Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

[Woodsman]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

Sorry, just calling it as I see it.

I understand that, but you're seeing it mostly wrong. Because the majority of military historians do not share your view of Giap. And while we might quibble about the nature of the victory, the fields of Vietnam cover the bodies of millions of Japanese, French, South Vietnamese and American soldiers led by generals who failed to understand the fighting spirit of their enemy, who applied the wrong strategy, and who failed to alter course to save their cause.

I find it curious how the greatest general of the 20th century, a man responsible for at least two of the most astonishing military victories during the age of Western imperialism can be dismissed as merely "highly overrated." But as was said, it's hard to accept when your team loses. It's even harder when you realize that the whole enterprise was based on false premises. It's harder still when at last the realization comes that all of it was for naught, unnecessary, avoidable, and resulted in nothing but the devastation of the values for which one fought to defend in the first place.

[Woodsman]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

Fidel didn't want the competition, amigo.

[Woodsman]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

From a iTulip perspective, Che was effectively anti iTulip as he believed "one can only win at the cost of others."

To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again."

Guevara wrote that about capitalism, and decidedly not as a statement of personal belief or credo as your out of context usage reads to my ears.

Here is the quote in its full context:

Invisible laws of capitalism

In capitalist society individuals are controlled by a pitiless law usually beyond their comprehension. The alienated human specimen is tied to society as a whole by an invisible umbilical cord: the law of value.This law acts upon all aspects of one's life, shaping its course and destiny. The laws of capitalism, which are blind and are invisible to ordinary people, act upon the individual without he or she being aware of it. One sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon ahead. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller— whether or not it is true — about the possibilities of individual success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for a Rockefeller to emerge, and the amount of depravity entailed in the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible for the popular forces to expose this clearly. (A discussion of how the workers in the imperialist countries gradually lose the spirit of working-class internationalism due to a certain degree of complicity in the exploitation of the dependent countries, and how this at the same time weakens the combativity of the masses in the imperialist countries, would be appropriate here, but that is a theme that goes beyond the scope of these notes.)

In any case, the road to success is portrayed as beset with perils — perils that, it would seem, an individual with the proper qualities can overcome to attain the goal. The reward is seen in the distance; the way is lonely. Furthermore, it is a contest among wolves. One can win only at the cost of the failure of others.

To say "Che was effectively anti iTulip" is a meaningless statement. Of course he would be "anti iTulip", if I'm correct in understanding what you mean by it, as he was an avowed Marxist anticapitalist who believed in his cause to such a degree that he died for it.

I understand you're not a Che sort of guy and lots of folks seem to get irritated by the hipster's ignorant adoption of the Alberto Korda image for some reason, but that doesn't change the reality of who Guevara was and what he wanted. Neither does it change the reality of what the mass of the world outside America thinks about him. And I will tell you that the right wing view of Guevara is as distorted an image of the man as the worst of the hagiographies put out by the left.

It's a fool's errand to try and debate this most times. It's much like the case of Vietnam where facts don't matter much and politics rules the roost. We're still too close to the Bay of Pigs and the Kennedy assassination to have a meaningful conversation about Guevara. Some of the perpetrators are still on the loose. So that's why I go back to Reagan every time I get sucked into a "Che is a devil/angel conversation" (except with exiles; there's no talking to those folks). "Trust but verify."

But why not; let's say Guevara somehow could be resurrected and be shown that his Marxist conceptualization of value is a wrong. The quote above certainly demonstrates that while his economics are wrong, his criticism of the political economy and effects of monopoly capitalism aren't too radical and wild-eyed.

The laws of capitalism, which are blind and are invisible to ordinary people, act upon the individual without he or she being aware of it. One sees only the vastness of a seemingly infinite horizon ahead. That is how it is painted by capitalist propagandists who purport to draw a lesson from the example of Rockefeller — whether or not it is true — about the possibilities of individual success. The amount of poverty and suffering required for a Rockefeller to emerge, and the amount of depravity entailed in the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible for the popular forces to expose this clearly.

The CIA thought he was "fairly intellectual for a Latino," (nice) so I bet he'd be open to at least listening.

Let's say we convinced him, just for argument's sake. Then we show him that iTulip rejects "Rockefeller" monopoly capitalism and its grandson the FIRE economy, as well as the deprivation it has been demonstrated to cause. Well, then I think he might at least be more sympathetic. But let's say we then showed him EJ's analysis and his TECI economy proposal. Armed with his new understanding of value, I think Guevera might just join to see what this iTulip thing is all about. I'd bet he would at least register.

I know, I know. It's a silly thought experiment. But at the very least it is grounded in what Guevara actually said rather than the guileful misquotes we read in the papers some days.

[flintlock]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

Google any discussion of "Overrated Generals" and you will find wildly differing opinions. It is really about what criteria you are using. Military tactics? Political skill? Logistics? Leadership? All are skills required of Generals and very few are brilliant at all of them. Many of the top modern era commanders like Eisenhower, Swartzkopf, Franks, etc are as much politicians as military men. But then that is what is required. The ability to forge a viable fighting force, to referee fights between its leaders, and smooth out differences between allies. The reality is there is no absolute correct answer in this regard. Genius is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. Personally I don't find most of these "political generals" that interesting. The real brilliance militarily speaking is usually at a lower level.

I actually see a lot of arguments in forums discussing this matter, even that Alexander and Napoleon were "overrated" if you can believe that. So it does not surprise me to see people like Giap being controversial. In MY opinion, Giap is put up as an example more for racial reasons than for any particular genius that someone can point out in detail. Just because he was someone who stuck it to the West, and because so few other Asian generals are known to most Westerners. Dien Bien Phu? Most of the experienced French officers were writing their wills and saying last goodbyes to loved ones the minute they heard about that hair brained scheme. The morale was horrible because they knew they were being used as bait. And the French mowed down the VM in droves despite the ridiculous tactical situation they had been put in. Some estimates go over 20,000 Viet Minh casualties. This is well over the total number of French present. So exactly how does suffering horrendous losses, while outnumbering your foe by 4x, constitute greatness as a general? I'm not saying he was not an effective general, but the Napoleon of Asia? I'd put him more the the US Grant category. A mediocre tactician who understood the bottom line that he had the numbers and the willingness to shed the blood and keep up pressure would be enough to win in the end. If their is any "hero" of the Vietnam war its the people themselves, who did all the suffering and dying while both sides argued over political ideology.

[Woodsman]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

I noticed you didn't respond regarding Che's documented executions.

Allow me. This is Guevara's latest biographer. He spent more than five years researching the man's life. At the end of that research he concluded:

I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed 'an innocent'. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder. I should add that my research spanned five years, and included anti-Castro Cubans among the Cuban-American exile community in Miami and elsewhere."

— Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life

It's also what the Cubans who suffered under Batista demanded.

Lake, your view of Guevara is just not supported by the record. It's 50 year old propaganda nurtured by graying exiles and Agency hacks still bitter that Bissell's, Wisner's and Dulles' lies to Kennedy didn't have the effect they were counting on.

Dulles even wrote as much when he said:

“We felt that when the chips were down, when the crisis arose in reality, any action required for success would be authorized rather than permit the enterprise to fail.”

In other words, he knew that the initial invasion would be a disaster, but was counting on Kennedy ordering a full-scale invasion to save face when he realized that he had been betrayed. According to Evan Thomas (The Very Best Men):

“Some old CIA hands believe that Bissell was setting a trap to force U.S. intervention”.

They miscalculated. I guess you missed this article in the Atlantic by Robert Dalek:

They [Dulles, Bissell and Wisner] were convinced, however, that if an invasion faltered and the new administration faced an embarrassing defeat, Kennedy would have no choice but to take direct military action. The military and the CIA “couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face,” Kennedy later told his aide Dave Powers. “Well, they had me figured all wrong.”
JFK vs. the Military, Atlantic Monthly Sep 2013

Anyway Guevara's dead, deader even than Communism. So is Kennedy. The right got everything it wanted it in the end. They should give the propaganda a rest already. It's a bore.

[Master Shake]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

Look at Cuba befoe Castro............look now.
Look what he did for his people, health & education......he had the US on his back from day one but he fought back. What a leader.

JFK
LBJ
Nixon (Who is to blame for the missle trouble because the CIA TOLD him what a brill leader Fidel was & US should back him)
Ford
Carter (What a wanker, Jimmy tried to get the middleclass to leave, all he got was scum from the jails & mental hospitals)
Regan
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Obama

...........he faced them ALL down.
Mike

Yeah, people were swimming through shark-infested waters just to get to the paradise that was Castro's Cuba.

Scum from the mental hospitals? How ironic.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

Giap hardly a "Napoleon". Unless you are talking about the Napoleon of Waterloo where he just threw forces headlong in an attempt to bash his way through...

Old Napoleon did that once before Waterloo:

Probably the best statistical graphic ever drawn, this map by Charles Joseph Minard portrays the losses suffered by Napoleon's army in the Russian campaign of 1812. Beginning at the Polish-Russian border, the thick band shows the size of the army at each position. The path of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow in the bitterly cold winter is depicted by the dark lower band, which is tied to temperature and time scales.Center for Specially Integrated Social Science

[Woodsman]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point. Is it that Giap is overrated because of the losses he suffered? That was the loser's argument put forth by Westmoreland, wasn't it? It wasn't very convincing then or now.

I always found it disingenuous for the creator of "search and destroy" and "free fire zones" to criticize the man who defeated him because of the number of soldiers he sacrificed in gaining that victory. Same for the old "never lost on the battlefield" trope. The Germans said as much with their "stabbed in the back" mythology following WWI.

You'll recall that then as now, it was the right wing that promulgated the myth of national betrayal. Like Westmoreland, General Erich Ludendorff attempted to weasel out of his military failure by advancing the notion that the German Army did not lose the World War on the battlefield but was instead betrayed by the civilians on the home front. Sound familiar?

Generals use the resources at their command to gain supreme advantage on the battlefield. The French and Americans had technology. The Vietnamese had a seemingly endless supply of troops. The Americans played to their strengths, Giap played to his. But don't imagine that Giap was unaware or unmoved at the losses:

We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel.... Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. ... The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory....
-- Quoted in "The Vietnam War: An Encyclopedia of Quotations", Howard Langer, 1989.

Giap lost more in headcount but replaced them without issue. Those who survived became even more effective soldiers and leaders. American forces in comparison were ill trained, poorly motivated and poorly led. By 1969 the morale and discipline of the U.S. ground forces in Vietnam was in such disarray that it ceased to be a reliable fighting force. I believe this was one of the major causes for the change in strategy that resulted in Vietnamization and eventual withdrawal. Nixon may have called the Vietnam settlement "peace with honor," but his alternative was war without an army.

And while Giap may have "wasted" his troops, it seems very likely that we abandoned ours. Evidence mounts that Nixon and Kissinger left to rot nearly the equivalent number of men that were released in Operation Homecoming.

Only recently yet another POW was found alive in Vietnam. Correction: Looks like this guy is a hoaxer. Bastard got me.

Giap won a decisive victory against the efforts of four West Point educated generals - Harkins, Westmoreland, Abrams and Weyand - despite the overwhelming superiority in firepower and logistics at their disposal. That is the bottom line. His race, the body count, his military education, his ideology, and all other objections raised by the losers are secondary to the reality of his victories.

[vt]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

Don't forget while listing the sins of Nixon and Kissinger to at least mention the fact that Lyndon Johnson and his Democrat whiz kids drafted 500,000 American boys for a war we shouldn't have ever been in.

And while you constantly mention the sins of the right, please remember it was the left that killed 50 million innocent humans in the last 75 years.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

Given that the same can be said for the US - I fail to see what is so unusual or hypocritical. Is a pretend democratic and human right loving society any better than a pretend egalitarian society?

Where did I say it was better? What I said is that it's hypocritical. Is it not hypocritical for a person to praise one military leader of a state with totalitarian tendencies while constantly criticizing the military leaders of other states with totalitarian tendencies?

The victorious North booted the loser South. That describes the US Civil War just as well as it does the Vietnam war. For that matter, why did so many so called Americans move to Canada after the Revolutionary war?

Once again, real hard for me to see the difference.

Reread my reference to the Civil Waw. I implied there is no difference(hence the use of "grey"). If one is "right" or "wrong" then other parallel examples must be as well.

So you've asked millions of friends and family about their fallen in Vietnam?

Nice question. It really endears one to want to engage in debate with you. How many times is it now?

Maybe remove the snarky sarcasm and I'd be happy to provide a specific answer to this question.

I suppose they also are possessed of your wisdom in military affairs - that the loss of life could only have been avoided if Giap were able to overcome the literally millions of tons of bombs dropped, the Agent Orange, the napalm, the tanks, the tremendous economic and material disparities, etc etc. with his bare hands.

Compare it to Afghanistan: bombs dropped (check), exchange agent orange for ISR (check), napalm (check-ish), exchange tanks for MRAPS (check), tremendous economic and material diaparities (check), etc etc (check)

Economy of effort is a term used across a number of contexts. It applies particularly well in a military conflict context.

The disparity is far greater in Afghanistan today and the economy of effort applied by the opposition in Afghanistan is as well, but there's no convenient military figurehead there to develop a rockstar persona around.

In a conflict it's quite relevant in terms of husbandry of resources(including human).

I don't see anyone ever really raving about the necessity of horrifically wasteful human wave attacks in any conflict whether it's WWI, the Iran/Iraq War or wherever.......but in Vietnam it's somehow completely reasonable?

That makes no sense whatsoever.


I know and have worked with quite a number of Vietnamese - both immigrants and 'natives'.

The ones who got kicked out hate him. A number respect him, however, including an ex-Captain in the South Vietnamese army who almost literally swam to the US (boat sank 10 miles offshore).

I will refrain from making the same snarky/sarcastic response in questioning the value of your anecdotal sources.

The ones who still are there: adore him.

So he was so adored he was sidelined? Really? They all adore him? How "adored" is General Macarthur? Patton? Eisenhower? They are ALL hotly debated...and for very good reason to varying degrees.

Seems like a straight winner/loser label issue.

And there lies the problem.

Black-white

Winner-loser

As with most conflicts, grey seems to be a better colour to apply than black or white.

I'm sure if I made a post about MacArthur as a general I could expect to have you piping in on the other side.....regardless of which side I took.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

I understand that, but you're seeing it mostly wrong.

Well THAT's rather definitive.

I'm not trying to start an interweb fight, but aren't you stating your personal opinion, but framing it as fact?

Because the majority of military historians do not share your view of Giap.

I'll bet you that if you lined up 100 historians you'd get 100 different answers.

I find it curious how the greatest general of the 20th century,

Fact or personal opinion?

What's the criteria for measurement and comparison?

How does the good General rank in terms of "caring for the men under his command"?


a man responsible for at least two of the most astonishing military victories during the age of Western imperialism can be dismissed as merely "highly overrated."

Yes. Specifically in terms of inability/unwillingness to husband his human resources

Tell me, do you have any opinions of individual generals or generals in aggregate who commanded in WWI or say the Iran-Iraq War?

I'm genuinely curious.

Many historians have opinions about those generals too

But as was said, it's hard to accept when your team loses.

Are you really going there?

I can assure you I have quite sufficient clinical detachment when it comes to the Vietnam War.

In fact I had a great opportunity to spend time with serving soldiers in/from Southeast Asia in the last few years in rank from gumboot to general. I found their personal and professional opinions enlightening.

And I can assure you at no time did I find it hard to accept "my team's" loss.

It's even harder when you realize that the whole enterprise was based on false premises.

Harder for whom?

Again, are you implying me?

It's harder still when at last the realization comes that all of it was for naught, unnecessary, avoidable, and resulted in nothing but the devastation of the values for which one fought to defend in the first place.

I'm sorry, but did you happen to read what I already posted earlier in this thread?

Here:

"What I find most interesting is how it may have been entirely preventable:

http://www.historynet.com/ho-giap-an...ry-prunier.htm

FDR was supportive of national self-determination, but then he died and Truman was dealing with issues like the Berlin Blockade and that the UK/France were broke and needed to raise funds thru their pre-war colonies.

Missed opportunities,..."

here:

It's a shame that relations between Vietnam and the US had to effectively take a break for 60 odd years and cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars(in current value) to get back to roughly where they were post WWII.

and here:

"Personally, if I could pick a few times/places in modern history to visit it would be observing Ho Chi Minh and Giap in that crucial end of war, post war period. It's quite possibly the biggest missed opportunity of the 20th century in terms of wasted lives/capital."

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

I'm sorry, but I'm not getting your point. Is it that Giap is overrated because of the losses he suffered?

Yes.

That was the loser's argument put forth by Westmoreland, wasn't it? It wasn't very convincing then or now.

No.

That's a soldier's argument.

A soldier who finds it exceptionally hard to find much respect(in the conventional warfare sphere) for a general who clearly and repeatedly had so little regard for his men.

[Woodsman]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

I'm sorry, but did you happen to read what I already posted earlier in this thread?

I might have missed it, Lake. So I don't know. Honestly, I try to be sure I'm responding to the right person in the thread, but sometimes I miss. Anyway, in reading your missed opportunities piece I can't say I disagree with much.

Aren't you stating your personal opinion

Probably, but I'm in good company.

I'll bet you that if you lined up 100 historians you'd get 100 different answers.

For 100 historians of military history to agree 100% of the time would require some cherry picking, yes, but 80% is pretty easy on the "big items. Point taken and conceded.

Fact or personal opinion?

A little of both, it seems.

What's the criteria for measurement and comparison?

Winning and losing battles, primarily. Surviving the ever changing judgement of history with one's reputation intact as a secondary criteria.

How does the good General rank in terms of "caring for the men under his command"?

Somewhere between McClellan and Von Runstead, but to really know we'd have to ask the guys under him, as you said.

Most troopers are ambivalent about their senior leadership. They don't see much of them and when they do it usually means they are in for the sh!t. When I served, being in the presence of anyone above a Captain meant at the very least a bit of pain and suffering was in store for me. And I don't think I ever heard a good word in the barracks about any officer. But that's what soldiers do; they gripe. I wasn't a field marshal like some of the folks here seemed to be (and no I am not referring to you or anyone specifically). I was a simple leg infantry who switched to artillery in order to attend college. So I do have some personal history to provide insight on peacetime soldiering, but mine is of the "rum and strumpet" variety rather than the "Drum and Trumpet" sort.

Tell me, do you have any opinions of individual generals or generals in aggregate who commanded in WWI or say the Iran-Iraq War? I'm genuinely curious. Many historians have opinions about those generals too.

Field Marshal Douglas Haig seems obvious. Certainly, I think comparisons might be made between his command and Giap's, particularly in regards to your interest regarding the husbanding of resources. Haig was "the butcher of the Somme," chief executioner of British soldiers, Liddell-Hart thought him to be "not merely immoral but criminal" and Lloyd George hated the old bugger's guts. But he won and the last 100 days campaign sealed his reputation. I have no opinion or much knowledge on Iranian and Iraqi commanders. Do you?

Are you really going there?

I guess I did. The link was mildly critical, but respectful and a realistic appraisal.

I can assure you I have quite sufficient clinical detachment when it comes to the Vietnam War.

That's helpful and I accept your assurances without question. But would you agree that even people who never fought (or even were conscious of events) seem to get quite attached to this?

In fact I had a great opportunity to spend time with serving soldiers in/from Southeast Asia in the last few years in rank from gumboot to general. I found their personal and professional opinions enlightening.

It's a world of difference than book history or documentaries, listening to war veterans. Like night is to day, isn't it? I have a few family members and professional acquaintances who served, but fewer people I can call true friends. The men I know all earned Purple Hearts, but everyone came home mostly in one piece and of sound mind. Their view of the experience is all over the map, with a few (one a retired Air Force lifer) who see their time as mostly positive and others for whom it was decidedly unpleasant during and afterwards. Most are pleased to piss on their military leadership from a great height and are unanimous in their contempt for the political leadership.

And I can assure you at no time did I find it hard to accept "my team's" loss.

As I said, I accept that.

Harder for whom? Again, are you implying me?

Maybe at first blush. And now that you clarify, not at all. By "you" meant "those who find it hard to adjust" and you say that wasn't you. I accept that.

Fred is right about avoiding "you."

---

Anyway, it's clear that despite my certainty and the support of the record (that incidentally is forever changing and in dispute), I need to back off.

A long-time 'Tuliper exploded on me last night and the reaction seemed so far outside what was expected that it's causing me to rethink my participation. There seems to be a great deal of sensitivity on a number of topics and I'm finding it hard to 1) figure out which topics are sensitive to whom and 2) calibrate my arguments so that it does not ruffle so many feathers.

I hail from a more vigorous and pugilistic culture of debate. What I find mild sometimes seems too provocative here. To be honest, I'm not sure how to handle it. It seems like a great deal of work for very little payback. I can get plenty out of iTulip simply by reading EJ's analysis and the Shadow Fed folks and then lurking like the majority seems to do. In any case, I am guest of EJ and so have to adjust to the established norms in his "house." As I see it, I can do that, go dark, or home.

The forums are fun and informative, but as of yesterday maybe more trouble than its worth to me. That's too bad, but life in my United States of late. Apologies for coming on too strong.

[Woodsman]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

No. That's a soldier's argument. A soldier who finds it exceptionally hard to find much respect(in the conventional warfare sphere) for a general who clearly and repeatedly had so little regard for his men.

Understood, but it was also Westy's publicly stated position on Giap:

"Any American commander who took the same vast losses as General Giap would have been sacked overnight,"
Quoted in "Vietnam: A History" by Stanley Karnow.

Coming from him sitting safe in his air conditioned suite of offices at Pentagon East, it just doesn't have the same gravitas and sense of meaning. I don't recall reading where Westmoreland was so beloved by his men. Although he did let them have beer in the mess hall and wear sideburns.

[c1ue]

Re: Red Napoleon is dead at 102 !

Where did I say it was better? What I said is that it's hypocritical. Is it not hypocritical for a person to praise one military leader of a state with totalitarian tendencies while constantly criticizing the military leaders of other states with totalitarian tendencies?

I'm still unclear what your point is. Are you trying to say that Giap was hypocritical because a lot of troops died under his watch?

Perhaps you can refresh my understanding - when did Giap ever say that his priority was preservation of North Vietnamese manpower, as opposed to winning against a technologically and economically superior foe?

As for military leaders of other states - that's funny, I never once mentioned a single other military leader. You're the one assuming I refer to generals, when my viewpoint is more along the lines of 'War is an extension of politics'.

In this regard, Giap is as much a political leader as Ho Chih Minh, but nonetheless the failure in Vietnam is not due to the generals per se, IMO, but due to the same wrongheaded political motivations as which are governing US activity in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria today.

Surely you're not going to say I'm a big fan of LBJ or Kennedy in this area?

Reread my reference to the Civil Waw. I implied there is no difference(hence the use of "grey"). If one is "right" or "wrong" then other parallel examples must be as well.

Great! We are agreed then - the Vietnam was a stupid pointless imperialist conflict which outsiders should not have ever been involved in, but which Americans chose to stick their oar in to their great regret.

Nice question. It really endears one to want to engage in debate with you. How many times is it now?

Maybe remove the snarky sarcasm and I'd be happy to provide a specific answer to this question.

I noted where my views (which are apparently opposite to yours) came from, I'm still waiting where yours are coming from.

Compare it to Afghanistan: bombs dropped (check), exchange agent orange for ISR (check), napalm (check-ish), exchange tanks for MRAPS (check), tremendous economic and material diaparities (check), etc etc (check)

I'm unclear what you're point is. Is your point that the Afghans are equally defeating American attempts to subjugate unruly natives, but more economically in manpower?

Well, there is this little detail of 30 years of intervening technology.

Giap and the VietCong didn't have cell phones from which to make remote detonators nor the internet as a DIY learning resource. They did have 30 years of insurgent learning on the job, but that was vs a 1950s/1960s era French military - quite a bit different than 1980s era Soviets. Helicopters, you know. Moreover, the Afghan insurgents were trained - and in a literal sense, are still being trained - by their literal opponents (ISAF).

Equally the US doesn't have 500,000 troops in Afghanistan. Even though Vietnam has 3x the population of Afghanistan, the US never reached equivalent troop levels.

Then there's terrain. Afghanistan is a lot more challenging terrain wise than Vietnam.

Lastly bombs. It is quite clear that precision bombing has progressed greatly since Vietnam, but it is even less clear how useful bombing is against a largely non-technical opponent. Let's not forget that North Vietnam and North Korea were originally the relatively industrialized portions of those nations; bombing in that context made sense in terms of destroying capacity. Bombing in Afghanistan, on the other hand, seems mostly to just create more would-be insurgents.

So I'm not so convinced that Afghanistan can be held up as a shining example of anti-occupying force warfare.

So he was so adored he was sidelined? Really? They all adore him? How "adored" is General Macarthur? Patton? Eisenhower? They are ALL hotly debated...and for very good reason to varying degrees.

Pretty weak argument. Giap as a general is inseparable from Giap as one of the early Communists. As an early Communist, he is a threat to power.

Only safely non-political generals - which Giap could not be even if he wanted to - can be adored.

And once again, not sure what your point is. If MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton are equally of questionable merit - why then the venom against Giap?