|
Many MIAs are still not accounted for from either war, so should be continue to demand from the Southern States WHAT HAPPEN TO OUR AMERICAN MIAs? Are we to continued to do so to Britain for MIAs from the War of 1812 and the American Revolution? How about POWs? We still have missing POWs from all three wars if we use the standards of the Vietnam Era missing MIAs and POWs. Should we DEMAND from the Sioux and Apaches the missing MIAs and missing POWs we know fell into their hands? Many are NOT accounted for to this day.
Why don't we hold the above to the same standards as Vietnam era MIAs and POWs? Simply, no one ever made a big deal about them, they were the cost of going to war, just like KIA (Killed in Action) and WIA (Wounded in Action) personal. The political reason was simple, Once Nixon was in Office, it became clear his "Secret Plan" to end the war in Vietnam was a plan to win election NOT end the war in Vietnam. Till the middle of 1968 the majority of Americans were still for the war in Vietnam, by the middle of 1968, the tide had shifted and most Americans opposed the war. This opposition was uneven, the Right wing was still for the war, the social left was against the war, the Economic Left was divided, most were still for the war, these tended to be older union members, but younger Union members had turned against the war (The chief reason older union members were for the war was that one of the prices for ending the attack on Unions in the late 1940s, i.e. the Taft-Hartley Act etc, was to drive out all the Communists and Socialists from the unions. They did NOT want to re-fight that battle, so they embraced anti-communism with a passion and with that anti-communism came support for any war against Communism).
Thus the left was split, the larger economic left tended to continue to support the war, this was especially true of the leadership of the unions. Younger Union member, having NOT been part of that earlier fight, tended to oppose the war, but also saw the wisdom of following people who had been through earlier political fights. The Social Left was anti-war from the beginning, but have never been the majority of the left (That belongs to the Economic Left).
The right was more united, for the war. Thus the fight was for support from the Middle and the Economic Left. The GOP saw a way to get the middle and the economic left to continue to support the war, even as both groups came to oppose the war, claim no peace could be made unless missing POWs and MIAs were all accounted for. This was epically effective on the Economic Left (and the African-American Community) in that both groups did NOT like leaving fellow Americans behind. Both groups see the group as the best way to protect members of that group, thus you can NOT leave anyone out, for that is the first step in destruction of any group. Thus many people of the Economic Left (and to a lesser degree the African-American Community) disliked "abandoning" fellow Americans if that was a cost of ending the War In Vietnam. Nixon and the GOP saw this and thus made missing MIAs and POWS a big issue to keep the economic left (The GOP cared less about the African American Vote, that was solidly Democratic given the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) divided as to continue support for the war in Vietnam.
Thus the POW and MIA issue was a domestic political issue, nothing to do with ending the war in Vietnam. When a peace treaty was finally agreed to, Vietnam turned over all American POWs, and accounted for all MIAs they knew of, as those term was defined by both sides. Apparently the North Vietnamese had used a different definition of American POW then what was agreed to in the peace treaty and some writers have used the list of American POWs and MIAs, as defined for internal North Vietnamese purposes, to show North Vietnamese "kept" some American POWs.
There are at least two ways to count POWs, first is by nationality. A person who is serving in the US Military and captured is one way to defined an American POWS. Another way is to count anyone as an American POWs if that person is serving as a member of an American Military unit even if NOT technically and American military personal. For Example, to this day, Koreans who have some English speaking ability, serve in American Units stationed in Korea. As a member of that American Unit, they wear US military uniforms, use the same weapons as American serving in the unit, and serve under the Command of US NCOs and Officers. If Captured, are these Koreans, South Korean POWs or American POWs? For interrogation purposes, the only information you are going to get from them would be in regards to movement of the American Unit they are serving with. Since interrogations of POWs is done to get information on their former units, it is better to classify them as American POWs, for they are a source of intelligence on that American Unit NOT any South Korean Unit serving in the area.
The longer list of "American" POWs held by the North Vietnamese seems to a list of American POWs developed for interrogation purposes, thus any South Vietnamese who served in such American Units would be classified for intelligence purposes, as an American POW. When the War ended and these South Vietnamese were released as part of the peace treaty, they were re-classified as South Vietnamese, for they were no longer being interrogated and thus could be classified based on Citizenship as oppose to what country's unit they were serving in.
Another set of bad "facts" used in the POW/MIA debate is the claim that many POWs were turned over to China and the Soviet Union. Such movement of POWs by North Vietnam is actually know, but only from 1946-1954 NOT 1959-1974. The French were the primary opposition to the Viet Minch during the pre-1954 Vietnam war, and refused to send in any draftees, thus only French Marines, Foreign Legionaries AND other non-draftee Military units were sent to Vietnam. The French Foreign Legion were primary recruited out of Africa at that time (It had a large number of Germans, including ex-Nazis, but most troops were Native African from French Colonies in Africa, this had been true even of the French Army that re-took Paris in 1944, the US Command demanded that the First French unit into Paris had to be the one with the most white men, and even in that unit, Native Africans were withdrawn and sent to other units to minimize the number of non-whites in the French Units into Paris. This was NOT to keep the French happy, but to keep the American High Command happy, they disliked the idea of Africans being part of taking Paris).
Anyway, the Viet Minch adopted a policy that native Soldiers captured by the Viet Minch would be sent back to their native country NOT to France or any area controlled by France. Thus in 1946-1954 the Viet Minch arranged for such troops to go through China to Mongolia and then to the Soviet Union, who arranged for such POWs to be released back to whatever French Colony they came from. Several writes have taken these reports from 1946-1954 and ignoring the dates of the reports, stated the fact that POWs held by the North Vietnamese were sent to the Soviet Union via Mongolia. The problem with this story is the date is wrong AND by the time the US sent troops into Vietnam (1965) the relationship between China and the Soviet Union was in rapid decline (The Soviet Union would even devise a plan to attack China in 1969 and re-arranged its military units to launch such an attack in that year). Thus by the time American started to become POWs, any shipping of such POWs through China to Mongolia and then to the Soviet Union was no longer possible. The Soviet Union did send weapons to North Vietnam by ship, but no one was going to ship any POWs via ship to the Soviet Union, to easy to be captured by US Navy ships. Flying was possible, but with the Soviet-Chinese Split, the most direct route was out, any Soviet Plan would have to fly by Japan, Korea and Taiwan OR via Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Burma, Thailand, and finally Laos to get to North Vietnam. While the Vladivostok to Hanoi route was possible, the Afghanistan to Laos route incurred even more risks. Thus it becomes clear only land route or ship was the way it could occur and neither was secure and as such could not be used except in the most extreme emergency and POWs were NOT of that level of Emergency.
Sorry, it is 2010, the war in Vietnam ended in 1974, US Troops were withdrawn by the beginning of 1973. If someone was 18 he could have enlisted and opt for service in Vietnam in 1973, he could have been captured (No such record exists, but I am taking theoretically only). Thus he would have been born in 1955, thus he would be 55 years of age at the present time. If the Vietnamese has such prisoners, he is either dead, gone native (Hiding out like some of the Japanese Soldiers of WWII, holding out till the 1970s), become part of Vietnamese Society (i.e. married with children) OR being held in some prison for the last 35 years and has accepted such prison left as his lot in life. I can NOT see the North Vietnamese holding someone for 35 years, if such a POW ever existed sometime in the last 35 years it became clear he was useless as a Prisoner, but he would also never be released, to costly to the Vietnamese Government in the form of bad image, thus would never be released. Unless the US get Solid evidence of his existence, no effort would ever be made to release him, he would die of old age in some Vietnamese Prison, for the US will NEVER have enough data to get him out.
Please note, I do NOT think the Vietnamese held any US POWs back, if they had the Vietnamese would either have released them after the fall of South Vietnam (No longer needed to prevent any US Attack) or within five years of that date just to show the US Vietnam was no longer afraid of any American attack (This would have been a big move whenever the Chinese attack Vietnam in the late 1970s, to show the Chinese that Vietnam may even get help from America in the fight between the two Countries). I do not see any American going native or becoming part of Vietnamese Culture, to much of an outsider to ever fit in. Thus such MIAs and missing POWs are dead, probably dead before the exchange of POWs at the end of the US involvement in the Vietnamese War.
Thus we are asking Vietnam to explain how people died over 35 years ago. This is all pre-computer so any records were manually written and thus only renewable by someone who has a good idea of what he or she is looking for. Many of the MIAs, the Vietnamese have no record of, for the same reason we do not, no one knows what happen to them (probably killed but the body never recovered by either side, now long gone do to the nature of bodies in the Jungle). We may never know what happen to these MIAs, but the Vietnamese can only help us if any bodies ever show up, if no bodies are found we will have such MIAs forever, just like we have MIAs from the Revolutionary War and every war since (With the exception of Desert Storm and the present War in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe we have accounted for every body, but then we have NOT had any large scale fights, since the opening days of both wars and we have constant communication with almost everyone in combat, something that was NOT possible before the 1990s, Radios existed during Vietnam, but not cell phones or even the small FM CB radios that exist today). Communications equipment has become so small, and so light do to minimal energy requirements, it is easy to determine where everyone is today on the battlefield, not so even as late as the 1980s.
My point is simple, the level of accountability as to POWs and MIAs did not exist at the time of the Vietnam War even for units NOT in combat. Combat makes such accountability harder, impossible without an ability for each solider to communicate. Such personal communication was NOT possible before the 1990s and even then limited compared to today. In Vietnam it was possible to lose someone (MIA) while no actual fighting occurred. In Vietnam it was possible to lose a body in the Jungle during a fire fight AND never find that body again or even see the body get hit or drop. That was the nature of the War in the Jungle, some plants growth is measured in FEET per day not inches, faster if the plant leaves are destroyed (i.e. covering up the body within hours, even while the fire fight is still being fought).
Sooner or later you have to accept that fact that there are NO missing POWs or MIAs who are NOT already dead. Almost all of them were dead within days of whenever they were last seen alive. The bodies are long gone. That was the rule as to being declared dead in every war the US has ever fought, if someone did not appear within a year of the last time he was seen, it was clear he was dead. That same rule should have been used in Vietnam (The Pentagon for its internal use and paying of wages and pensions used that rule in even in Vietnam). If someone was reported a POW, that is what he was called till the end of the war, then when POWs were exchanged and that person was NOT exchanged he was declared dead (unless he defected, as did a handful of soldiers at the end of the Korean War). For internal US Political Rule that rule was NOT used as far of the Public was concerned but that was simply an attempt to get political advantage over the lost of Vietnam.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
