The Vietnam War

The conclusion of World War II saw the United States and the Soviet Union attempting to carve out separate spheres of economic influence. The political future of Vietnam became an open question. French and Japanese occupying forces had fought bitterly for control during the war; Japan’s defeat allowed France to regain control of much of Southern Vietnam. National forces under the command of communist leader Ho Chi Minh had sought to liberate Vietnam from both French and Japanese colonialism and held power mostly in northern rural areas, filling the power vacuum left by the retreating Japanese. A new struggle in Vietnam developed between French colonialists and nationalist communists, who came to be known as the Viet-Minh.

After a bitter struggle in Korea against communist-backed North Korean forces ended in stalemate, U.S. President Harry Truman determined to take a more stringent and proactive interventionist course in Southeast Asia. The United States naturally hoped that French colonialism and occupation would last in Vietnam. Communism and Capitalism were incompatible economic systems, and Vietnam was an important market for natural resources, including tin and rubber. Truman supported the relatively impotent French occupation against a home-grown communist nationalist movement which swelled its ranks with each passing day. By the time French forces finally collapsed in 1954, Washington was financing nearly 80 percent of France’s war costs against the Viet-Minh. After 8 years of fighting, France eventually signed the 1954 Geneva Accords, recognizing the end of French colonialism and the independence of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Vietnam was temporarily divided at the 17th parallel, pending an internationally supervised national election to be held within 2 years.

The United States refused to acknowledge the provisions of the Geneva Accords and established a puppet government in South Vietnam, led by anti-communist dictator Ngo Dinh Diem. Backed by billions of dollars in U.S. aid in addition to millions distributed by the CIA to bribe detractors, Diem initially enjoyed wide support. Yet over the next 5 years, Diem’s oppressive domestic policies and suppression of communist and non-communist political rivals alike triggered another guerilla revolt among disaffected South Vietnamese. These insurgents came to be known as the Vietcong, and allied with the northern Viet Minh to unify their country in the continued struggle against western colonialism. The CIA supported a coup in 1963 to overthrow Diem, with hopes that a more pliable leader could be found; yet as Washington's influence over South Vietnamese government policy increased, Ho Chi Minh's efforts to portray South Vietnam as a U.S. puppet dictatorship were bolstered.

Kennedy became the first U.S. President to intervene in Vietnam with direct military action, using Green Beret Special Forces to conduct covert warfare. By 1964, the U.S. regularly patrolled the Gulf of Tonkin and occasionally attacked North Vietnamese coastal installations. In July, North Vietnamese patrol boats fired on a U.S. destroyer. U.S. fighter planes returned fire, and operations ceased. In August, the navy reported a second “unprovoked” attack. Recently unclassified documents show that this attack never actually occurred. Nevertheless, President Johnson used the false report to urge Congress to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which granted the President broad powers to escalate military action in Vietnam. Johnson initiated a massive aerial bombing campaign and ordered 100,000 additional soldiers into Vietnam. Growing resentment of foreign interventionism galvanized the Vietcong movement, while the bombings - though overwhelmingly destructive - failed to neutralize the Viet Minh. Troop commitments continued to escalate until by 1968 over 500,000 U.S. soldiers were embroiled in a full-blown Vietnamese civil war, supporting an unpopular, corrupt and militarily ineffective regime against grass-root rebels in South Vietnam, supported militarily by northern Viet-Minh Communists. Early in 1968, the Vietcong launched assaults on every major population center in South Vietnam. The Tet Offensive, as it came to be known, confirmed the fears of the American public that ultimate victory in Vietnam would not be attainable. Public support of the war diminished further when newspapers published photos of the My Lai massacre; 347 unarmed peasants, mostly women, children and the elderly, had been slaughtered by U.S. troops under the command of Lieutenant William Calley. Calley alone was convicted of murder, but his sentenced was reduced by President Nixon and he was paroled, later receiving an honorable discharge after serving only 3 years of house arrest.

Searching for an exit strategy amid mounting anti-war sentiment and protests, Nixon settled on a strategy of “Vietnamization”, where the U.S. would continue to provide air support and munitions assistance while Southern Vietnamese forces gradually took over ground operations. Nixon’s power to implement this strategy was weakened by the Watergate Scandal. Reacting to public pressure, Congress set a deadline of August 1973, after which no more support would be given to fund combat activities in Indochina. The last U.S. combat troops were withdrawn the same year. In 1974, Nixon resigned the Presidency. Without U.S. support, the South Vietnamese government was unable to stop communist advances. On April 30, 1975 North Vietnamese troops marched into the South Vietnamese capital of Saigon and renamed it Ho Chi Minh City. The war had cost the lives of at least 1.5 million Vietnamese and more than 58,000 U.S. soldiers.

National Defense

"The monopoly of government is no better than any other. One does not govern well, and especially not cheaply, when one has no competition to fear, when the ruled are deprived of the right of freely choosing their rulers. Grant a grocer the exclusive right to supply a neighborhood, prevent the inhabitants of this neighborhood from buying any goods from other grocers in the vicinity, or even from supplying their own groceries, and you will see what detestable rubbish the privileged grocer will end up selling and at what prices! You will see how he will grow rich at the expense of the unfortunate consumers,what royal pomp he will display for the greater glory of the neighborhood. Well! What is true for the lowliest services is no less true for the loftiest. The monopoly of government is worth no more than that of a grocer's shop. The production of security inevitably becomes costly and bad when it is organized as a monopoly. It is in the monopoly of security that lies the principal cause of wars which have laid waste to humanity."
-Gustave de Molinari

The amount of money that our country spends on national defense is staggering, especially when compared to the rest of the world. In 2006, the United States alone was responsible for 46% of all military spending, and our disproportionate share of the total is only expected to increase in the years ahead. Our closest rivals come in at a mere 5% of the world total. Is this lavish expenditure of public funds truly necessary in order to maintain our domestic tranquility? Is it any wonder when other nations mistrust or conspire against us? Is the international perception that America has become an empire seeking to control the world with an ubiquitous military presence really unjustified?

"Defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices." -Benjamin Tucker

In the 2007 United States federal budget, Department of Defense and "war on terror" spending together were freely admitted to be almost 20% of total expenditures. This figure is actually very deceiving because the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comes largely from supplemental expenditures allotted by Congress throughout the year. It also does not include expenditures by the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons design and testing. Spending on Veteran's Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security are tallied under separate categories. The payment of interest on the national debt consumes an additional 8-9% of the overall budget, and past government borrowing for military spending contributes significantly to the total debt. The hundreds of billions spent annually on defense contribute to our burgeoning budget deficits, increasing the interest on the debt that future generations have to pay and deferring much of the cost. Some sources go so far as to claim that spending on our national defense ultimately amounts to 54% of all federal spending! I recommend a perusal of this website for a very interesting justification of this view. I will let you judge the accuracy of their methods; it is clear to me at least that federal budget figures downplay the actual cost of national security.

"Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice. To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate."
-Lysander Spooner

I believe that an end to forced participation in the government's monopolization of security is the only way to eliminate wasteful spending and promote sensible policies for the defense of our nation and our communities. I understand the argument given in favor of government mandated support for defense based on the tendency in human nature to exploit any system where it is possible to benefit from a service without being forced to pay, but I believe that the commonly accepted cure of forced participation in government monopoly is worse than the disease. If individuals in our society were free to choose which organizations to support, as well as their level of participation, our economic situation at home and our political situation in the world would be very different, and in my opinion, much improved. If the military monopoly of the state were abolished, I do not believe that we could continue the imperialist and interventionist policies which have shaped the course of the last 100 years. This world-wide meddling is not without its consequences. We now have enemies all over the world who feel justified in their hatred of us. Many peoples that historically recently were friendly to our cause would now love to see us fall, and a few have heads of state that would be willing to use all the powers of their despotism toward that end.

It is difficult to hypothesize on the viability of a truly free society using the current state of global affairs as a guide. Any change to the current model might very well have to be gradual in order to avoid catastrophic upheavals. When thinking of these difficulties, I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding the issue of slavery:

"As it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in the one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

Unfortunately, the longer you hold on, the larger the problem becomes.

Click here for some interesting ideas on how a free society might provide for a national defense.
Listen here for a great treatment on the monopolization of security by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.