LBJ vs. General Giap     

   Conclusion.

   President Johnson took charge of the war. He labored over a battlefield display day and night. 

   His foremost adviser was Robert McNamara, secretary of defense. Their strategy was to poke at the enemy, then pull back, waiting for him to talk peace. According to the book's authors, Johnson misunderstood Giap throughout his term in office. 

   The joint chiefs were unable or unwilling to challenge their bosses, leaving commanders in the field cut off. General Westmoreland received criticism during the war, but the Marines say he did all he could with limited authority.

   McNamara was addicted to statistics. To him, officers in the field spoke "Nonsense!" 

   Back then, Democrats controlled Congress, and they were mostly patriots. Incredulous senators questioned admirals and generals about their problems. But nothing changed. 

   With Khe Sanh still in doubt, McNamara ordered a "barrier" to be built along the DMZ. Marines were taken off the battlefield to work like Seabees. Some 750,000 man-days and 115,000 equipment hours were dedicated to the boondoggle. 

   We're not sure who gave permission, but the Air Force finally unleashed its power. B-52s based in Thailand, Guam and one other country took the fight to Khe Sanh. Each bomber, with eight J-57 engines and 108 bombs (500 and 750-pounders), pulverized enemy positions for days. 

   Khe Sanh was won, as was every other engagement, including the Tet Offensive, despite Soviet supplies and our political mismanagement.

   But all the journalists in theater wanted to report was that Khe Sanh was our Dien Bien Phu, the 1954 French defeat - the very charge LBJ most feared. Fake news 50 years ago. 

   CBS's Walter Cronkite, America's anchor, went to a hotel in Saigon and declared the cause to be lost. Time to go home. 

   President Johnson groaned, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the American people." The "war" dragged on a few more years after Nixon took office, promising to end it. 

      Jimmy



   

Losing the Victory   

   Thanks to a friend, a former U.S. Marine who loaned me a book, we just learned more about how Washington turned military victory in Vietnam into disgraceful retreat. 

   This is not about whether we should have been in Vietnam. Those were Cold War times. Russia was supplying the communist North, as it did in Korea. Fifty-seven thousand GIs died while others came home unappreciated and "wounded" in one way or another. Here is a little of their story.

   From April 1967 to April 1968 a major battle occurred on a plateau named Khe Sanh in northwest South Vietnam. 

   We can only guess why the Marines defended this hilly wilderness and its dilapidated bridges, except that the North Vietnamese Army chose this path for its invasion. The NVA could regroup using Route 9 - think of the worst farm road ever - to retreat into Laos where they knew Americans were forbidden to go.

   Vietnamese politician/General Giap, who masterminded the French defeat in 1954, was the strategist. There was no R&R for his soldiers, nor did their "tours" ever end, except when disabled or by death. Some men defected to our side, sharing valuable intelligence. 

   Terrain made it difficult for Marines to resupply; the heaviest armor stayed behind. Fighting was up close and personal, sometimes in monsoon periods of fog and torrential rains. 

   Our rules of engagement involved good intentions. But they hampered military strategy and planning. Surprise bureaucratic changes added to frustration. 

   There was no surprise to bother the enemy. It took U.S. officers an average of 15+ days to get permission from Washington to attack a new target. 

   In 1967 there were 137 days when the Air Force was in stand down, for political reasons. Even when air power was permitted, the North with its weapons depots and massing of troops was off limits. 

Tomorrow: President Johnson, Secretary McNamara and Walter Cronkite

       Jimmy

   

Absent Economic Sense,   
Moral Passion Fails   

Part 2 of democratic socialism discussion. 

   Jay Richards, of Discovery Institute, says democratic socialists aren't following 20th century socialism. Their ideal is Scandinavian welfare policies.

   The Economist: "Those countries are not socialist. They are free-market economies with high rates of taxation that finance generous public services. 
The socialist part would be unaffordable without the dynamic capitalist part.   

   There was some sentiment for socialism in the early 20th century. But that support faded with the example of communist tyrants in the Soviet Union, Red China and other countries. 

   Among younger people with no memories of those decades, socialism again sounds reasonable. Democratic socialists say they would bring change through voters, democratically. But they overlook that Venezuelan voters elected Hugo Chavez and promises of social aid. Once the beasts are in, there are no more free elections. 

   In the U.S., Richards says young Christians have been attracted to socialist ideas. They have a valid, moral concern for the dignity of every person. 

   "But if you attach a very strong moral passion to a very faulty view of economic reality, you can end up doing a lot of damage," he writes. 

   He adds, while democratic socialists don't endorse pure socialism, at least some voters and candidates are on a trajectory to that end. 

   "That's what I think democratic socialism is. It's a movement in which a population gets more and more accustomed to dependency. Rather than focus on how we create value and wealth for ourselves and others, we focus on how we confiscate the wealth of other people," Richards says. 

   "The more the population is in that confiscatory mode, the more dangerous it gets." 

WORLD magazine

   

   Our Refuge   

When my heart was grieved and my spirit embittered,

I was senseless and ignorant;

I was a brute beast before you.

Yet I am always with you; you hold my right hand.

You guide me with your counsel,

and afterward you will take me into glory.

Whom have I in heaven but you?

And being with you, I desire nothing on earth.

My flesh and my heart may fail,

but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

Those who are far from you will perish;

you destroy all who are unfaithful to you.

But as for me, it is good to be near God.

I have made the Sovereign Lord my refuge;

I will tell of all your deeds.

Psalm 73:21-28

What Is It?    
Democratic Socialism  
 
   Four more days! Maybe we can peel away from politics for a while. 
You think?

   Today, we're curious about the Democratic Socialists of America. Are they following the Venezuela model? Do they hold the keys to a fairer USA?  

   Given that the DSA exploded from about 6,000 dues-paying members to almost 50,000 after the 2016 election, we ought to check them out. Small as the organization is, they have pulled some politicians to the left, and made inroads with younger voters.

   Advocates say they are open to different political viewpoints. So far, none have argued to confiscate private property or jail those who dissent.

   We hear "Medicare for all" and "free college tuition." 

   Know what would be cool? ...economics professors appearing on the same stage as social theorists. 

   We who enjoy Medicare aren't telling younger, uninsured people to go fly a kite. But, compassion doesn't mean we shouldn't ask where the government would find $32 trillion - with a T - to fund Medicare-for-all, over 10 years. 

   Is the free-market system unfair, as socialists claim, or is it the most fair and beneficial of two imperfect choices? Gallup says 57 percent of Democrats have a positive view of socialism. And 85 percent support Medicare-for-all, as do 52 percent of Republicans. 

   Some DSA leaders would abolish capitalism, and even abolish the U.S. Senate. One steering committee member goes beyond politics to culture and family. He would "democratize" the family by ending "patriarchal relations." And he would "democratize" schools by changing the "hierarchical relationship" between teachers and students. Holy cow!  

Monday: Can wealth and general dependency co-exist? 

Setting Fuse for Peace and Freedom      

Ronneberg

      Continued. Joachim Ronneberg and his team 
      broke into a power plant critical to German
      atomic-bomb development.

   Without knowing its significance to the Germans, using intelligence provided by a Norwegian escapee, Ronneberg crawled through a ventilation duct and found his target - a row of water pipes. He placed his charges and set the fuse for 30 seconds. 

   He and his team escaped both the explosion and Nazi guards, returning to the mountains and "a marvelous sunrise." Tired and happy, they rested without further conversation.

   Still, they had to ski 200 miles, escaping into neutral Sweden, then Britain.

Peace and freedom have to be fought for every day.

   Ronneberg went on to damage bridges and railroads elsewhere, while Allies monitored the power plant. After several months, repairs were finished, but by then, planes were available to bomb the plant. 

   A British military historian later told the New York Times that the February mission "changed the course of the war." This story has been told in books, on television and in a 1965 movie starring Kirk Douglas, The Heroes of Telemark.  

   "We didn't think about whether it was dangerous or not," Ronneberg said later. "You concentrated on the job and not on the risks."

   After years of silence - he didn't consider himself a hero - he warned, "People must realize that peace and freedom have to be fought for every day."

   He died at home, October 21, at age 99. 

Breaking Hitler's Things    

Hydro-power plant

   
   Did you ever wonder why the Nazi's never succeeded in making nuclear bombs? It wasn't that Hitler's scientists weren't capable. 

   Five saboteurs (plus four) helped prevent Germany's creation of a super weapon that could have won the war. 

   "The plan was audacious, requiring a midnight parachute jump onto a snow-covered plateau, cross-country skiing in subzero temperatures, and an assault on an isolated, heavily guarded power plant in Norway." - Washington Post. The five-man commando team didn't know just how critical their mission would be. 

   This Norwegian plant was the world's leading commercial supplier of heavy-water, a moderator that scientists were using to develop weapons-grade plutonium. This was Germany's sole source. (Americans used graphite.) 

   When Germany invaded Norway in April 1940, Joachim Ronneberg fled to Britain and joined an espionage unit that Winston Churchill called his "Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare." By 1942, the Allies knew that Nazis were increasing production at the hydroelectric power plant. 

   Forty-one saboteurs already had died when their gliders crashed in bad weather. Nazis executed the survivors. 

   Ronneberg, then 23, and four commandos he selected, parachuted into Norway in February 1943. They landed in the wrong location, waited out a snowstorm inside a cabin, and unexpectedly met up with four local fighters on a plateau northwest of the plant. 

   To reach their objective, they scrambled down a steep gorge, crossed a frozen river and climbed up the far side, avoiding a guarded bridge. At the changing of the guard, Ronneberg cut a gate chain with heavy-duty metal cutters.

Tomorrow: the rest of the story