but China has reacted brutally to expressions of Islamic identity in far western Chinese Provinces.  I believe these examples are all indications that the Chinese government is just as reactionary and just as opposed to basic individual freedoms as they have always been. 

The evolution of a Chinese middle class has done much to encourage people into believing that China isn't a Communist country anymore.  How could they be, with such a large and powerful economy?  China does have a growing middle class (growing SLOWLY), and also an elite class of highly placed party leaders who lead lives very different that the average rice grower out in the provinces.  The Generals who sit in positions of power in the People's Liberation Army all lead very comfortable private lives as well.  Their families also enjoy the benefits of luxury and influence.  But this is how Communism has always betrayed itself.  If you've managed to get through anything penned by Karl Marx (don't lie!), you know that the example must be set at the top, not at the bottom.  Wealth should be evenly distributed, and equality should be the focus of all government domestic policy.  But Communism has yet to follow through on this admirable but unrealistic plan.  Have a look at the Soviet Union, Laos, Vietnam, and China, just for starters.  The people in positions of authority (I thought the working class was the societal authority?) always live well, or at least better than most.  In China today, I wouldn't be surprised if the growth of the middle class slows to a crawl, and the number of rich Chinese dramatically increases.

For the average citizen of China, the rules and regulations of Chinese society haven't changed in over sixty years.  Well then, why do we see so many wealthy Chinese?  Because someone found a way to game the system.  When Europe and the United States opened up to China and embraced Chinese products, the increased flow of money allowed a select few to take advantage of newly discovered avenues to wealth.  Chinese products have always been attractive to western consumers.  Originally interest might have been influence by the sense of the exotic that Chinese products delivered.  Quickly, though, it became about money.  Chinese merchandise was always much cheaper than the competitor.  Chinese businessmen who were fortunate enough to have a relative in the National Bank were able to take out loans and build large factories, duplicating European products at a fraction of the cost.  These businessmen joined the wealthy list as well.  But China is a country of more than one billion people, and the vast majority have always lived within the confines of a limited economy.  The closest most Chinese will ever come to wealth is to wash dishes in an exclusive Shanghai restaurant.

The Chinese economy is a force to be reckoned with.  I will argue that the United States, Japan, and Europe were instrumental in helping the Chinese economy transform so dramatically in a relatively short period of time.  The Chinese needed open markets and favorable trade agreements, and the west obliged.  In the 1970s, the argument was, "there are almost a billion Chinese, we MUST be supportive of their efforts to reform (expand) their economy".  Along with the establishment of middle and upper classes, the Chinese government became flush with cash.  Not just from favorable trade, but also from a streamlined tax system.  The Chinese used the financial largesse to increase their influence diplomatically, especially through building projects in Africa (roads, dams, hospitals, etc.). The Chinese also enjoyed spending money in the United States, with enormous real estate ventures on both coasts.  As far as I am concerned, the most important figure in this discussion is 1.2 trillion.  That is the amount, in dollars, of U.S. debt that China currently owns (eight percent).  How does a Communist country manage to own such a substantial amount of debt from the world's wealthiest nation?  Forgive....I hate rhetorical questions as much as you.

I believe that China is a Communist country.  A country-side tour, outside of Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and Guangzhou, will remind the tourist that China continues to be more rural than urban.  Subsistence farming is still the staple way of life for many Chinese families.  It's my understanding that the educational system has improved dramatically in the past two decades, both by the number of schools and the quality of teachers.  As the economy flexes, jobs are created, and China gives the appearance of a nation on the move.  Allow me to share with you the reasons why China continues to be deeply embedded in Communism.  The entire educational system is controlled by the government.  Every Chinese government school textbook is pure propaganda.  Once a student completes what we would consider "grade school", they must take a test to determine their aptitude for whatever direction that they would prefer (occupation/trade).  Most young Chinese follow in their father's footsteps; its probably rarely by choice.  I have had the pleasure of meeting many Chinese students who are studying at U.S. universities.  The tuition for these foreign students is almost always paid for by the university.  After a bit of research, I learned that these students were the children of Generals, Admirals and Governors.  I would have been so thrilled to read, "rice farmer" under the space marked "parent occupation", but it was not to be.  So anyone who thinks that China is "less" Communist because of the plethora of Chinese students studying at U.S. schools, think again.  Chinese students almost always attend universities who have been selected for highly sensitive U.S. Department of Defense research projects.  These students enter the United States with a server on their computer that can't be monitored, and links them directly to Beijing.  This information has been detailed in one news article after another, yet left-wing academia continues to arm-wrestle for the opportunity to host Chinese students.

In the past, Communist nations have always spent disproportionately on their military budgets. I'm not exactly sure where China fits on a scale of military spending, but I do know that since the Nixon rapprochement with China in 1972, the Chinese have become steadily less reliant on outside sources for military equipment, and better at copying the best that the west has to offer.  The Chinese have refined a particularly nasty little trick that a number of countries like to try.  If a particular company has created a really useful mobile missile launcher (for example), the Chinese will invite the company reps to demonstrate the equipment in China.  The reps will be wined and dined, and given the impression that the sale is basically a done-deal.  Sometime while the equipment is in storage in China, the Chinese will take it apart down to the last screw, photograph and measure everything, then put the equipment back together.  The next day, the company reps are abruptly dismissed with a curt, "not interested".  Roughly one year down the road, the Chinese will introduce their own, "indigenous" mobile missile launcher.  But China has not always played the game so smoothly.  One reason why Taiwan has not been swallowed up by the mainland (yet), is because the Chinese Air Force could not guarantee control of the air.  The Taiwanese pilots in their latest F16s were more than a match to waves of whatever the Chinese pilots were flying at the time.  Another issue was naval.  The Chinese navy did not possess a dependable method for transporting troops across the Taiwan Strait (sitting ducks for the Taiwan Air Force).  But since the late 1970s the Chinese have made steady progress in all areas of military concern.  Some people will ask why the Chinese don't just invade Taiwan and resolve the issue once and for all.  I'm sure China could.  When a country can turn to a population of over one billion, there can be no doubt that China could just drop a million troops on Taiwan and smoother the country into submission.  But we are dealing with subtleties here.  The Taiwanese military is no slouch.  It's well-equipped and well-trained, and the navy includes three Daphne-class French submarines that are capable of housing a missile delivery system.  The mainland Chinese are itching to take Taiwan, but they want to look good completing the job.  So a few more military preparations appear to be in order.

Most folks would find it easier to identify a Democracy than a Communist state.  As Eric Cartman on South Park put it so eloquently: "Its the difference between smelling the sweet air of freedom or the stale air of repression".  The Chinese government has shown no disposition towards religious tolerance, and in far western China, Muslims are being targeted by Chinese police and military solely for practicing Islam.  Rumors abound in China that couples are only allowed to have one child, and lets hope that the newborn isn't a girl.  The Chinese government has population controls, in that you must apply to live in certain areas (the Chinese have grown accustomed to many, many waiting lists).  We have already demonstrated the tight grip the government has on all levels of education.  As for students, the government likes to turn them into little spies, because they have the kind of valuable access that case officers would love to have.  I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point.  China continues to be a nation happily integrated at every level with Communist philosophy.  Am I sure?  Have you taken a peak at their electoral process lately?