Rating: 
Summary: Will Likely Change the Way You Think
Review: Reading some of the negative reviews of this book has only strengthened, in my mind, my belief in Lind's argument. The people who dislike it dismiss it as saying that it is defending the indefensible, or excusing America's Cold War policy, etc., etc.What many of them don't deal with is Lind's well-written defense of America's Cold War policy - that stopping the spread of totalitarian communism was more important than only supporting democratic regimes. Lind succeeds not only in providing a justification for Vietnam and the level to which America intervened, but in providing (in my mind) startling revelations about Bobby Kennedy and in making a sound case that Johnson was a better CinC than Nixon. The book also contains fascinating information on the history of the anti-war movement in the United States. For realists, this book presents arguments that simply must be dealt with.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought provoking, but simplistic analysis.
Review: That the author of this book attempts to stake out some middle ground on our failures in Vietnam, would appear, on the surface, to be a worthy exercise. I for one am in agreement with the author that both the extreme left and the extreme right's views of the war are overly simplistic. Lind puts the war into the bigger picture of the cold war that lasted from the end of world war II to the fall of the wall. THe book, in its savage portrayal of the North Vietnamese and Ho Chi MInh, is sure to garner the support of the right and enrage liberals who saw the war as a civil war we should have stayed out of. BUt to the author's credit, those on the right who fault the government for not letting the military unleash its full power are sure to be infuriated by the author's criticism of the miltary and its leaders lack of imagination and competence in dealing with a guerrilla type war it was completely unprepared for. But in attempting to stake out some middle ground, the author has tried to make many arguments overly simplistic. Furthermore, his constant obvious and not so obvious attempts at casting everything in terms of good and evil takes away from the book's attempt to stake out some middle ground between both views of the war and those who were on each side. That there was more than two sides to the war also seems to escape his attention. It was not just a war between the U.S and the Soviets as fought by their puppets, but one involving a myrad of sides and issues, as well as explanations. In the end, the only thing one really takes away from the book is that no one viewpoint, including this author's, is sufficient at chroniciling the causes, execution, and aftermath of the war and America's invlovement in it. One must, if one seeks to really undestand what went on there, read a plethora of books on the war. They would include; Fire i nthe Lake by Frances Fitzgerald, The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam, A Bright Shining Lie by Michael Sheehan, Vietnam by Stanley Karnow, About Face by Colonel David Hackworth, WE were Soldiers Once, and YOung, by Galloway, and Dispatches, by Michael Herr. Real history, real understanding of its consequences, is ultimately far more complicated than this book or any one book can account for. With the war's end really only 25 years removed, and its conseqences still being played out in the world, the final word o nthe war has not yet likely been written anyway.
Rating:
Summary: Geopolitical Assessment of Vietnam
Review: The author does an excellent job of reviewing the geopolitical importance of the Vietnam war and the various theories of geopolitical power that explain the conduct of nations. The book attacks the views of both liberals and conservatives on the reasons for military and political failure in Vietnam. While the reasons for failure and the possible solutions are subject to attack themselves, at least they pose a new way of looking at the war and its aftermath which should lead to a better way of examining our current foreign policy. The book asks the right questions and it helps develop answers to current and future problems of a geopolitical nature. The author's writing style is excellent. The book reads quickly and the concepts are well explained. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in history or politics.
Rating: 
Summary: Solid Analysis
Review: The best overall analysis of this lost war as but a strategic "battle" of the 50 year long cold war. A must read for anyone interested in the long view.
Rating:
Summary: A Variation on the Same Theme
Review: The book it self is a well written book with the few exceptions with the incorrections using North Korea instead of North VietNam.One reviewer Mr.J.Chaffee,one of the more long winded reviewers,hit all the points rather well.But having some previous contact with Mr.Chaffee I question his veracity.He says he was a Corpsman in VietNam at NSA Station Hospital but when I ask him questions about ,specifically, the nuts and bolts of being there he questions my varacity.Mr Lind you have a good book a bit redundant;too bad you have to get such a long winded review from someone who claims to be your friend.
Rating:
Summary: Reinterpreting Viet Nam
Review: The VietNam War gets much ink spilled in hopes of explaining what happened between the years 1960-75. This is an attempt by a self-described "liberal anti-communist" to explain how the Viet Nam War was lost, and by whom. It's a pretty cogent argument, with only a flaw here and there, generally well-reasoned and thought out. Lind doesn't want to discuss the war in detail, and that's one of the problems of the book. He stays focused on strategy and big-picture things, paying attention to all of the 20th century battles of the Cold War, and battles since. I found it a bit annoying that he places most of the blame for the defeat in Viet Nam at the feet of the military, but other than some vague platitudes about fighting the wrong war, he has little to say by way of explanation of what they did wrong. Instead, weirdly, the book turns out to be a defense of Lyndon Johnson. Lind finds Johnson almost completely blameless, and thinks him rather skilled as a politician and a war leader. He has many biting and incisive opinions on other principals of the war and critics of the operations there. He takes shots at pretty much everyone who has written about the war before him, from Noam Chomsky to Robert MacNamara to Barbara Tuchman, and has little good to say about anyone else at all. Given all of this, this is still a worthwhile book. The author has clearly thought all of this through, and his arguments, if a bit much at times, are well-thought out and reasoned.
Rating:
Summary: Short, Sweet and to the point
Review: The word that most aptly describes Michael Linds short concise reinterpretation of Vietnam is EXCEPTIONAL. Without giving away the ending Linds skewers ALL the sacred cows of Vietnam history and mythology. From the "Not allowed to Win" theory of the right to the "Unconstitutional War" and "Unjust War" theories on the left, to name but a few. Perspective is the tool Lind uses to dispell the myths and correct the erroneous history. The Cold War and its outcome are the prism through which Linds views the conflict and reveals the unpalatable truths of what he justifiably calls "the Necessary War". I highly recommend this work to anyone looking for a fresh take on what has become a rather stale subject. You may not agree with the conclusions Lind draws but none can argue the facts he presents. Only the most jaded cynic or hardened partisan will fail to see the insight Lind brings to the subject.
Rating:
Summary: Keep them coming
Review: These types of books, well written and revealing, are hard to come by. Two other excellent books on more contemporary special operations events include "Black Hawk Down" by Mark Bowden, and "Danger Close" by Mike Yon
Rating:
Summary: A Needed Perspective
Review: This a much needed and well-done analysis of the Vietnam conflict. It puts the conflict in a global perspective that, at the time, most did not understand or appreciate. What is most interesting is Lind's analysis of the Russian influence on the politics of Ho Chi Minh and the North's conduct of the war. As one who was there, I can attest to the Russian influence. For example, once when we overran a newly arrived North Vietnamese unit we recovered a number of their backpacks. All had indentical items in them--items from Russia, Czechslovkia and other Eastern Bloc countries. This was not a civil war nor were the North Vietnamese supported solely or chiefly by the Chinese. I think Lind has gotten it right in many respects. This is a must read.
Rating: 
Summary: reassertion of misconceptions
Review: This book is a continuation of misrepresentations of the vietnam war. It loses itself in philosophizing instead of looking at the war specifically. Its attempt to dissasociate the reader from the war is there to make it more palatable for the reader to accept that "maybe the war was just," it was not. The war was built on deception for the most selfish of purposes. It claims that the war could only be unjust if you were to consider that all wars are unjust or that the cold war is unjust. This is junior philosophy in an attempt to disguise the real issues of the war. Anyone truly familiar with the war will see through its many fallacies. Its claim that we had to fight the war is absurd, as is the idea that we ever had a chance of winning. Try reading Ehrhart's "Vietnam-Perkasie" to get a look at a real war veterans perspective on our chances of winning. "We never stood a chance" is what he recently told a class that he lectured to. He explains in his book how even the south vietnamese who backed the US changed their opinion after the military displayed their callous disregard for Vietnamese culture and society (North or South). Try reading other books about the pentagon papers, or others by such authors as Bruce Franklin, that really delve into the war and don't just prance around the issues.
|
