Vietnam's (meager) resources

[Michael Eisenscher]

Not hard at all.  We certainly were "fighting Communism."  But what the hell
is fighting Communism if it is not also protecting capitalist class
interests, whether broadly or narrowly defined?  Certainly ITT and Kennecott
Copper were doing both in Chile.  I assume that if there were valuable
natural resources in Vietnam, fighting Communism took on multiple meanings.
I also agree that some in the power structure saw Vietnam more as an object
lesson,  while others saw it as a profit opportunity, still others as a
chance to field test new military technologies, and others a means by which
to either preserve or gain access to valuable resources.  Together they
created a ruling class policy and strategic plan that got us mired there and
once entrenched, the War also developed a logic of its own (with all the
consequences in human suffering, social upheaval, and physical destruction).

Michael E.

At 12:26 PM 6/2/98 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Why is it so hard to believe that the U.S. really *was* fighting Communism
>in Vietnam? Why do we have to assume the war really was over some precious
>natural resource? The domino effect may have been ludicrous in strictly
>military terms, but if the U.S. hadn't spent the last 50 years destroying
>socialist and nationalist revolutions (and the USSR), the world would be a
>very different place.
>
>Doug
>
>
>