The March Of Folly by Barbara Tuchman

 

Those of us who haven’t studied history in detail, will find this book fascinating and remarkably educative though a trifle hard to work through. Reading four hundred pages of serious prose in smallish print is never an easy task; it is however, well worth the effort in this case.

The author argues that the march of folly is characteristic of the actions of governments throughout history and that ‘holders of high office act contrary to the demands of reason and enlightened self- interest’ all too often. In essence, a dispiriting lesson of history appears to be that governments tend to commit acts of serious folly in their choice of policies and their implementation.

Plato has argued, in essence, that for good governance Kings should become Philosophers or else Philosophers should become Kings. Since neither of these has ever happened -the exceptions serve only to prove the rule -- folly has usually characterized the actions of great states.

To illustrate her thesis the author spells out, in great detail, four examples of mind bogglingly perverse and wooden headed state actions. The examples are chosen from Western history alone and include the incident of the Trojan Horse, the actions of the Renaissance Popes and the consequences thereof, the loss of Britain’s American Empire and the disaster that was America’s involvement in Vietnam.

To evoke curiosity if not interest in the book -- the prime purpose of this blog -- the folly that was America’s misadventure in Vietnam is briefly outlined.

When the Second World War ended, French pride was in tatters given France’s collapse in the face of Guderian’s panzers. To restore French self- esteem, President Charles de Gaulle felt it necessary to regain control of French colonies in Indo-China. To push the US president to help France in this context, Charles de Gaulle highlighted the danger to Europe and the ‘free world’ of Soviet expansionism and also underlined the importance of France as a shield against Stalin and his cohorts. Fear of Soviet ambitions in Europe and elsewhere overcame Roosevelt’s personal opposition to colonialism, and US involvement in Indo China began.

A week after the Japanese surrender in August 1945 Ho Chi Minh leading the Viet Minh, declared Independence and a conflict that was to last three decades and cause humongous losses to human life and property, began.

At the start, French troops with US assistance, arrived in Vietnam and began a brutal attempt at suppression of the Vietnamese independence movement. They did not succeed, however, and the debacle at Dien Bien Phu spelt the end  of the French attempt to regain control of their erstwhile colony. Vietnam was ’partitioned’-a “provisional demarcation not constituting a political or territorial boundary” by the Powers that be on the basis of a Geneva Accord in 1954.

The US political establishment, pushed by the Anti Communist hysteria of the far right, had convinced itself that it was in US’s National Interest to resist the Red Peril everywhere in the world , even in far away Vietnam and surrounding areas.

As a consequence, from ‘assisting’ and ‘advising’ in the war against Communism and Uncle Ho, the US segued over time, into taking over the war from the French. They set up a client in South Vietnam -- a corrupt, ineffective and unpopular regime - and flooded the area with advisors, black ops and massive air support. The creeping escalation of US involvement can be seen from the fact that by end 1962 there were 11000 US troops in Vietnam and less than a year later 17000. All of these were, of course, for ‘training’ and ‘logistics support’. Despite repeated advice from noted experts the US, commitment to its very undeserving client did not waver; nor did the conviction that it was in the US’s ‘national security interest’ to continue a distant and hugely expensive war.

Once Lyndon Johnson became President in late 1963, matters escalated. The US establishment seriously underestimated the Vietnamese determination to fight for Independence and to resist the horrific bombing that Operation Rolling Thunder unleashed on North Vietnam. The assumption that the ‘slopes’ could be bombed into submission proved wrong and all the Napalm and the defoliants and the regular ordinance could not end the conflict. US troops were sent in greater number by mid 1965 onwards. By mid 1967, 463000 US troops were in Vietnam and 70000 more were asked for.

The war dragged on and since the draft excluded those pursuing higher education, it was largely the poor and the ill-educated that ended up in Vietnam -- those who could make their way into ‘higher education’ did so and the others went to war!

As the costs mounted and public pressure to end the war increased, the American establishment’s determination to not loose a war and thereby loose face, weakened. Negotiations to try and end the conflict, to try and salvage ‘peace with honor’ began in 1968 and by 1972 most American combat troops had left Vietnam. In 1975 the South was overwhelmed and the war came to an end.

The numbers(American of course), howsoever accurate, were--45000   dead and 300000 wounded and approximately $20 billion spent every year for ten years. Since American involvement, in various forms, lasted 30 years, the real cost in both men and material was probably much higher.

Aspects of American folly in Vietnam can be summarized as under:

The invention of endangered national security interests, assumption of the omnipotence of American power and American arms, refusal to accept the hard facts on the ground and sage advice of experienced diplomats and soldiers and a gross underestimation of the North Vietnamese commitment to their goals.

The folly of the British ruling classes in their dealings with their American colonies, the folly of the Renaissance Popes and the folly of a succession of American Presidents and their cohorts for three decades after WWII all underline the disastrous possibilities inherent in the concentration and exercise of political power. Power not only corrupts, but also leads to ‘a failure to think’ and the sense of responsibility that must accompany power fades as the accumulation and use of power increases.

A few interesting quotes that may evoke a sense of déjà vu amongst some, are a good way to end this post.

About Phillip II of Spain a historian remarked ‘No experience of failure of his policies could shake his belief in its essential excellence.’

‘Louis XIV was considered a master monarch because people tend to accept a successfully dramatized self-estimation. His capacity for tolerating differences atrophied and he acquired the Disease of Divine Mission. All the King heard was praise.’

‘The trappings and impact of power deceive us, endowing the possessors with a quality larger than life. The reality is that they are like ordinary men, often acting unwisely, foolishly, perversely as people often do.’

To reiterate, the book is not easy to read but very well worth the effort.

Happy reading.