Dragon Ascending: Vietnam and the Vietnamese
Kamm, a senior foreign correspondent for The New York Times, has been reporting from Southeast Asia for more than 30 years, and he has an excellent knowledge of the history and politics of the region. This is a rich report on Vietnam, the country, as opposed to Vietnam, the war, which has dominated the American media. He concludes that Vietnam, standing on its own after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of Soviet aid, is a stable country that justifies heightened confidence. He is optimistic about the prospects for "one Southeast Asia" now that Vietnam has been admitted to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and has abandoned its designs for dominance over Laos and Cambodia.
Related
Prince Sihanouk has offered, under certain conditions, to share power with the existing regime in Cambodia in order to keep out the Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese need to withdraw their troops from Kampuchea, but the Chinese, who back the Khmer Rouge, can afford to play for time. The USA has been reluctant to use its influence.
South Viet Nam, as is obvious to anyone with the most cursory interest in world affairs, is in the midst of a war, and equally obvious is the fact that this war is being waged by a Communist-controlled insurgent movement supported and directed from Hanoi. Less obvious, but equally important in determining its political complexion and future (including, ultimately, the outcome of the Communist-instigated war) is the fact that South Viet Nam is also in the midst of a social revolution.
If you wish for peace, understand war-particularly the guerrilla and subversive forms of war." Thus runs an old maxim, as rephrased by Liddell Hart. It seems to me, as an outside observer and commentator (although I was involved in Viet Nam for nearly four years), that understanding the war has been the crux of the American problem and that the two great obstacles to understanding it have been the military and the liberals. Both have failed to understand what Mao Tse-tung calls "the time, place and character" of the war. Moreover, the domestic clash between the two within the United States has led to a polarization of extreme views, as between the doves and the hawks, for withdrawal or further escalation. Both these courses are, in my view, losers, as is the enclave theory, which is no more than an agonizing withdrawal-like Aden. The only difference between the two is that, by withdrawing, you merely lose, but by further escalation, you lose stinking. When I put this view to a leading member of the Administration, he said: "You mean, like barbarians?" It would be just that, and, when the conflict ended, the question would indeed be, in Senator Dirksen's words, "Where will you stand and with whom will you sit?" But the real question is: If these are losing options, is there a winning one?

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.