Combattere il terrorismo con ferma volontà 

Ho copiato ed incollato questa intervista per illustrare come i terroristi irakeni, possano credere di vincere il confronto con gli USA. Essi credono di poter influenzare le elezioni politiche e vincere sfruttando le simpatie che godono tra i media americani, ne più ne meno come fecero i nord vietnamiti. La politica del “cut end run” di Clinton, in somalia, incoraggiò osama bin-laden così come accade adesso con questa “legalizzazione” del terrorismo attuale. Con questi presupposti non deve meravigliare l’incremento degli attacchi in queste settimane precedenti il voto. I nemici hanno imparato la lezione e si sono rinforzati. Noi occidentali, invece, non abbiamo capito nulla. Il modo migliore per indebolirli non è quello di ritirarsi o essere timidi ma dimostrare col voto che la nazione è unita e forte. Votare a sinistra ( democratico) è un errore madornale (vedere spagna ed italia), significherebbe lasciare spazio di manovra al terrorismo. Ecco l’intervista e giudicate voi se non ci sono analogie tra il passato ed il presente. How North Vietnam Won The War Colonel Bui Tin Interviewed by Stephen Young What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam’s army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism. Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans? Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.” Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory? A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us. Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits? A: Keenly. Q: Why? A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win. Q: How could the Americans have won the war? A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland’s requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war. Q: Anything else? A: Train South Vietnam’s generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept. Q: Did Hanoi expect that the National Liberation Front would win power in South Vietnam? A: No. Gen. [Vo Nguyen] Giap [commander of the North Vietnamese army] believed that guerrilla warfare was important but not sufficient for victory. Regular military divisions with artillery and armor would be needed. The Chinese believed in fighting only with guerrillas, but we had a different approach. The Chinese were reluctant to help us. Soviet aid made the war possible. Le Duan [secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party] once told Mao Tse-tung that if you help us, we are sure to win; if you don’t, we will still win, but we will have to sacrifice one or two million more soldiers to do so. Q: Was the National Liberation Front an independent political movement of South Vietnamese? A: No. It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960. We always said there was only one party, only one army in the war to liberate the South and unify the nation. At all times there was only one party commissar in command of the South. Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important? A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units. Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail? A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets. Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam? A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn’t worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us. Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive? A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year. Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland’s strategy and tactics caused you concern? A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail. In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh’s struggle philosophy was that “America is wealthy but not resolute,” and “squeeze tight to the American chest and attack.” He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland’s request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over. Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam’s major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [looks like a re-
writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]
Q: What about the results? A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was. Q: What of Nixon? A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, “he’s the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn’t elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn’t dare to intervene in Vietnam again.” We tested Ford’s resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52’s in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam. Q: What else? A: We had the impression thatAmerican commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect. Open trackback da Robinik e da A.Man

14 commenti su “Combattere il terrorismo con ferma volontà 

  1. Schiena dritta.
    Così dovrebbe mostrarsi l’Italia nei confronti dei nemici nei quali includo,
    in maniera più generalizzata, anche il mondo islamico
    che si professa ‘moderato’ visti i recenti attacchi a nostri rappresentanti
    del popolo.
    Così non è stato (troppo permissivismo), così non è e non sarà
    almeno fin quando avremo al governo
    coloro che intendono tutelare la propria immagine, per spirito di rivalsa
    sul passato, e non quella del paese che rappresentano.

    Bisquì, se questa è la versione definitiva…Complimenti!
    Grande eleganza.

    Unico neo, ma forse è un mio problema, lo spazio per i commenti
    non è interamente visibile sullo schermo.

  2. d’altronde, se è vero che il “movimento per la pace” fu costituito da cellule comuniste organizzate e finanziate dal KGB su ordine di Stalin, cosa c’è da stupirsi? E’ morto il creatore, ma i suoi golem continuano ad andare idioticamente avanti… Nihil novum sub solem…

    p.s.: che template cazzuto! 😉

  3. OK fermati qui. Questo template è perfetto.
    Riguardo al post:
    Il mio inglese è troppo primitivo per potere apprezzare l’articolo che a copiato, comunque la tua tesi, non nuova, che la sinistra europea ed il partito democratico americano favoriscono inqualche modo il terrorismo invece la destra no è tutta da dimostrare.
    C’e chi pensa esattamente il contrario.
    Sono analisi semplicistiche. entrambe.
    Sinistra-destra, buoni-cattivi, sono schemi insufficenti. Bisogna scremare i fatti dalla propaganda.
    Ammesso che sia ancora possibile.

  4. niente propaganda??? se i terroristi non sono coglioni (e non lo sono) sanno benisimo che:
    1- non possono  batterci.
    2-pero possono convincerci che siamo battuti, che “non possiamo vincere” ecc……
    è quello che hanno fatto (egragiamente) i gialli in vietnam

  5. Kagliostro,veramente ho cambiato per problemi tecnici. E poi questo mi piace di più  Monica,Schiena dritta? Con i pacifinti e gli amici di hez ed ham al governo?Hermes,Sai che non ricordo dove ho letto il documento? Tu sai dove trovarlo? Edmund,Non è una tesi. Se si guarda con attenzione alle “strane” coincidenze di certi avvenimenti, sopravviene un sospetto più che legittimo.Charlie,Benvenuto. Non hai un blog per poterti frequentare?   

  6. Per questo che sono convinto che in questi casi non si possono fare guerre “politicamente corrette” o limitate, si rischia la “vittoria limitata”.In Iraq avessero applicato la “guerra totale ” clausewitziana, sarebbero in queste stesse condizioni oggi? Non lo so, so però che non l’hanno fatto e oggi la situazione è quella che è… 

  7. bello questo template… più chiaro e leggibile… grazie della mail, comunque ho già firefox ed ora mi pare vada ok. Appena posso manderò una mail per l’adesione. Grazie per le news.Ciao 

  8. Bisqui: io me lo ricordo dal “Libro Nero del Comunismo”, se non vado errato… ma potrebbe essere anche un articolo dell’Economist o qualcosa che ho letto in Russo… boh… il non ricordarmi le fonti è una delle mie molte pecche…
    Comunque, era una decisione del ‘52 o del ‘53, Comitato Centrale del PCUS, documento ovviamente segretato

  9. Grendel,
    si. Infatti uno dei fondamenti della dottrina militare è quello che recita più o meno così : se decidi di intervenire devi essere rapido ed il più letale possibile. Ovvio che per ottenere i due obiettivi bisogna andare con la mano più che pesante.


    mi rileggo il volume, chissà che non riesca a trovare indicazioni più utili.

  10. Oh, finalmente ritornano i commenti e il template si carica con la dovuta rapidità. Bentornato!

    L’intervista è molto, molto interessante. Fa pensare a cosa potrebbe venire fuori da un’analoga intervista (sincera) con Bin Laden, Nasrallah o Ahmadinecazz.

I commenti sono chiusi.