NationStates Jolt Archive

Would Vietnam war money have been better spent bribing the enemy to stop fighting?

11-Jan-1991

910111.gifDear Cecil:

When I was in an artillery unit in Vietnam, we were told that each shell we fired cost the taxpayers several thousand dollars to manufacture, disregarding the cost to develop the weapon itself or the cost of training the manpower to shoot it. We speculated that, considering the great number of rounds we fired, the United States could easily have instead built each Vietnamese a beautiful suburban house complete with swimming pool instead of spending the money trying to kill them. In that way we could have not only won the war but also the hearts and minds of the enemy. So I put it to you: if the cost in dollars of the Vietnam war were divided by the number of Vietnamese, how much could each have been paid to lay down their arms and live peacefully ever after? --Stephen Wilhelm, New York

Dear Stephen:

Best damn question I've had in months. Let's take it step by step.

Estimates of the cost of the Vietnam war vary all over the place, with one analyst putting the figure as high as $900 billion. But that includes all kinds of indirect and future costs--21st century veterans' benefits, the cost of inflation resulting from the war, you name it. A bit too blue-sky for our purposes.

The Defense Department in the 1970s came up with a much more conservative figure--$140 billion in direct military outlays between 1965 and 1974. This includes some Pentagon overhead, i.e., money that presumably would have been spent whether there was a war or not. However, other estimates of "incremental" costs run anywhere from $112 billion to $155 billion, so we're probably safe in going with 140.

The combined population of North and South Vietnam in 1969, the midpoint of substantial U.S. involvement, was somewhere around 39 million. That means that over 10 years we spent about $3,600 for every Vietnamese man, woman, and child. Today you could buy most of a Yugo with that kind of money. At first glance, hardly enough reason to abandon a war of national liberation.

But let's put this in perspective. Per capita annual income in South Vietnam in 1965 by one estimate was $113. At $3,600 per, we could have kept those guys in rice and fish sauce for pretty much the rest of their lives, with color TV and a Barcalounger thrown in. As an added bonus, the country would not have suffered incalculable war damage, and 1.8 million more Vietnamese would not be dead (or at least they would have died other than by being shot, blown up, etc.).

I know, I know: millions for defense but not one cent for bribes. But considering how things actually turned out, maybe we should have given it a try.

--CECIL ADAMS
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_161.html

Dang it - accidentally hit post before finishing this up.

Good ole Straightdope.com ran this little gem again this week. Considering the efficacy of bribery (in various forms) in Afghanistan, and in other guerrilla actions, would the US be better off funneling more funds towards this in Iraq?

Piss us off and defy our values by installing an opressive regime... and we'll pay you? How is that logic?

Piss us off and defy our values by installing an opressive regime... and we'll pay you? How is that logic?

Say what?

Try here's some cash - put down your arms, stop fighting, and we'll give it to you.

At a cost of almost $300 billion (in direct outlasy so far - with another $200-700 billion to come, plus indirect costs)[1] (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2270928,00.html), and with Iraq having a population of roughly 27 million[2] (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People), a little math, and that comes out to a bit more than $18,500 a head at the low end and just over $37,000 at the high end. Add in the indirect costs (veteran's benifits, economic losses to both the US and Iraq, etc.) and that get's even better. With a per capita GDP is $3400 [3] (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#Econ), don't you think a nice healthy payment would help

Especially since one of the root causes of the growth the resistance was economic instability, particularly unemployment.

Yea, appeasement worked real well in the past. :rolleyes:

Piss us off and defy our values by installing an opressive regime... and we'll pay you? How is that logic?


Um, what the hell all-american brainwashing school did you go to?




this idea has some warrant.

That is the best idea I've heard... probably ever. I'm impressed.

Yea, appeasement worked real well in the past. :rolleyes:


See, the US would've lost anyway, Vietnam is an unconquerable country. In every scenario you run, the Vietnamese strategy and concept of Dau Traung over comes any superior technology or total over kill worth of fire power the US can dish out, and its not like appeasement, They we're good tunnelrs but I dont think they'd have been able to tunnel all the way to america, *looks out in back yard* oh shit...OH SHIT! nvm....*screams and is gunned down by VC*

See, the US would've lost anyway, Vietnam is an unconquerable country. In every scenario you run, the Vietnamese strategy and concept of Dau Traung over comes any superior technology or total over kill worth of fire power the US can dish out, and its not like appeasement, They we're good tunnelrs but I dont think they'd have been able to tunnel all the way to america, *looks out in back yard* oh shit...OH SHIT! nvm....*screams and is gunned down by VC*

The problem with this 'let's buy out the eneimes' is that, even if we do give them the money, they can turn around, pick their arms back up and use the money to fund their programs.

We tried appeasement in WW II with Hitler, it did not work.

We tried appeasement with North Korea and Kim John IL it did not work

We tried appeasement with the terrorist in the middle east it does not work.

How many more time does appeasement have to fail before people realize that it does not work?!

Yea, appeasement worked real well in the past.

The problem with this 'let's buy out the eneimes' is that, even if we do give them the money, they can turn around, pick their arms back up and use the money to fund their programs.

We tried appeasement in WW II with Hitler, it did not work.

We tried appeasement with North Korea and Kim John IL it did not work

We tried appeasement with the terrorist in the middle east it does not work.

How many more time does appeasement have to fail before people realize that it does not work?!

Say what?

1) You and Free shepmagans both need to go back and read what I've posted.

2) After that, go and find out what appeasment (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/appeasement) actually means.

The Chieu Hoi Program (http://www.psywarrior.com/ChieuHoiProgram.html) or the bribing of various Afghan warlords was not appeasement, and neither is what I'm suggesting.

I like your logic. Although, maybe we shouldn't spread the money to our enemies evenly. I think the crazier our enemies are and the more they hate us, the more money we'd have to give them to start liking us.

I think we should give Bin Laden $20 mill or so. That would do the trick. I think Kim Jong Il could be bought off for $30 million and a "Ballistic Missles for Dummies" book.

And to think, this whole time we were trying to find Bin Laden's assets and freeze them. The exact opposite of what we should have been doing!

And if this idea for some reason doesn't work, other people have come up with ideas along the same lines:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=penny_drop

See, the US would've lost anyway, Vietnam is an unconquerable country. In every scenario you run, the Vietnamese strategy and concept of Dau Traung over comes any superior technology or total over kill worth of fire power the US can dish out, and its not like appeasement, They we're good tunnelrs but I dont think they'd have been able to tunnel all the way to america, *looks out in back yard* oh shit...OH SHIT! nvm....*screams and is gunned down by VC*

Nope. Vietnam was winnable. The generals and politicians fucked up badly.

See if you can find a copy of a book called The Perfect Soldier: Special Operations, Commandos, and the Future of Us Warfare, by James F. Dunnigan at amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806524154/102-2391520-5295327?v=glance&n=283155) or your local library (ISBN: 0806524154).

The section "How to Fight Guerrillas and Win" in the chapter "Shadow Wars and Threat" details the effective methods of fighting guerrilla wars, and how these were effectively ignored by US forces in Vietnam.

And of germaine not here, one of the sub-sections is "Offer Generous Terms".

Never underestimate the usefulness of bribes. In particular, you want to make guerrilla leaders offers they cannot refuse. ... But money isn't enough; there are also political needs. Many guerrillas will be enticed to switch sides with offers of jobs in the loyalist government, green cards, or whatever it takes.


Oh, and here's a bit of this from a RAND corporation white paper suggesting something very similar:
While Chieu Hoi was geared to counter a Communist threat, it was based on universal principles of counterinsurgency that could easily be applied to the current struggle. In fact, Chieu Hoi was something of an import in its own right: it was the brainchild of three men with long experience battling rebels. One was Sir Robert Thompson, who led the British Advisory Mission in Vietnam and was renowned for his work in Britain's quelling of the Communist insurgency in Malaya in the 1950's. The others were Rufus Phillips, a former C.I.A. official working for the United States Agency for International Development, and Charles Bohannan, a retired Army colonel; this pair had led the American effort in late 1940's to stop the Huk insurgency in the Philippines.

They designed Chieu Hoi to focus on changing the underlying attitudes of the subjects, not simply on trying to control their behavior. Empirical research in social psychology reveals that efforts to directly control behavior through coercion or bribery usually leave underlying attitudes intact, or even harden them. Thus putting a gun to a man's head and instructing him to support a particular political ideology will work only as long as the gun is present and he is being watched. The preferred method for long-term change is instilling sincere belief in the new political ideology, making the gun and monitoring unnecessary.

American forces in Iraq would have nothing to lose in applying this basic psychology and developing a pilot program based on Chieu Hoi. It is an inexpensive and nonviolent approach that can aid the counterinsurgency: there are some 10,000 prisoners being held in Iraq, and "turning" even a small fraction of them could reap huge dividends in terms of gaining intelligence for our forces, diminishing support for the insurgents and reducing anti-American sentiment among average Iraqis.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/082505NYT.html

I like your logic. Although, maybe we shouldn't spread the money to our enemies evenly. I think the crazier our enemies are and the more they hate us, the more money we'd have to give them to start liking us.

The guerrillas in Iraq are not all fanatical Jihadis. Of course some are, and they need to be done in the hard way. But a heap of baksheesh and a n effective amnesty plan would be extremely helpful in taking most rank-and-file resistance types of of the fight.

I think we should give Bin Laden $20 mill or so. That would do the trick. I think Kim Jong Il could be bought off for $30 million and a "Ballistic Missles for Dummies" book.

Ummm... neither one is fighting in Iraq...

And to think, this whole time we were trying to find Bin Laden's assets and freeze them. The exact opposite of what we should have been doing!

:rolleyes:

I do not want our government to send money to our enemies. The day they do that, is the day I renounce my citizenship.

The guerrillas in Iraq are not all fanatical Jihadis. Of course some are, and they need to be done in the hard way. But a heap of baksheesh and a n effective amnesty plan would be extremely helpful in taking most rank-and-file resistance types of of the fight.


Amnesty is a lot different than what you were talking about in your first post.

I do not want our government to send money to our enemies. The day they do that, is the day I renounce my citizenship.

I'll type slowly for you, since you seem to have special needs: L-e-a-r-n t-o r-e-a-d.

Amnesty is a lot different than what you were talking about in your first post.

Considering the efficacy of bribery (in various forms) in Afghanistan, and in other guerrilla actions, would the US be better off funneling more funds towards this in Iraq?

Amnesty goes part and parcel with most COIN bribery programs.

bump

Piss us off and defy our values by installing an opressive regime... and we'll pay you? How is that logic?
We did it in South America - a lot.

Here's a better idea.

Instead of giving money to them, offer to take them to the 'States, give them a job and get them started on a new way of life. That way you steal support, actually -earn- money from them in the long run and prevent them from getting killed.

Good ole Straightdope.com ran this little gem again this week. Considering the efficacy of bribery (in various forms) in Afghanistan, and in other guerrilla actions, would the US be better off funneling more funds towards this in Iraq?
Worked in Afghanistan?

The victims of September 11th say otherwise.

Worked in Soomaalia, as another example?

Look at what's happened there...

We did it in South America - a lot.
The victims of Pinochet are doubtless grateful for not living in a socialist country...

Worked in Afghanistan?

The victims of September 11th say otherwise.

Errr... we weren't in Afghanistan buying off the warlords when that happened....

Worked in Soomaalia (sic), as another example?

Anarchy and guerrilla wars are vastly different.

Look at what's happened there...

Yes, and your point is? This example has absolutely no bearing on the question at hand.

Errr... we weren't in Afghanistan buying off the warlords when that happened....
Errr... what do you think you were doing in Afghanistan in the 1980's, then?
Anarchy and guerrilla wars are vastly different.
*sighs*

The Americans have been bribing warlords to "keep the peace" in Soomaalia after if fled the country, and this was really the reason that the US got involved at all as well.
Yes, and your point is? This example has absolutely no bearing on the question at hand.
I thought that the purpose of the Iraq war was to "protect Iraqi freedoms" or some similar crap.

If you leave it with a bunch of paid warlords, what value are you really getting for your money in that way?

The same goes for Soomaalia.

The wrong warlords got bribed and now the popular ones want to enforce a Sharia-style land.

Here's a better idea.

Instead of giving money to them, offer to take them to the 'States, give them a job and get them started on a new way of life. That way you steal support, actually -earn- money from them in the long run and prevent them from getting killed.

Except quite a few people would mutter about "them durned furriners steal'in our jobs"

Errr... what do you think you were doing in Afghanistan in the 1980's, then?

Giving them guns and ammo. After the Soviet Union left, America went STFU and pretended Afghanistan never existed.

Errr... what do you think you were doing in Afghanistan in the 1980's, then?

That was a different war altogether.

[QUOTE=Yootopia]The Americans have been bribing warlords to "keep the peace" in Soomaalia after if fled the country, and this was really the reason that the US got involved at all as well.

The same goes for Soomaalia.

The wrong warlords got bribed and now the popular ones want to enforce a Sharia-style land.

Again, that was anarchy, not a guerrilla war. Do I need to type slowly for you, too?
(BTW, WTF's up with misspelling Somalia.)

I thought that the purpose of the Iraq war was to "protect Iraqi freedoms" or some similar crap.

Woah! You bought into the neocons dodge?

If you leave it with a bunch of paid warlords, what value are you really getting for your money in that way?

OK, maybe I do need to type slowly: l-e-a-r-n t-o r-e-a-d.

Except quite a few people would mutter about "them durned furriners steal'in our jobs"
Isn't it interesting how those exact same people would go on to extoll the virtues of getting rid of their oppressive regimes?

bump

No real comment on this?

Isnt that what Reagan did, and it didnt work?

Piss us off and defy our values by installing an opressive regime... and we'll pay you? How is that logic?

Very. How else do countries get the US to foot the bill when their economies are down!

Piss us off and defy our values by installing an opressive regime... and we'll pay you? How is that logic?

How does installing an opressive regime in Vietnam affect us here in the US? Also, what happens when it is the US installing the regime, ala Saddam Hussein.

How does installing an opressive regime in Vietnam affect us here in the US? Also, what happens when it is the US installing the regime, ala Saddam Hussein.
9/11 Look what happened in Afghanistan. Training and hidding the terrorists responsible for 9/11.

9/11 Look what happened in Afghanistan.

What?


Training and hidding the terrorists responsible for 9/11.

Oh, yeah the US did that too.

Have a gold star.

The same warlords are still in charge.
[QUOTE]Again, that was anarchy, not a guerrilla war. Do I need to type slowly for you, too?
Warlords were fighting a guerilla war against the US there... now it tries to fight in proxy there with a collection of bribed warlords.

Such is what happens when you are a crap loser.
(BTW, WTF's up with misspelling Somalia.)
It's how it's spelt there, in Soomaali, their main language.
Woah! You bought into the neocons dodge?
No, I thought that you might have, and was trying to use their "protecting freedoms" point against them.

Maybe you should read my other posts on this forum to learn what I think of neocons.
OK, maybe I do need to type slowly: l-e-a-r-n t-o r-e-a-d.
S-h-o-c-k-i-n-g a-s t-h-i-s s-o-u-n-d-s, I c-a-n r-e-a-d.

M-y c-o-m-m-e-n-t w-a-s r-e-f-e-r-i-n-g t-o t-h-e p-o-i-n-t I m-a-d-e a-b-o-u-t I-r-a-q-i f-r-e-e-d-o-m.

(I really hate writing like that, can we just type properly?).

What?




Oh, yeah the US did that too.


The US government put in the Afghanistan government ie the Taliban,

The US government put in the Afghanistan government ie the Taliban,

Probably, but I was referring to the training of Bin Laden.

Oh, yeah the US did that too.
The pilot of the plane that crashed in Pensylvannia genuinely was trained in unarmed combat in the US.

They guy who trained him is called Guy Savelli.

-----

And the Taliban are an offshoot of what was at one point considered an ally of the Western world, the Muhaj'uhadeen.

They were armed and trained by the US, in such skills as modifying RPGs to be able to fire at targets in the air.

They were even given a lot of Stingers to blow up the USSR's Mi-24 "Hind" helicopters...

Hey - even James Bond and Rambo helped them out!

Probably, but I was referring to the training of Bin Laden.
Who was trained and funded by the US, and whose family was flown out of the USA after September 11th when the rest of the airports were closed, all of which was paid for by the US government...

What an amazing idea, Giving those that hate us lots of money so they will like us! Lets look at how that could possably work out.

( ' ' ) <- This is Akbar. He hates america with a passion. Why? Because his leaders told him too. So, How do we give Him money? well, we would have to go door to door in a foreign country and get everybody's name and bank information, or trust their leadership to do it for us.

So.. say we go to Iran (where Akbar lives) and give the political leadership there say... 200 Bil with the terms "give this to all of your people so that they will stop hating us!"

Leadership looks at poor Akbar ( ' ' ) who works every day just to provide for his family but who supports the leadership because they stand up to the Americans!

Then the Leadership looks over at the shiny new guns and missiles they could buy with all that money.. not to mention keeping some for themselves to play with. perhaps give some to a few leaders here and there to bolster support for themselves. So, they take the money from the americans, nodding the entire time and agreeing to give it to the people. Turn around, buy nice new tanks, guns and put the rest into R&D. Akbar doesnt see a penny (.' '.), the leadership just armed a bunch of terrorists with better weapons.. and the United states is out 200 bil and looks like a fool.

You can buy some people off with money, but it doesnt mean that they will follow what you want them to do with it. Hilary Clinton could walk in the door of my office right now and hand me 100 mil saying "if you vote for me, you get this!" and i'll go into the voting booth, vote for somebody else then walk back out and say "yep. i voted for ya. cash now please" Sorry. I just dont think it would work.

of course. It might work! then you have a happy Akbar
(^.^) who now has enough money to live off of. but what about his kids? will they be upset because america had enough money to pay off their dad but not them? what if they pick up their father's old guns (or new guns.. how much do you want to give him) and start posturing like they are going to attack us too, just to get more money?

Who was trained and funded by the US, and whose family was flown out of the USA after September 11th when the rest of the airports were closed, all of which was paid for by the US government...

He was not funded by us. Something even he admits. at least to begin with His funding came from other arab states. The CIA may have funded him later, but he was usefull. Everybody makes mistakes. Its not like we kept giving him money after the USSR fell.

yes, we flew his family out of the states after 9-11, If YOU orchistrated a bombing of a US facility, would you want your siblings or children held responsable even if they had nothing to do with it? Would you want them to have to deal with the sudden MASSIVE amount of hatred towards them just because of their name. what an assinine thing to wish upon somebody.

Isnt that what Reagan did, and it didnt work?

The US government put in the Afghanistan government ie the Taliban,

Good grief! Where on Earth are you people (not) learning your history/current events. If these are examples of the current state of education in your home countries, I sincerly feel sorry for you.

The same warlords are still in charge.

And? This has no relivance.

Warlords were fighting a guerilla war against the US there... now it tries to fight in proxy there with a collection of bribed warlords. Such is what happens when you are a crap loser.

We clearly live in alternate realities.

No, I thought that you might have, and was trying to use their "protecting freedoms" point against them.

Maybe you should read my other posts on this forum to learn what I think of neocons.

Right back at you.

S-h-o-c-k-i-n-g a-s t-h-i-s s-o-u-n-d-s, I c-a-n r-e-a-d.

Then apply those skills instead of imagining what I wrote.

Um, what the hell all-american brainwashing school did you go to?




this idea has some warrant.

You mean someone should swear out a warrant on whomever advocated it .


lesse...give billions to the guys who are trying to destroy the cash driven excessive , consumerist , capitalist , system and bring it down to the humble before GOD level.


SURE that sounds like a great idea..in fact I changed my mind ....dont swear out a warrant ...instead we will file papers for a 302..involantary commitment..to protect themselves and others ..becuase with that thinking we are all dead .

You mean someone should swear out a warrant on whomever advocated it .


lesse...give billions to the guys who are trying to destroy the cash driven excessive , consumerist , capitalist , system and bring it down to the humble before GOD level.


SURE that sounds like a great idea..in fact I changed my mind ....dont swear out a warrant ...instead we will file papers for a 302..involantary commitment..to protect themselves and others ..becuase with that thinking we are all dead .

Simply to deal with both you and Cenanan, I repeat myself.

The guerrillas in Iraq are not all fanatical Jihadis. Of course some are, and they need to be done in the hard way. But a heap of baksheesh and an effective amnesty plan would be extremely helpful in taking most rank-and-file resistance types out of the fight.

Bumping this yet again in the increasingly forelorn hope that some of the resonable posters might be willing to discuss it as opposed t the current situation of it's being continued dominance and derailment by unreasonable and delude people who can't seem to understand the subject.


This paper has some interesting comments re this idea:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/sepp.pdf

Good grief! Where on Earth are you people (not) learning your history/current events. If these are examples of the current state of education in your home countries, I sincerly feel sorry for you.

If you are referring to me saying "Isn't that what Reagan did?" maybe you should learn a bit of history:

The Iran-Contra Affair (also called the Iran-Contra Matter and Irangate) was one of the largest political scandals in the United States during the 1980s. It involved several members of the Reagan Administration who in 1986 helped sell arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the proceeds to fund the Contras, an anti-communist guerrilla organization in Nicaragua.

If you are referring to me saying "Isn't that what Reagan did?" maybe you should learn a bit of history:

Yes, and how does that demonstrate your contention that Reagan attempted a "bribery" program to get Iraqi resistance fighters to lay down their arms when the US was involvede in a messy insurgency in Iraq? (Hint: it has nothing to do with it whatsoever.)

Seems to me that whenever you see something that does not fit into your narrow view of this discussion, you brush it off despite the fact that it has valid meaning. I suppose that works. How can you be proven wrong if you dont listen to what anybody else to say? Your always going to agree with yourself.

Let me put it simply. Paying off people does not work. Even after you pay them off, others will take up the same stance for the chance to get paid off themselves. its a neverending cycle which leaves the american tax payer screwed. the US economy in even more debt then if we had gone to war and a group of people who rely on us to feed and supply them and know that all they have to do is act like they are going to attack us or pick up some guns and they get paid again.

Thats why it wouldnt work.

Yes, and how does that demonstrate your contention that Reagan attempted a "bribery" program to get Iraqi resistance fighters to lay down their arms when the US was involvede in a messy insurgency in Iraq? (Hint: it has nothing to do with it whatsoever.)

I dont think I said that...I was merely pointing out that they were similar. Why do you feel the need to be so agressive?