Capitol Hill Blue
Posted By: jgw Haiti - little problem - 07/11/21 06:34 PM
I have noticed that some Haitians have asked us to send in the troops to fix their problem. AMAZING! When we send in our troop people dies, LOTS of people! When we did Iraq its said that over 200,000 civilians got whacked as well as most of those who joined up with us (translators, etc). In addition we managed to give them an incredibly corrupt government as well. Then there is Afghanistan. Over forty-seven civilians dead, Several thousand that signed up with us to be slaughtered unless we take care of that one and, so far, nothing has happened and we are leaving pretty soon. I could go back to Vietnam but its the same story.

Basically, when we invade someplace we make sure its got an incredibly corrupt government, Kill a bunch of people, and promise everybody that helps us a place in America. We do the first two things efficiently and ignore the last. I am not going to get into right or wrong, these are simple historical facts, this is what we do and how we behave. We were in Haiti once before and behaved just as the events mentioned above and, now, they want us back to do it again?

Obviously, we are simply not being plain enough in our actions or they are bat s*** crazy.

Just saying............
Posted By: Greger Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/12/21 03:20 PM
They're asking for peacekeeping assistance, not airstrikes.

Haiti is a desperately poor island nation. They never recovered from the earthquake. They have been hit with multiple devastating hurricanes and now the pandemic.

What they really need is money. Maybe some of that money we send to Israel...?

Cuba is having issues now too. Biden has left all of Trump's sanctions on Cuba in place.

The USA is a really sh*tty neighbor.
Posted By: jgw Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/12/21 06:07 PM
They asked for American Troops! When we send in our troops people die, a LOT of people die! We responded, this time, with a group of 'experts' My point was that when we send in our army its seemingly never a very good idea for where they are being sent.

As far as Israel is concerned, are you referring to all the loans we have given them that they have never paid back?
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/12/21 09:06 PM
Actually, the US has the habit of moving translators and such to Guam when a conflict ends, processing them for refugee status, and then sending them to the US with Green Cards. We did that with a pile of Vietnamese people, Iraqis after both conflicts, and Afghans as well. People get incensed in the press about the prospect we would NOT do it, but it does happen. I think the exception was the Kurds, because a bunch of countries sponsored and supplied a Kurdish protectorate in Northern Iraq and Turkey.
Posted By: jgw Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/13/21 05:24 PM
Yep, know about that. I also know that we leave a lot behind. I remember, when we left Viet Nam we left an entire tribe that had aligned with us (some did get in but most didn't). The current Afghanistan mess is yet another example. I saw one translator being interviewed, who has been trying to get a card for 4 years! He has all the paperwork, a stack of references from a variety of American military, etc. but 4 years! He had a wife and kids and running scared. Last week I saw somebody reporting that our bureaucracy has yet to start their investigations as they are very busy with other stuff.

My point was that we simply don't keep our word and yet people still believe in us. I remain amazed!
Posted By: Greger Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/15/21 04:21 PM
People don't believe in "us"

They believe in power and money.
Posted By: jgw Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/15/21 06:29 PM
You are right and they are going to try and move them someplace whilst they are being investigated. Its interesting. I watched one guy say he had been trying for years for a card and failed. The last time because he presented the write up by an American who he worked for and was turned down because the American never replied to the questions from the investigator. He is trying again and has something from the current US Officer he is currently working for but has no hope.

Gen Milley said, on TV, that over 20 years we actually built up a group of thousands who have worked for us and been made promises by Americans. He went on to say that they are not going to all be let in and that is not right. Its, basically, the way it is I guess.

Eventually the rest of the world is going to get it and it just won't matter what we say to who because nobody will believe a word WE say!

I continue to wonder about we and the Afghanistan thing. Just what, exactly were we doing for 20 years. I know some of it. We, for instance, put in place, and supported what was considered one of the most corrupt governments on the face of the earth. All that being said, nobody, for 20 years, ever did explain what in the hell we were doing over there. My own thought is that they were completely clueless, wanted desperately to win, but had no idea what! They figure our price for that was over 1 trillion dollars! One can only wonder.
Posted By: perotista Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/16/21 03:08 AM
Originally the Taliban was giving UBL a safe heaven and training ground for his AQ operatives. We fought a smart war to begin with, a few SF and paramilitary on the ground letting the 13 tribe Northern Alliance do the ground fighting while we provided the air support. That worked great as eventually the Northern Alliance drove the Taliban into the mountains near the Pakistani border. But failed to capture UBL. We could have ended our involvement then and there. But didn’t.

Then things went south, we decided on nation building and introduced 100,000 troops supposedly to search the mountains for UBL. What the 13 tribe Northern Alliance wanted was to go back to their home territory and let their tribal elders and religious leaders govern or rule over them. But we decided to force democracy on them. The main reason for the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban was the Taliban wanted to rule over all tribes in Afghanistan. One tribe, one ruler. By us forcing democracy on them, we ended up letting one tribe, one man rule over them. Although this did give them the vote. This wasn’t what they wanted.

Some of the tribes of the Northern Alliance once our allies, deserted us and became our enemies because we forced our form of government on them. They wanted to be ruled by people of their own tribe, not by someone from another tribe. We could have left a few SF and paramilitary with each tribe instead of introducing 100,000 of our troops. Then when the Taliban started to return, we could have brought our air power to bear and once again let the Northern Alliance do the ground fighting. They’d be defending their homeland and they would do that furiously. This probably would have been a never-ending thing, but a 20-year war is about as close to never ending as one can get.

We should have let the Afghans have the form of government they wanted. Now that’s hindsight. But it’s my two cents, for what it’s worth. Perhaps stuff like this is caused by our western mind and culture that fails to recognize that other cultures, especially in Asia and Africa think differently and have different cultural norms.
Posted By: jgw Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/16/21 05:56 PM
Yep, that's pretty much what and how we do and it never ends well. I suspect one can tell the future as soon as we send in the troop in any numbers, based on past experience, as its pretty much the same, with quirks. The one I thought was interesting was the one in Iraq when we sent a sergeant with a pickup full of American money, which belonged to Iraq and gave the whole works to a mystery man (this one was never solved and the sergeant was just following orders but nobody knew from who). It was a LOT of money! There always seems to be mysteries as well as all the rest.

The congressional investigation into the Iraq thing was pretty interesting. I don't think they ever had one for VietNam or, so far, Afghanistan.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/17/21 06:01 AM
The whole "let's invade Iraq because of 9/11" thing was idiotic from Day 1. Clusterfug on top of clusterfug, to put it politely. But what could we expect from W and Cheney. You elect clowns and you get a circus. Then "let's invade Afghanistan", where empires go to die. You'd think we would have learned something from Russia's experience. They left it for us as a tar baby! And sure enough, we had to hit it with that stick.

If we needed to take out Osama, the way Obama did it is what you should try for.
Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/17/21 02:36 PM
Originally Posted by jgw
I remember, when we left Viet Nam we left an entire tribe that had aligned with us (some did get in but most didn't)

The Hmong people, yes?
They were the "hill people" and a lot of them settled in Minneapolis and Detroit.
Posted By: perotista Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/17/21 04:42 PM
The Hmong were situated in and around the PDJ in Laos. In places like Padong, Sam Thong, Long Tieng. VP had his HQ's in Long Tieng. Other tribes in Laos I was familiar with are the Khmu, the karen and the Akha. All lived in different regions of Laos.

With Vietnam, your probably talking about the Montagnards. The Hmong and montagnards were two distinct people with different customs and languages.

Although Montanans can refer to around 30 or more mountainous tribes in Southeast Asia. It's a French word that means Mountain dwellers

Although most refer to the Vietnam Was as one war, it wasn't. There was the war in Northern Laos, the one along the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos and Cambodia, the one in South Vietnam and the one in Cambodia. All fought differently using different tactics and equipment. But it was Vietnam that had most of the U.S. troops. There were 122 of us in Laos with Project 404, MEDTC in Cambodia had around 70 if I remember right. At its height there were 536,000 U.S. troops in South Vietnam.


Troop Strength in South Vietnam

1950 65 US Military MAAG-INDOCHINA
1951 128 US Military
1952 128 US Military
1953 128 US Military
1955 342 US Military
1956 342 US Military
1957 692 US Military
1958 692 US Military
1959 760 US Military
1960 890 US Military
1961 3,205 US MILITARY
1962 11,300 US MILITARY MACV established
1963 16,700 US MILITARY
1964 23,300 US MILITARY MAAG-Vietnam disbanded, MACV Absorbs all its functions
1965 184,300 US Military 22,420 Allied Forces
1966 385,300 US Military 52,500 Allied Forces
1967 485,600 US Military 59,300 Allied Forces
1968 536,100 US Military 65,600 Allied Forces
1969 475,200 US Military 70,300 Allied Forces
1970 334,600 US Military 67,700 Allied Forces
1971 156,800 US Military 53,900 Allied Forces
1972 24,200 US Military 35,500 Allied Forces
1973 50 US Military No Allied Forces US Military attached to the DAO*
MACV deactivated
1974 50 US Military No Allied Forces US Military attached to the DAO*

*Does not count Marine Security Guards for the Embassy and multitude Counsels located around South Vietnam.

Yearly totals are on the 31st of December of each Year. Allied
Forces include Australia, South Korea, Thailand, New Zealand, Philippines and 30 advisers from Taiwan.

1950/51 Figures from Biography of H.S. Truman
1952-1960 Figures from Biography of D.D. Eisenhower
1961-1974 Figures from Col Summers Vietnam Almanac
Posted By: jgw Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/17/21 05:57 PM
The thing about Vietnam that always amused (almost) me was that the Vietnam war was not even vaguely necessary and a phone call could have stopped it. I suspect the same about our 20 year war but all that one could have ended better had we put in an actually good honest government. We are REALLY bad at nation building! the scary part is that we know this but just keep on trying.

Some that got run out of Afghanistan besides the Russians were:
Rashidun Caliphate, the Mongol Empire led by Genghis Khan, the Timurid Empire of Timur, the Mughal Empire, various Persian Empires, the Sikh Empire, and the British Empire. These are an VERY stubborn people. One would think we would have thought twice before doing what we did. I wonder if we learned anything this time around.

The Taliban are about 60,000 Biden said that the government we supported had something in excess of 200,000 troops and should be fine. When we left that army seems to have fallen apart, along with their guns. Afghanistan is returning to its tribal roots and its gonna get messy.
Posted By: perotista Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/17/21 06:19 PM
When was this phone call supposed to take place and to whom was the phone call supposed to be to? I've heard a lot of things about Vietnam, some true, some totally false,but this is first time I've heard this.

I do believe the Taliban will be eventually successful. They want it more and the Taliban will fight a war to win. They'll do whatever it take.
Posted By: Greger Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/18/21 01:51 AM
When was this phone call supposed to take place and to whom was the phone call supposed to be to?
Wasn't there a naval skirmish just precedent to the US escalation?

A case of mistaken identity on the high seas? Perhaps a phone call with the facts about that could have made a difference.

Not everybody is ready to sign on to the notion of Western Liberalism. Tribal cultures should be left alone and allowed to govern themselves as they see fit.

Mostly the US military machine is fast running out of willing participants in its quest to blow up ordinance and test new equipment.
Posted By: perotista Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/18/21 03:05 AM
The initial attack on the USS Maddox on 2 Aug 1964 definitely happened, no doubt about that one. The attack on the USS Turner Joy on 4 Aug 1964 , probably didn't happen. That's the consensus which I believe. Nerves and the fog of war most likely.

Now LBJ didn't introduce combat troops into Vietnam until 8 Mar 1965.

Yes, I also believe tribal and national culture should be left alone and that they should determine their own form of government. We didn't do that in Vietnam either.

I will say like so many events that have happened in history, Vietnam is taken out of the context of the times it happened and viewed through a 21st century context. I think in order to understand it, one must look through the eyes of someone putting Vietnam into its proper time and context it took place.

Was LBJ right in using the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to introduce well over 500,000 into South Vietnam, I don't think so. Like all of our wars since WWII, congress has never declared war. Sure they passed some resolutions giving their consent to use military force, but they have never declared war on anyone or any nation or anything since WWII which is congress's responsibility.

Truman never got a congressional resolution for Korea and Obama never received on for Libya. Both operated on a UN resolution.
Posted By: jgw Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/18/21 06:12 PM
My understanding that president Johnson could have called Hi Chi Minh who was open to discussion, instead he chose to up the ante. This was a long time ago - I could be wrong. Oh, should also mention that we were supporting yet another incredibly corrupted government as well
Posted By: perotista Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/18/21 07:20 PM
If you believe old Ho was open to discussion, that's life. There's no doubt the South Vietnamese government was corrupt. By our standards anyway. Not necessarily by other Asian countries at the time. It's a matter of context again, by western standards or by Asian standards. Especially Southeast Asian standards of the 50's and 60's.

It was in 1959 that old Uncle Ho and the politburo of North Vietnam decided on military conquest of the south. No phone call would have sufficed. LBJ even offered Uncle Ho billions and billions of dollars to improve the north if Old Ho would stop trying to conquer the south. Ho turned LBJ down.

If JFK had listened to IKE, perhaps Vietnam could have been avoided. Perhaps, but not for sure. IKE kept us out of Vietnam twice during his presidency. IKE told JFK that Laos was the key to Southeast Asia. JFK ignored the old general. There's much, much more to the story. From all I've read, bio's and on the different wars in southeast Asia, I don't think IKE would have got us involved in Vietnam. Laos, probably. IKE did tell JFK that if we were to become involved military in Southeast Asia, Laos was the country. Again much, much more to be told on that.

Now I'm biased on the subject, I spent 10 years of my life in Southeast Asia, May 1967-July 1976 compliments of the U.S. Army. Vietnam is much like politics, one isn't going to change anyone political views and one isn't going to change anyone's view about Vietnam. So for the most part I leave it alone.

Our biggest mistake wasn't understanding the Asian frame of mind. Especially the Vietnamese frame of mind or how they thought. Time to the Vietnamese was basically irrelevant, it took Vietnam a 1,000 years to drive the Chinese out of Vietnam, whats 20-30 years to drive out the Americans. We Americans love a short war, we were never and aren't prepared for a long one even today. We want cheap, quick victories like G.H.W. Bush's Desert Storm. Then there is the air of superiority we Americans show to the world. Too many of our advisors had that and weren't willing to live with and like the troops we were advising. Although we had a bunch of real good advisors.

Oh well, it is what it is or was.
Posted By: Greger Re: Haiti - little problem - 07/21/21 05:39 PM
I think wars have become rather passé at this point in history.


Wars used to be local affairs involving a few hundreds or thousands of lives. Then they morphed into Global conflicts that affected millions, and now we find ourselves in a position of mutually assured destruction.

And so we fight proxy wars because a real, declaration of war means complete destruction of life as we know it on this planet.

President Biden has wisely decided not to send soldiers to Haiti.

Haiti could be/should be a tourist Mecca and a socialist Utopia, but it is instead a microcosm of the wide wide world, with rampant inequality and injustice. Used up by capitalism and thrown away.
Posted By: pondering_it_all Re: Haiti - little problem - 08/04/21 06:33 PM
Afghan translators and families start arriving in US:

First Flight

Congress on Thursday overwhelmingly approved legislation that would allow an additional 8,000 visas and $500 million in funding for the Afghan visa program.

Biden announced earlier this year the U.S. would end its military role in Afghanistan by Sept. 11, honoring a withdrawal agreement struck by former President Donald Trump.
And they flew into D.C., not Guam.
© ReaderRant