Rating: 
Summary: Vietnam: the necessary book
Review: Lind has written what will be seen as a landmark work on Vietnam. It took twenty-five years and the detached perspective of a member of the post-war generation to produce an interpretation that is not laden with the emotional baggage of the 1960s. Vietnam: The Necessary War does not give the final truth. That will only be written after political change comes to Vietnam and Hanoi's archives are opened. No doubt, the final truth will be written by a Vietnamese. But Lind's masterful demolition of the war's many myths raises scholarship on the war - and public understanding - to a new level. After having worked in Vietnam for five years in the 1990s, his appraisal of communist intentions in Indochina (and revealed ambitions for their "international duty" in Thailand) ring true. Hanoi duped the West (not Washington) during the war and is similarly succeeding today (though again, not Washington) as it attracts substantial foreign aid and diplomatic support while neithering offering nor facing expectations for political change. Any who doubt Lind's understanding that Ho's goals for Vietnam were to have it participate in the world revolution need only look up the Politburo's recent assertions that the country will remain firmly on the socialist path. I have rarely come across a non-fiction book that was such a delight to read. Perhaps this is because it was so evidently a search for the truth without the ulterior political motives most writers on Vietnam purposely or unwittingly pursue.
Rating: 
Summary: Visionary? Fresh? Gasp, choke, gag, spit!
Review: Lind repeats most of the hackneyed justifications for the way things seem to have turned out, as espoused by everyone (on the right) from Sen. (Joe) McCarthy to Rush Limbaugh. OK, there is some abstract revisionism ("maximal realists" vs. "minimal realists") that I haven't run across. Not being a reader of Mr. Lind's magazine, I'm just not with it, I guess. At any rate, according to Lind, it (the Viet War, and apparently most or all of the others in this century) was (still) all the commies' fault, and they (and anybody else who might think of challenging US hegemony) better look out, 'cause we are- or should be--- ready to nail them good in the next quagmire! (like- the Zapatistas? is that why we're softening them up, sending all that military aid to the Mexican Army?) I think the whole subject is more complicated than Mr. Lind wants to even consider.
Rating:
Summary: Most Balanced Book I've read on Vietnam Yet.
Review: Michael Lind has created a much-needed counterbalance to the leftist media dribble we hear constantly about Vietnam. He shatters many myths of the left and right about the war. He also puts the war in a geopolitical context, claiming that if the United States had abandoned Indochina without a fight we would have lost the battle with the U.S.S.R. for world influence. This would have become especially critical in the early 1980's when Western Europe came under threat of the Warsaw Pact.
Lind puts the blame for the war where it belongs: Communist aggression. Lind also calls Communism what it was: the most murderous form of government ever (responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people). He rightly points out that without the U.S.S.R.'s (and China's) initial backing there would have been no so called "civil war" in Vietnam.
Lind shatters all myths about the war as well. He destroys the myth (widely believed, thanks to Oliver Stone) that if John F. Kennedy had lived we would have had no involvement in Vietnam. Lind proves without a doubt (through Kennedy's own quotes indorsing the war, made just month's before his assassination), this is not true. He also points out how this plan to withdraw must have been very secret indeed, because John Kennedy didn't even tell his own brother (Robert)! Lind also takes on the right's myth that if U.S. forces had invaded North Vietnam there would have been a quick end to the war. On the contrary, Lind shows another Korean War would have resulted. He proves this through newly released documents that show China's commitment to Vietnam if it was invaded. He also takes the U.S. Military to task for its strategy in Vietnam.
Overall, this is an outstanding book. I would recommend it to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: Thoughtfully Exploring the Vietnam War
Review: Michael Lind has done an admirable and necessary job of taking on the myths of the Vietnam war that have been promulgated by a self-serving, highly biased media. He has exposed the myths for what they are, at best leftist apologies for Communist atrocities in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, and at worst the lies of avowed Marxists hoping for the overthrow of the United States. What makes this book even more appealing is that Lind himself is politically left of center. He points out the mistakes made by the military, the Nixon administration and the Johnson administration without prejudice. It is even handed, well documented and insightful, an analysis based on examining the Vietnam War as a proxy battle between the U. S. and the Soviet Union as part of the Cold War, which Lind considers WWIII. Along with Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the 60s by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, former editors of Ramparts; Radical Son, the memoir of former Communist and 60s radical David Horowitz; Big Story, by Peter Braestrup; Stolen Valor, by B. B. Burkett and Glenna Whitley; Phoenix and the Birds of Prey, by Mark Moyar; and The Sacred Willow by Duong Van Mai Elliott, this book is necessary reading for anyone who really wants to understand the Vietnam war, the 60s and 70s, and the war's after effects. An important contribution of this book is the historical perspective provided on protest, not just against Vietnam, but against all the American wars, including WWII. So much of this has been forgotten by Americans, or is simply not taught in our history texts, for reasons that are clear on reflection. I remember a friends father, well read and well carefully considered, telling me about the protests in favor or Hitler in Madison Square Garden before we entered WWII while we discussed the Vietnam War protests. He, as much as anyone, helped me make the right decision, which was to serve in Vietnam. Besides the isolationist tradition and the anti-war tradition of certain segments of American political thought, the actions of Presidents Johnson and Nixon are put in the perspective of the actions of former presidents during earlier wars, and in the end both Johnson's and Nixon's come off looking soft in enforcing existing laws. For example, Jane Fonda could have been tired for treason under the laws of the United States, as they applied to Vietnam, and scould have suffered the fate of those WWII traitors she emulated, which was prison. Another traitor, Tom Haydn, was given a Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter for actions that were actually legally treasonable. I have found two errors that should be corrected in any further editions. First of all, the author refers to Marine Corps CAP units as Combined Action Patrols, rather than as Combined Action Platoons, which is what they were. They were so called because they joined about 12 Americans, a rifle squad of Marines and a Navy Hospital Corpsman, with a Platoon of Vietnamese Popular Forces, local militia, in the defense of a village. The Combined Action Platoon lived in the village they defended from Viet Cong terrorism. They have been studied in several books, including Michael Peterson's The Combined Action Platoons: The U. S. Marines' Other War in Vietnam. I have been fortunate to have met many former CAP veterans. One of them, Tim Duffie of Ohio, runs a web site dedicated to the Combined Action Platoons. While on a recent trip back to Vietnam to find where a good friend of mine, a Navy Corpsman, was killed in January of 1968 while serving with a CAP unit near Tam Ky, I met several Vietnamese former Popular Force veterans who showed me the area where their unit had been located. They still remember the Marines fondly and asked about several who had been with the unit. They remembered my friend. The other error is on page 156 where Lind writes "South Vietnam's Park" instead of Korea's Park. Of course, the error is readily apparent from the context, and Park is properly identified on the following page.
Rating:
Summary: A Thoughtful Review
Review: Michael Lind's overview of the Vietnam war is a sober, thoughtful, apparently unbiased analysis of the policies and strategies of America's most divisive conflict. His basic conclusion is that the war was a necessary battle (ending in a Soviet victory) in the larger cold war, and this is appropriate. Most of his other conclusions are reasonable. He is particularly hard on the antiwar movement, including Robert Kennedy and other liberal icons, while he often praises Johnson and Nixon. The book does have a few weak parts. For example, in a post 9/11 world, some of his comments about America's willingness to go to war seem dated. Yet this is an excellent, balanced book.
Rating: 
Summary: Thoughtful argument for both sides to consider
Review: Michael Lind, iconoclast in many fields, has written a fascinating book about the causes of the Vietnam War. Specifically, he asks why the war was fought and whether it was necessary. Although many of his specifics are questionable, his overriding thesis--that the war was an integral and necessary part of the Cold War, much like the Korean War--is difficult to question. While those who question the value of the Cold War as a whole may not be convinced, anyone trying to maintain that Vietnam is "different" from other foreign interventions needs to read this book.
Rating: 
Summary: An Interesting Perspective
Review: Mr. Lind tries to cover a lot of terrain in this analysis of the Vietnam War. However, after reading his description of Naval Academy graduate John McCain as a "former Air Force pilot and POW", I had to wonder how many other factual errors it contained. Still, worth reading for his revealing look at a lot of popular misconceptions about the war.
Rating:
Summary: A complicated war with not so simple analysis, overcritical.
Review: Mr. Lind's book, gives a fairly decent analysis of the causes, consequences, and aftermath, of Vietnam. However, he appears to criticize the left, more than the right, but does offer some criticism of people like General William Westmoreland (who's idea to send more troops would have been a disaster). He points out the escalating conflict, which drew in Presidents from Eisenhower to Nixon, and the mistakes each of them made with a fairly balanced criticism. However, he faults the anti-war left for "restraining" the military, and that the after effects of this are having consequences today, e.g., in the views of Bush, versus Kerry, with regard to Iraq; though the book stops before then. He claims that the liberals would make America more isolationist and this might allow regimes, e.g., in Kosovo, to have more power. I don't agree with all of his analysis, but he rightly points out many of the reasons why America did not "win" this war/conflict and why if some of the same mistakes are made, and if there is no political and military power, to balance the United States, some of the consequences that might follow in (the) future. Overall, not bad, but sure to stir emotions; whether a "fan" of the military or not, liberal or conservative, pro or anti war, Democrat or Republican, interventionist or isolationist. Worth a read, for at least one person's analysis and perspective.
Rating:
Summary: A complicated war with not so simple analysis, overcritical.
Review: Mr. Lind's book, gives a fairly decent analysis of the causes, consequences, and aftermath, of Vietnam. However, he appears to criticize the left, more than the right, but does offer some criticism of people like General William Westmoreland (who's idea to send more troops would have been a disaster). He points out the escalating conflict, which drew in Presidents from Eisenhower to Nixon, and the mistakes each of them made with a fairly balanced criticism. However, he faults the anti-war left for "restraining" the military, and that the after effects of this are having consequences today, e.g., in the views of Bush, versus Kerry, with regard to Iraq; though the book stops before then. He claims that the liberals would make America more isolationist and this might allow regimes, e.g., in Kosovo, to have more power. I don't agree with all of his analysis, but he rightly points out many of the reasons why America did not "win" this war/conflict and why if some of the same mistakes are made, and if there is no political and military power, to balance the United States, some of the consequences that might follow in (the) future. Overall, not bad, but sure to stir emotions; whether a "fan" of the military or not, liberal or conservative, pro or anti war, Democrat or Republican, interventionist or isolationist. Worth a read, for at least one person's analysis and perspective.
Rating:
Summary: Finally the truth.
Review: Perhaps this book could not have been written ten years ago. My favorite phrase from this book is "...the sorry history of the American intellectual left". Remember those broadcast journalists and professors whom you thought were being duped by the Marxists? Well, you'll find out here that your instincts were not misleading you. Mr. Lind proves just how wrong they were. This is a fantastic book, not only as a story about the Indochina wars, but as Cold War era history. At times, Mr. Lind's prose runs too fast, but maybe it's just because his ideas and facts are so refreshing and exciting. Those who had/have a stake in discrediting America will be offended by this book, and no doubt Mr Lind will be ostracized by many. It took a lot of courage to write this book, just as it took courage to write his excellent "Up From Conservatism".
|
