We Should Have Gone Further Than Containment in the Cold War (Iraq, interview)

[jbgusa]

I am stating this as a new topic to avoid sidetracking the thread at the foot of this OP.

The "Cold War" with Communist powers started immediately after the end of WW II. The Western countries more or less ceded Eastern Europe to the Soviet sphere of influence. We allowed direct takeovers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. We allowed, without much more than verbal protest, the Soviets to stir the pot in Poland and Czechoslovakia until Communist governments loyal to the USSR were installed. East Germany and North Korea were part of direct occupation zones of the Soviet Union. China's situation was more complicated. Truman concluded, probably correctly, that the Kuomintang were irredeemably corrupt and that any assistance would go right into Swiss bank accounts.

Unfortunately the Communist powers wanted even more. North Korea invaded South Korea, under U.S. influence, on June 19, 1950. Both China and the USSR angled for influence in Vietnam after French authority collapsed, immediately gaining countrol of the northern half of that country.

The US, drained by WW II, settled on a policy of "containment" whereby the Western powers would resist Communist expansionism, but not coiunter-punch. I view that as a serious mistake. We should have aimed for "containment-plus." In other words we would leave the Communists alone but if they invaded from any of their country that country's independence should have been very much at risk. Thus, if North Korea invaded South Korea, the Communist control over South Korea should have been immediately in jeopardy. Ditto North Vietnam. Agreeing to restrict the war to defending South Korea and South Vietnam gave the Communists the advantage of "heads you win tails I lose." In other words the worst that would happen to the aggressive Communist power is a failure to expand. That happened with North Korea. The best that would hapen would be victory. That happened with South Vietnam.

The UN bleats and moans that Israel won't give back territories captured in the Six Day War. To the contrary an aggressor should face serious risks. After all we won the Cold War without firing a shot when the threatened SDI, or "Star Wars" may, if built, have neutralized the Soviet numerical advantage in nuclear forces.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++

Originally Posted by jbgusa

The bombing in Vietnam was done with both hands tied behind our back. Off limits were Haiphong Harbor and most of the Hanoi area. We also didn't aim for victory. A lot like the Korean War.

In my opinion we should have aimed for "containment-plus." In other words we would leave the Communists alone but if they invaded from any of their country that country's independence should have been very much at risk.

[cpg35223]

You know, given that the Cold War ended without the US and USSR exchanging gunfire in the ruins of Western Europe or shots being fired lobbing nukes over the North Pole, I'm not prone to second-guessing the strategy pursued from Harry Truman onward.

I'm not a hawk, but I think there is a time for war. Sometimes it is the necessary evil when other options have been exhausted and vital interests are threatened. Nobody looks forward to heart surgery or chemotherapy either, but sometimes those are the only options left. However, those times are far fewer than the OP thinks.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made by the United States was the invasion of Iraq. To be sure, Afghanistan was necessary, even though few had any illusion that it was going to be over quickly. Fifteen years later, we're still there. But Iraq was clearly not a military threat to anyone by 2002. The Iraqi army was a shadow of itself. Hussein had little power. And the evidence for WMDs boiled down to the iffy testimony of one defector that the Germans would not let us interview.

We invaded and found no nuclear WMDs. Sure, some holdover chemical weapons that likely had been forgotten about in a depot. But no evidence of a nuclear program. The resulting power vacuum that we created continues to resonate today. So all the international goodwill we amassed with the invasion of Afghanistan was squandered in the pointless invasion of Iraq. And, to be completely bipartisan here, in the toppling of Qaddafi in Libya without anything to put in his stead. It's as if Obama didn't learn a damned thing from Bush.

[Pub-911]

Just blow people up. That's a good plan.

[phetaroi]

You know jbgusa, in two threads now you come across as a war monger (definition: "a person who is often encouraging a country to go to war"). Israel can solve its problems by using force with its neighbors. The U.S. should have gone to war with Russia and other communist nations during the Cold War. You assume that the United States will always win in a war. Did it ever occur to you that we might lose...or fight to a stalemate such as in Korea and Vietnam. Did it ever occur to you that MILLIONS could die due to the wild card of nuclear weapons?

It seems as if you believe that if the U.S. (or Israel) just uses blunt force once, all our problems will be solved. That's not the way the world works. There's always another group to come up against us. Ever hear of ISIS? Al Qaeda?

There are a number of wars I can justify. But then again I'm not the one dying on the battlefield...and neither are/were you.

[Ruth4Truth]

How has the US been doing in its current wars? Has anyone noticed the effect of those wars on the economy?

[Ralph_Kirk]

[quote=jbgusa;46779279]I am stating this as a new topic to avoid sidetracking the thread at the foot of this OP.

The "Cold War" with Communist powers started immediately after the end of WW II. The Western countries more or less ceded Eastern Europe to the Soviet sphere of influence. We allowed direct takeovers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. We allowed, without much more than verbal protest, the Soviets to stir the pot in Poland and Czechoslovakia until Communist governments loyal to the USSR were installed. East Germany and North Korea were part of direct occupation zones of the Soviet Union. [quote]


The Red Army had already occupied eastern Europe by VE day. What "ceding" are you talking about?

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

How has the US been doing in its current wars? Has anyone noticed the effect of those wars on the economy?

On the economy.
On terrorism.
On general international relations.
On respect in the world.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

Thus, if North Korea invaded South Korea, the Communist control over South Korea should have been immediately in jeopardy. Ditto North Vietnam. Agreeing to restrict the war to defending South Korea and South Vietnam gave the Communists the advantage of "heads you win tails I lose." In other words the worst that would happen to the aggressive Communist power is a failure to expand. That happened with North Korea. The best that would hapen would be victory. That happened with South Vietnam.

You do realise that the Chinese and Soviet Union were backing North Korea and you do realise the high casaulty rate during the Korean War.

We Brits helped the US in Korea but thankfully stayed out of Vietnam.

[phetaroi]

War is sometimes necessary, but it's a shame that some see and seek war as misplaced love of country.

[Troyfan]

In the end we did not settle for containment. We set out to win and we did. Communism is now practiced only in isolated backwaters. Europe is free of it. So is Asia except for the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea. Cuba appears to be happy with it. But without the USSR Cuba is not a threat to anyone.

There might be a few 3rd world dictators that still think communism is the way to go and I feel sorry for their people. That's a different story than the Cold War, though.