Basic HTML Version
44
World War, was the restiveness which
finally prompted a gunner to Jire " just
one round" of his 75mm recoi lless
into the enemy Jines.
The shot bad indeterminate effect.
But immediately afterward, the
enemy loosed such a heavy artillery bar–
rage ·upon bis platoon position that at
least two men were killed, and severa!
more wounded. Following that, each
side, abidiog by an unspoken gentle–
men's agreement, left each other alone
during the daylight hours. The platoon
leader who had urged the liring of the
shot bitterly blamed himself for what
seemed useless deaths.
Shocking ly, fully lifty percent of the
battle casualties of the Korean war were
inflicted
after the peace talks had been
joined.
Now look at the incredible irony
of Vietnam, and ponder its futiliZ-ing
effects on our spirit.
The Cost
of
Vietnam
By December, 1970, American battle
dead in Vietnam had exceeded forty–
four thousand young men, more than
half of them Americans who were
too young to vote. Incredibly, about
HALF OF ALL THESE BATTLE DEATHS
HAVE OCCURR.ED SINCE THE "PEACE
TALKS" BEGAN IN MAY,
1968!
Whatever had been learned from
Korea was somehow forgotten.
The wounded surpassed 293,000 by
the end of 1970, making total U. S.
casualties nearly 350,000.
When considering those who have
died in crashes, from dysentery and
other illnesses, self-inflicted wounds, or
who have been killed by their own men
(sometímes deliberately, as bizarre new
stories of enlisted men kill ing their
officers filter out of Vietnam), 53,000
Americans have died from
all
causes.
Meanwhile, South Vietnamese dead
have surpassed 118,000, and officials
estímate the Viet Cong and North Viet–
namese deaths will have exceeded
690,000.
By December 1970, U. S. casualties
in Vietnam had surpassed the total
casualties during aH of World War
I.
Most people view the cost of battle
dead in two world wars as worth the
price - since the price was the prospect
of slavery and a new dark age.
The
PLAIN TRUTH
But what is the gr isly toll of battle
deaths in Vietnam accomplishing?
Americans aren't sure. Many are con–
fused. Only a few years ago, about
80% of the population thought the war
in Vietnam was necessary to demon–
strate, agaia, that Communism would
not be tolerated if it was to be forced
upon a free people irrespective of their
own free choice.
To put up another costly "no tres–
passing" sign in Southeast Asia seemed
worth it to a majority, then. But today,
only about one half believe this - and
the numbers seem to be dwindling
steadily.
Perhaps, if the price were being paid
for dear victory, Americans would
understand. But for an eventual pullout,
which means nothing accomplished save
the purchase of
time,
Americans some–
how cannot understand.
The war in Vietnam has become the
second costliest war in American his–
tory. So far, the American taxpayer has
provided about one hundred and ten
BILUONS
of dollars for the futile
struggle in Vietnam.
Add to that figure the future costs to
the nation in veteran's benefits ( another
$50 billion), and interest payments on
Federal debts attributable to the war,
and the final cost may approach $350
billion - or about the same as for all
of World War II.
By the end of last year, more money
had been spent on Vietnam than for all
wars in U. S. history except World War
U. Battle deaths have surpassed, and
costs have more than
dottbled,
that of
World War
l.
Today, it costs Americans $150,000
to kili one enemy in Vietnam. And
make no mistake about it, the war is
one of
attrition,
where killing the
enemy is the main point.
At that rate, with enemy deaths more
costly to achieve than building six fine
new bornes, at the rate of $25,000 each,
one gains a fair perspective of the
"guns versus butter" issue of history.
In 1969, the United States poured
$2.4
bi llion a month into Vietnam, or
$550 million per week, $78 mill ion per
day, $3.3 mill ion every hour of every
day, or $55,000 dollars per minute.
Still, with such fantastic outlays in
March 1971
life and money, we are no nearer a sat–
isfactory solution than we ever were,
except for a gradual "de-escalation"
concurrent with a gradual buildup of
South Vietnamese strength with prac–
tically all costs underwritten by an
already hugely overburdened American
economy.
Never bave so many spent so much to
purchase so little.
It has been said, "You get what you
pay for." But in Vietnam, only a little
additional time was bought. The enemy
is still there. He is evetywhere, and no–
where - mysteriously fading into the
jungle, or emerging at the very perim–
eter of Tan Son Nhut Airport. He is
in downtowo Saigon, or a tiny thatch–
roofed vi llage. He attacks from Cam–
bodia, or from the bamboo thickets
behind you. A colored map showing
real or suspected Viet Cong or North
Vietnamese strongholds looks like lep–
rosy. And, while it is true a total take–
over from North Vietnam has been
preveuted, it is doubtful the govern–
ment now in control, or the one which
will be left to conduct the war once the
last American has departed ( if such a
thing ever occurs before the end of the
century), will be that model of Demo–
cratic process its protectors and cham–
pions have hoped it would.
A
Changed South Vietnam
Something more than a shaky govern–
ment will be left behind.
Also remaining will be the most pro–
digious collection of roads, bridges, bar·
racks, supply dumps, airfields, cbannels,
docks, permanent installations, heavy
equipment, and war supplies that could
be lavished upon a small people by
the most fantastically wealthy country
in the earth's history.
Like
it
or not, the United States has
created in South Vietnam a perennial
prize of such enchaoting economic pro–
portions in terms of its deep-water
harbors (man-made, mostly), dock
facilities and transportation equipment
that it will be the cherished desire of
aggressors for severa! decades to come.
Also, the ecological balance of the
little country may well have been
destroyed forever.
No piece of real estate in the world