Chomsky on Vietnam

[Brad DeLong]

>Bradford DeLong wrote:
>
>>>I asked Noam Chomsky if I had remembered correctly that he argues 
>>>that the U.S. didn't lose the Vietnam War. He responds:
>>>
>>>>Your memory is right.  I had, actually, always assumed that the 
>>>>US would win the war for simple power reasons, just as it wins 
>>>>every war.  That is, win the war in terms of its actual aims, 
>>>>even if not its maximal ones.  The actual aims, which were always 
>>>>pretty clear I thought and could hardly be denied after the 
>>>>Pentagon Papers came out, were to prevent the "virus"-"rotten 
>>>>apple" effect of successful independent development...
>>
>>Now, the development of South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, 
>>Indonesia, Hong Kong, and Singapore since 1960 has been the fastest 
>>in the world, ever. So that if U.S. policy was to stop 
>>"development" in the region, U.S. policy was a catastrophic 
>>failure. But I suppose development wasn't, in some sense, 
>>"independent"--that these countries are still clients of the United 
>>States out of which "surplus" is being pumped at a furious rate.
>>
>>Why should I not conclude that this is total lunacy?
>
>Because, as you said yourself, of the word "independent." SK itself 
>benefited enormously from U.S. military procurement - not just in 
>terms of demand, but in terms of know-how. One of the reasons Korean 
>construction firms became world players was that they learned how to 
>handle big projects by building bases for the U.S.
>
>Doug

Well, yes, South Korea did benefit substantially (and Thailand 
benefited in the decade around 1970s) from U.S. military spending. 
But in what sense does this make them, today, "not independent" 
countries?

Brad DeLong