European views on American involvement in the Vietnam war.

[Jacob]

I said much the same thing a few hundred posts back and (obviously) couldn't agree more.

It's lazy. By pretending that you *solve* the question of whether the war was "just" or "unjust" by whether or not it was an imperial war you avoid all the shades of grey and the complexities that make up real history.

I don't think anyone is trying to do so in this thread, and while I don't doubt some people use the term "imperialistic" to mean "evil" or "unjust" that doesn't make the term useless IMO. Any term can be turned into a simplistic epitaph if it's spit out with enough venom, but that does not rob it of meaning, nor negate the underlying reality that the term describes.

The fact remains, the 20th century saw a number of wars that were fought directly or by proxy as great powers attempted to establish or maintain spheres of influence. These conflicts were characterized by heavy involvement in the domestic affairs of client states, up to and including removing uncooperative governments and direct military intervention; but they also included arming and training insurgent groups as well as funding, training, and nurturing local factions to serve as tools to advance the interest of the great power. Furthermore, these conflicts were usually experienced by the local populations as a direct continuation of immediately preceding colonial interference.

If you don't want to call those wars and that involvement imperialistic that's fine by me, but they're significantly different from wars fought in response to attacks on sovereign territory (WWII in the case of the US and I'd argue the current war in Afghanistan), from wars fought to liberate a conquered population that actually wants to be liberated (WWII again and the first Gulf War to liberate Kuwait), and from wars and actions fought to stop genocide and mass killing followed by withdrawal (Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and even the Libyan intervention). Pretending that, say, the Vietnam War was similar to World War II in terms of justifications and underlying dynamics is just daft.

I've sketched out several times in this thread what I consider the characteristics of an imperialist war. I think any given conflict can be characterized as more or less imperialist in nature depending on how many of those characteristics apply; and it's not something I'm applying only to US wars - most Soviet actions had a lot of imperialist characteristics and China and Iran have already been mentioned. I'm pretty sure various actions by South Africa, Britain and France and even Vietnam itself in regards to Cambodia will check off a number of those characteristics as well.

Saying that using the term imperialism is "lazy" when the main objections have been "it sounds bad," pouting, and insinuations that if you think US involvement in Vietnam was problematic then you have to have the same issues with World War I and II, is pretty weak.

Like I said, I'm happy to adopt another term instead of imperialistic if anyone has one to propose. If someone thinks - and evidently plenty of people in this thread do - that the whole grouping of imperialistic (or whatever you want to call them) wars is wrongheaded I'm very happy to hear an argument that actually addresses the substance of what Sheilbh and I have argued. But the usual weak ass languish sniping is just that - weak ass.

[Berkut]

If we disputed that there was such a thing as economic imperialism, then would you ask if we believed in cultural imperialism, so you could conclude that THAT was what the "US Empire" is all about?

Then if that wasn't accepted, would you ask if anyone believed in "Language Imperialism" - after all, with English being the most commonly spoken second language on the planet, surely the US is guilty of imposing that form of the imperialist plot on the planet.

Why so much work to come up with *some* definition/flavor of "imperialism" that can stick to the US, all for the purpose of being able to bitch about American Imperialism? Why not just bitch about American actions directly?

[garbon]

Saying that using the term imperialism is "lazy" when the main objections have been "it sounds bad," pouting, and insinuations that if you think US involvement in Vietnam was problematic then you have to have the same issues with World War I and II, is pretty weak.

If that's about what I said - I wasn't trying to say that. I was suggesting that given what had been defined as imperialism so far, I didn't see how you could claim the Vietnam War but not the world wars. Primarily because in both you had the US giving assistance to weak/weakened states to prevent them from being dominated by countries/polities with interests at cross-purpose with those of the US.

[Malthus]

They were wrong in that, because of course "communism" was not a monolithic entity. And no doubt on occasion European Imperialists fought for somewhat similar reasons (the "Great Game" in Asia springs to mind) - but their motives were very different.

The motives of the Great Game were very similiar to the later day US policy of containment.  England wanted to protect India.  The US wanted to protect the world (and its markets) from the domino effect of the spread of communism.

The difference is that the motives of the Brits were to protect their Indian empire - hence it would not be a mistake to call them "imperialist".

The US lacked an "empire" in Asia to protect. Hence it makes no sense to call the US motives "imperialist".

A while back I asked you whether there is such a thing as economic imperialism without the occupation of land.  You didnt answer but I take it from this response your answer would be no.

No, you are mistaken. I did reply (see reply #337), you must have missed it.

Certainly there can be "such a thing as economic imperialism". There can also be such a thing as "cultural imperialism". Neither of these concepts, however, have very much to do with the American war in Vietnam.

[dps]

I said much the same thing a few hundred posts back and (obviously) couldn't agree more.

It's lazy. By pretending that you *solve* the question of whether the war was "just" or "unjust" by whether or not it was an imperial war you avoid all the shades of grey and the complexities that make up real history.

I don't think anyone is trying to do so in this thread, and while I don't doubt some people use the term "imperialistic" to mean "evil" or "unjust" that doesn't make the term useless IMO. Any term can be turned into a simplistic epitaph if it's spit out with enough venom, but that does not rob it of meaning, nor negate the underlying reality that the term describes.

The fact remains, the 20th century saw a number of wars that were fought directly or by proxy as great powers attempted to establish or maintain spheres of influence. These conflicts were characterized by heavy involvement in the domestic affairs of client states, up to and including removing uncooperative governments and direct military intervention; but they also included arming and training insurgent groups as well as funding, training, and nurturing local factions to serve as tools to advance the interest of the great power. Furthermore, these conflicts were usually experienced by the local populations as a direct continuation of immediately preceding colonial interference.

If you don't want to call those wars and that involvement imperialistic that's fine by me, but they're significantly different from wars fought in response to attacks on sovereign territory (WWII in the case of the US and I'd argue the current war in Afghanistan), from wars fought to liberate a conquered population that actually wants to be liberated (WWII again and the first Gulf War to liberate Kuwait), and from wars and actions fought to stop genocide and mass killing followed by withdrawal (Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and even the Libyan intervention). Pretending that, say, the Vietnam War was similar to World War II in terms of justifications and underlying dynamics is just daft.

I've sketched out several times in this thread what I consider the characteristics of an imperialist war. I think any given conflict can be characterized as more or less imperialist in nature depending on how many of those characteristics apply; and it's not something I'm applying only to US wars - most Soviet actions had a lot of imperialist characteristics and China and Iran have already been mentioned. I'm pretty sure various actions by South Africa, Britain and France and even Vietnam itself in regards to Cambodia will check off a number of those characteristics as well.

Saying that using the term imperialism is "lazy" when the main objections have been "it sounds bad," pouting, and insinuations that if you think US involvement in Vietnam was problematic then you have to have the same issues with World War I and II, is pretty weak.

Like I said, I'm happy to adopt another term instead of imperialistic if anyone has one to propose. If someone thinks - and evidently plenty of people in this thread do - that the whole grouping of imperialistic (or whatever you want to call them) wars is wrongheaded I'm very happy to hear an argument that actually addresses the substance of what Sheilbh and I have argued. But the usual weak ass languish sniping is just that - weak ass.

What you seem to be in denial about is that the terms "imperialism" and "imperialistic" have largely become epitaphs, which makes them problematic when you attempt to use them descriptively--unless you in fact intent to use them as epitaphs. 

Beyond the negative connotations, however, is the fact that clearly most posters here don't agree with your definition of the terms.  Most of us seem to be saying that an imperialistic war would be one fought to acquire territory outside of areas generally considered to be part of the nation, or to set up subject states--and we reject the notion that that's what the US was doing in Vietnam.

[Malthus]

Saying that using the term imperialism is "lazy" when the main objections have been "it sounds bad," pouting, and insinuations that if you think US involvement in Vietnam was problematic then you have to have the same issues with World War I and II, is pretty weak.

Like I said, I'm happy to adopt another term instead of imperialistic if anyone has one to propose. If someone thinks - and evidently plenty of people in this thread do - that the whole grouping of imperialistic (or whatever you want to call them) wars is wrongheaded I'm very happy to hear an argument that actually addresses the substance of what Sheilbh and I have argued. But the usual weak ass languish sniping is just that - weak ass.

You are missing the substance of the criticism against your position. No-one is objecting to criticizing US involvement in Vietnam. What people are objecting to, and rightly, is decribing something that has absolutely nothing to do with creating an empire as "imperialistic".

Its simply a misnomer. "Imperialism" already has a perfectly good meaning, and torturing the language, or as CC seems to want to do, applying ever more attenuated meanings of "imperial" like "economic imperialism", seem like desperately clinging to a term for no good reason. Why is it so important to use that term in the first place?

The answer, as we all know, is that it fits within mid 20th century rhetoric: imperialist = morally suspect.   

[Gups]

Jacob, the trouble is that you are applying a label as an explanation for an extraordinarily complex set of events, imputing a single motive for a war which had many authors each of which had motivations for commencing/contunuing/escalating that war which themselves were mixed and changed over time.

It's simply ahistorical to apply a label like imperialistic. It's not useful shorthand in a way that it might possibly be for the Scramble for Africa (even there it is simplistic). It does not illuminate, it does not explain.

[Jacob]

You are missing the substance of the criticism against your position. No-one is objecting to criticizing US involvement in Vietnam. What people are objecting to, and rightly, is decribing something that has absolutely nothing to do with creating an empire as "imperialistic".

Its simply a misnomer. "Imperialism" already has a perfectly good meaning, and torturing the language, or as CC seems to want to do, applying ever more attenuated meanings of "imperial" like "economic imperialism", seem like desperately clinging to a term for no good reason. Why is it so important to use that term in the first place?

The answer, as we all know, is that it fits within mid 20th century rhetoric: imperialist = morally suspect.

Well, like I've said numerous times already - propose another term and I'm happy to use it.

[derspiess]

while I don't doubt some people use the term "imperialistic" to mean "evil" or "unjust"

Nice that you don't doubt that.  Because 99% of the time, that's how it's used.  Blame your fellow lefties for poisoning the term.

[Gups]

Why do we have to have a single term? If we do, I propose "the Vietnam War"

[Berkut]

The only point to the use of any label is to use it as short hand for a more descriptive definition of the term in question.

They have no utility except insofar as the people involved in the debate agree to their use in place of the less concise description of what the word means.

The term "imperialism" has definite negative connotations that imply motives that are typically consider not just when it is applied to making war. That makes a discussion about motives of nations in which one side insists on using a term that by definition suggests the very conclusion under discussion rather problematic.

When the side that demands to use the term claims that it isn't necessarily negative, but those in the discussion do not agree with their alternative definition, or that it applies...well, it makes one wonder what the point of insisting that the term be used is all about. Which goes back to its negative connotations.

Jake/Shelf: US actions in Vietnam were imperialist!
Others: No, they were not! The US was not trying to create or maintain an Empire!
Jake/Shelf: That isn't the definition I mean. I mean some other definition. That definition being: XYZ. Just ignore the common definition that the entire world uses for the word, and use this one instead. Pretend the negative connotations don't exist.
Others: I don't agree with that definition, nor do I understand the utility of that definition, and even if I did accept that definition, it would encompass other wars we all agree are NOT imperialist if it was broad enough to cover Vietnam!
Jake/Shelf: Still, I think we should use the term anyway.

[Malthus]

You are missing the substance of the criticism against your position. No-one is objecting to criticizing US involvement in Vietnam. What people are objecting to, and rightly, is decribing something that has absolutely nothing to do with creating an empire as "imperialistic".

Its simply a misnomer. "Imperialism" already has a perfectly good meaning, and torturing the language, or as CC seems to want to do, applying ever more attenuated meanings of "imperial" like "economic imperialism", seem like desperately clinging to a term for no good reason. Why is it so important to use that term in the first place?

The answer, as we all know, is that it fits within mid 20th century rhetoric: imperialist = morally suspect.

Well, like I've said numerous times already - propose another term and I'm happy to use it.

"Containment".

[Berkut]

Why do we have to have a single term? If we do, I propose "the Vietnam War"

I object to the term "War". It has too many negative connotations.

How about "The Vietnam Experiment That Really Could Have Gone Better"?

[The Minsky Moment]

The fact remains, the 20th century saw a number of wars that were fought directly or by proxy as great powers attempted to establish or maintain spheres of influence.

Even under that definition, the Vietnam War doesn't qualify, because the US was not trying to establish or maintain a sphere of influence, it was attempting to deny the Soviet Union from establishing one.

[Jacob]

Jacob, the trouble is that you are applying a label as an explanation for an extraordinarily complex set of events, imputing a single motive for a war which had many authors each of which had motivations for commencing/contunuing/escalating that war which themselves were mixed and changed over time.

It's simply ahistorical to apply a label like imperialistic. It's not useful shorthand in a way that it might possibly be for the Scramble for Africa (even there it is simplistic). It does not illuminate, it does not explain.

That is the nature of categorizing anything; you reduce complex, unique, multi-faceted individual phenomena and look for common elements that you use to get a grip on broader patterns.

But like I said, I'm happy to abandon the word imperialist if an alternative is proposed. I'm also interested in a taxonomy of conflicts that's radically different than the one that calls US and Soviet cold war proxy conflicts "imperialist" (or another word that covers the same characteristics) if someone has one to put forward; that could be an interesting discussion.

I get the objections to "imperialist" - they've repeated a number of times in this thread in a whole bunch of variations - what I'm asking for is some sort of alternative, any kind of alternative for discussing, whether it's semantics, taxonomy, or something else. Because simply saying "you can call it imperialism" with nothing else offered up is simply shutting down the conversation.