Please note that at the end of WWII the United States could have taken over the world as the sole nuclear power. Not only did the US not take this course but it also offered massive amounts of foreign aid to former allies and enemies after after the hostilities. The only ones tried and killed by the American War crimes tribunals were high ranking government officals in the axis countries. This alone is huge prof of the good intentions of the United States. Remember that nothing at all would have stopped the US from taking over the entire world after WWII except the gentleness inherent to all democratic systems.
Umm, no. The theoretical power to destroy a great portion of the world (immediate post war period, perhaps 100 weapons would be available in the short term, with more in the long term). That is insufficient to win a war by itself. The bomb destroys, it is insufficient to rule. The Soviet Union and China each sustained over 30 million dead, and more wounded, against brutal fascist invaders (which America WOULD be one if she were willing to use atomic weapons en masse to subjugate the world). You will STILL have to put boots on the ground to actually 'take over' the world, or even just Europe, as historically America DID. That need for troops would only go UP if America showed itself to be not a generally benevolent friend but a violent maniac. It is highly doubtful if it is politically plausible to draft and send out MORE troops to do task of invasion and occupation. Any attempt to 'take over' the world, or even a portion of it (say, South America) would have entailed an extended campaign and and even more extended period of occupation.
I am NOT disputing that America behaved with general benevolence after end of Second World War, but to ascribe that to purely noble motives is naive to the extreme. It is like saying Britain was very benevolent because it didn't take over Travancore when it obviously could have. We do not live in an vacuum, everything we do have consequences, and people do not simply do things because they may have the theoretical capability to do so.
The world as we see it today with multiple nations is only possible because the US politial structure RESTRAINED itself at a time when it could have conquered all. Simply because as imperfect as America is it shares with all decentralized democracies a lack of real desire toward expansionism via military conquest. Most of the power the US has in the world if via the semi free exchange of goods.
The US political structure restrained itself because it was the sensible thing to do. Now, picture a world where occupation and invasion would be a lot more painless, and maybe we would see a different conclusion. We DID see different conclusions, at least in the 19th century. Ask the natives or the Mexicans. Of course, 19th century America is not the same animal, but there is a lesson there.
As for 'real desire towards expansionism and military conquest' of all 'decentralised democracies', I find that very ironic indeed, considering how America came by the huge real estate it is now sitting on. If history does not fail me, scramble for Africa was also conducted mostly by democracies, although admittedly Britain and France was not so 'decentralised', but deomcracies only has greater restraining power towards expansionism when the COST of said expansionism begins to mount. Human beings being what they are, a mob of them is not necessarily any more moral then one dictator. The trick of the democracy is to have many many mobs of them so they restrain each other.
When there's some easy picking out there, then you have a problem.
The attrition strategy was one of the many mistakes made by Johnson and Robert McNamara. The way the news was reported was simply an outgrowth of that. Comparing a second wave war like Viet Nam to the first Iraq war or any US conflict afterwards is specious anyway because smart weapons mean war can be far more moral then it ever has been before. Immorality was and insufficient supervision of troops was simply going to happen in any war prior to our modern info wars but its noteworthy that the US engaged in fewer bad war acts then any authoritarian power and is roughly on parity with the other democracies for good behavior in war. (especially when you consider that the US is the unofficial defender of democracies that are too small or diffuse in indigenous population to defend them selfs in many instances)
You base this on WHAT statistic exactly? The PLA generally behaved well, in foreign and domestic war (there was a reason why they won the hearts and minds of Northern Chinese peasants, and no, campaign of terror don't generally do that). Soviet forces also tried to behave well, we made attempts to treat medically prisoners and civilians and also to feed them. And that was a nation who killed 30 millions of countrymen. Part of this 'bad war act' you ascribe to authoritarian regimes was also due in part to sheer brutality of warfare (some, however, was not, of course. There is nothing to excuse unit 731 or the Holocaust of Jews and Soviet war-prisoners). If America had to fight on her home soil a campaign such as the Great Patriotic War, against an enemy just as brutal, can you look me straight in the eye and promise me that American soldiers won't be just as brutal by the end of the war?
This is mostly due to the fact that the Viet Cong successfully blended into the South Vietnamese areas despite being despised by the peasantry in both the North and Southern regions. Never the less the clear and hold plan that the USMC wanted to carry out was never implemented on a large scale (marines and solders living along side people in the larger villages) in favor of a strategy that was micromanaged by of the most incompetent managers in American history. Yes I speak of none other then Robert McNamara.
In the confusion and mismanagement's of the military the North Vietnamese were able to pull off an extraordinary politial deception. America felt we were not wanted in the region when in fact we would have had allies, but for the fact that the Viet Cong successfully gave the impression that the United States could not properly protect the villagers from communist death squads of the VC.
Maybe the support of the notably corrupt and incompetent regime in the South has SOMETHING to do with it? Also, pretty impressive of you to come up with a detailed statistical study of what the Vietnamese peasants felt in general. Not to say they weren't nasty pieces of work - the wave of refugees came for a reason - but then in any realistic comparison, we must compare PRVN to the RVN, at that time period.
Actually more Vietnamese were killed by the Viet Cong then the Americans. Vietnam is an outdated comparison. any way you choose to look at it. The first highly primitive smart bomb was used to take out a bridge near the extreme tail in end of the Viet Nam war. Heavy jungle made it impossible to tell friend from foe without cumbersome proceeder's that could rarely be safely followed. Bombing holidays and other highly unnecessary restraints upon combat prolonged the war beyond what was reasonable and actually made North Vietnamese victory possible where it would have been impossible with semi competent leadership from Washington at the time.
Well, not my argument, I am going to stay out of this one.
