US, Vietnam scratch each other's back

MOSCOW - Former war adversaries and now growing trade partners, the US and Vietnam, are slowly but surely engaging in a strategic relationship that if fully consummated will have significant implications for Asia's regional balance of power, particularly toward counterbalancing China's growing military might in the region.

In an unprecedented gesture toward Vietnam's Communist Party-led government, Admiral William Fallon, head of the US Pacific Command, traveled to Vietnam in mid-July to discuss the possibility of conducting joint military maneuvers and also urged his Vietnamese counterpart, Defense Minister Colonel Phung Quang Thanh, to allow for more US naval visits to Vietnamese ports.

Fallon also suggested that the two countries' navies conduct future joint search-and-rescue exercises at sea. Thanh did not offer an immediate reply and impressed upon the senior US military official that he was reluctant to cause any misunderstanding with regional neighbors - presumably China - yet he promised to pass the proposal along to top Communist Party officials.

US-Vietnam military-to-military exchanges have quietly and rapidly intensified in recent years. On July 4, two US naval ships, the USS Patriot and USS Salvor, called on Vietnamese ports, the fourth such US naval visit to Vietnam since 2003. In the wake of the December 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia, Hanoi allowed US military cargo planes unlimited flyover rights to assist in conducting rescue and supply missions.

The two sides now cooperate closely with the United States' counter-terrorism campaign, counter-narcotics operations and military medical-training programs. Hanoi recently agreed to exchanges under the Pentagon's international military education and training program, and its senior and middle-ranking military officials now participate in professional development programs with US allies in the region. The US and Vietnam also conduct an annual defense dialogue among mid-level military officers, which will hold its third session this year.

Early last month, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Vietnam for talks aimed specifically at boosting bilateral security ties, and both countries agreed at those meetings to increase "exchanges at all levels of the military and in various ways to further strengthen the military-to-military relationship". As part of that agreement, two Vietnamese officers are now studying English in the US.

Rumsfeld said after his visit that "we have no plans for access to military facilities in Vietnam", a diplomatic statement made clearly to allay China's concerns about the budding US-Vietnam military relationship along its southern border. The United States is widely believed to want access to a major Vietnamese air terminal and a deepwater port, with the former US military facility at Cam Ranh Bay the most obvious option.

Strategic calculus
China's growing military might in the region is drawing the US and Vietnam closer together. Engaging Vietnam is an important part of Washington's greater strategic realignment in Asia, which has historically relied heavily on military bases in South Korea and Japan to maintain a strategic balance of power favorable to US interests.

With the United States' significant military commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon has in recent years announced plans to redeploy some of its force commitments in Asia to the island of Guam. The United States' massive military presence in South Korea and Tokyo has at times stressed bilateral relations, and since the US lost access to military facilities in the Philippines in 1991-92, the Pentagon has sought to establish a new military footprint in Southeast Asia.

A sizable US presence at Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay would profoundly alter Asia's strategic calculus. China's acquisition of anti-ship missiles and its buildup of ballistic missiles overtly aimed toward Taiwan also present a grave threat to US bases in the region. To counterbalance China's growing military capabilities, particularly its aggressive stance toward Taiwan, the US will require a joint force dependent on both naval and air power. A US presence at Cam Ranh Bay would also allow the US Navy to pressure China's fuel shipments in a future conflict, security analysts say.

Vietnam obviously harbors suspicions about China's regional intentions. The two countries fought a brief but brutal border war in 1979, and the two historical antagonists supported opposite sides in Cambodia's civil war throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s.

Notwithstanding, US access to Cam Ranh Bay is not a done deal. Hanoi has so far been extremely careful not to pique Beijing through its engagement with the US. Recent critical statements by Rumsfeld and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have called on Beijing to "demystify" its military spending and clarify its strategic intentions for the region, which have annoyed Chinese leaders. That will make it trickier for Hanoi to convince Beijing that its rapprochement with the US is not actually aimed at strategically containing China.

The strategic relationship is being promoted through vigorous, high-profile diplomacy. This year many top US officials have held or plan to hold high-level meetings with their Vietnamese counterparts, including US House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Rumsfeld, Rice, and President George W Bush. The US president is due to visit Vietnam while attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders' meeting to be held in November in Hanoi.

Last week, Hanoi said Rice's visit to Vietnam late this month would boost "mutual understanding and cooperative relations" between the two countries.

"The continued exchange of delegations between Vietnam and the United States, including Rice's trip, will help promote mutual understanding and stable, long-term and win-win relations between the two countries," the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry said.

On July 12, Hanoi publicly marked the 11th anniversary of its normalization of diplomatic relations with the US, which has gradually evolved from cooperation in locating the remains of missing-in-action US soldiers to recent full-blown bilateral trade agreements. Last year, then-prime minister Phan Van Khai met with Bush in Washington and pledged to raise bilateral security relations to "a new level".

The more recent bilateral trade agreement, signed last month, will pave the way for Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization this year. The last remaining hurdle to full-blown normal relations is the ongoing debate inside the US Congress over whether to approve permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with Vietnam. Some US Congress members have expressed reservations about Vietnam's human-rights record, particularly in relation to religious freedoms.

The Foreign Ministry has said PNTR is the final, important step for complete normal bilateral relations, which presumably will allow the two sides' emerging multi-level strategic relationship to evolve further, including possible joint military maneuvers.

US fills Russia's gap
The US is quickly moving to fill the gap left behind by Russia, until recently Vietnam's most important strategic ally. Throughout the Cold War, Moscow provided Hanoi with generous dollops of military and economic aid. Tens of thousands of Vietnamese, including senior military officers, studied in the Soviet Union and many still speak fluent Russian.

Russia has supplied Vietnam's army with most of its military hardware, and Moscow's armaments sales to Hanoi still amount to roughly a third of the two countries' trade. At the same time, military-to-military contacts have not developed in recent years. And Russia's joint war games with China last August sent a clear message to Vietnam that it needs to look elsewhere for future strategic assurances.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, economic relations were badly strained over the massive debts Hanoi owed Moscow. Against that backdrop, economic ties have sagged over a period that bilateral US and Vietnam trade has grown exponentially. In July 2002, Russia rushed to withdraw its military presence at Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay, even though Moscow still had two more years on its 25-year contract to use the naval facilities for free.

Officially, the Kremlin explained its Cam Ranh Bay closure as a cost-cutting measure, but many strategic analysts saw the move as an attempt to appease and please China as a new strategic partner. After the Russian withdrawal, Hanoi originally indicated new plans to turn Cam Ranh Bay into a sort of economic hub, similar to what the Philippines has attempted with its Subic Bay facilities. Provincial authorities now plan a number of projects, including a cement factory in Cam Thinh Dong, shipyards in Cam Phu and Cam Phuc Nam, industrial zones in Nam Cam Ranh and Bac Cam Ranh, and tourism areas for Bai Dai and Cam Lap.

Vietnamese authorities are also mulling other projects, including upgrading Cam Ranh Bay's airport into an international gateway and rebuilding Ba Ngoi seaport into a container terminal. These plans would appear to indicate Hanoi's intention to scale down the military and build up the economic uses of Cam Ranh Bay's facilities. But if the US pushes for military access, and China doesn't openly demur, there are growing indications Vietnam would warmly entertain any and all US proposals.

Sergei Blagov covers Russia and post-Soviet states, with special attention to Asia-related issues. He has contributed to Asia Times Online since 1996 and was based in Southeast Asia from 1983 to 1997. Nova Science Publishers, New York, has published two of his books on Vietnamese history.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HG21Ae02.html

It was meant to be

Vietnam only wants the weapons, who cares about US training, they stink at training just look at the miracles that their training with South Vietnam military was. lol Vietnam should only get US training for sophisticated US weapons.

Sad the Russians are moving away from Vietnam, they trained Vietnam really well.

If only Vietnam could get military training from Russia and weapons from America.

I doubt US would give Vietnam state of the art weapon. From past history, unless you're Israel, they'll try to sell you junks they don't need. Just ask Taiwan.

lol I'm not wishing for like F-22. An advanced model of the F-16 and aegis and M-16s are more than enough to defend against our neighbours.

They probably wont sell Vietnam those, except maybe the older f-16 without the state of the art radar. Even if they were to sell these, realistically how many of these will you need to make a formidable force and at what $$$t will Vietnam gov't willing to pay?

I wouldn't underestimate the US. The US training of their Special Forces and their elite units is first-rate (and very expensive, though) The US also has expertise in Coast Guard, air and naval operations. The Russians do have technical expertise, but the performance of their Arab allies in air-to-air combat does not speak well for the Russian training.

How many threads are we going to have on the same topic.

How much would an F-16 or Su-30MK cost?

you have no idea how well trained US soldiers are. and the US it not going to sell any weapons to Vietnam, especially the sensible ones.

training from Russia?




we're not going to do any human wave tactics anymore, that's for sure. lol.

What human wave tactics are you talking about?

never mind.

I thought you were talking about Vietnam using human wave tactics against the U.S during the war.

yeah that too.

but i was thinking of WW1, when Russia lost the most human lives.

then WW2, Russia lost about 20 million lives.


i was wrong about the human wave tactics. they were poor trained and they had short supplies of weapons.

Which battles that the NVA/VC used human wave tactics?

i dont know.

i guess the NVA/VC had to use human wave tactics.

may be i watched too much We Were Soldiers.

We Were Soldiers is one of the most disgusting Vietnam War movies has ever been made by the American ultra-nationalist

i think it's the best Vietnam War movie made in the US.

Oh yeah we all saw what a great job the US did in training South Vietnamese soldiers.

lol While the NVA and Vietcong fought and won without airstrikes, the South Vietnamese soldiers practiced "Search and RUN AWAY". lol

dude. those were VNCH soldiers. not US soldiers.

they did the training, and it was up to the VNCH soldiers to fight. dont blame the US for their training.

VNCH soldiers could only win when they had US airstrikes to help them?

Why? Because Americans usually fight a "rich man's war" where they use high tech tactics like airstrikes to pacify and then attack.

Vietnam being a poor country defintely, cannot afford a "rich man's war" and thus US tactics are very ill suited since we don't have the technology to make it happen.

Which is why NVA and Vietcong easily crushed the ARVN since they learned from the Russians who weren't all that in technology and thus they were trained how to fight with inferior weapons and not too rely on high tech.

So yes, I believe training from the Russians is more suited. Now when Vietnam becomes developed and has lots of high tech military equipment then the US can train how to fight a "rich man's war".

You've been reading too many myths written by the American military/journalists or Western folks who copy and paste sources from the American.

Vietnam should do what is in Vietnam's best self-interest. But Asian countries should not kiss Uncle Sam's white azz for no reason.

If Uncle Sam wants to use Vietnam to contain China, then Uncle Sam better gives some benefits to Vietnam. Never let Americans take without them giving anything back in return.



Anyway, for this Vietnam situation, it is really China -- not the US -- that has the control and will determine the outcome. The ball is in China's court. China has an interest in a stable and strong East Asia, while the US are just interested in keeping East Asia divided and weak so the US will stay on the top. If China can convey that to Vietnam, China will win and the US will lose in this diplomatic battle. So, if China reaches out to woo Vietnam, I doubt Vietnam would side with the US over China. China really has the gross advantage over the US in this situation. We just haven't seen how China will react to the US' latest move.

So what will be China's move? We'll see. Hopefull China will make a smart move.

South Vietnam used to take a lot of things from the U.S, but they didn't give back much any, especially "respect" that the U.S wanted.

We Vietnamese rarely do charity works and we don't do anything that won't benefit ourselves.

An MK cost around $30 million.


Seriously, stop talking out of your arsehole. The way Hollyfu-kingwood movies depict NVA/VC soldiers are wrong.

The viet minh use human wave tactic during some part of the battle of Dien Bien Phu due to the advice of Red Chinese tactical adviser. *FACT.

It was stop after there were too much casualties which anger the surviving soldiers. There were also a threat of mutinies which in turn force General Giap to scrap it.

I've heard Vietnamese veterans from commanders down to common soldiers who fought in that Ira Darang Valley battle were not very "happy" when they saw how the American distorted history like that in a movie.

And that Vietnamese actor too, he also got a lot of heat from the Vietnamese overthere for even taking a role like that.

And Hamburger Hill- the Americans claimed to have killed 600+ NVA soldiers but they didn't find the dead bodies. I feel like stabbing an American in the face right now.


And that stupid tactic was changed after the American bastards came.

Inflating enemy's bodycount was the top priority of the American military to measure success in Vietnam. I've read about fellow American even admit that the U.S military is not very keen with counting bodies in Iraq right now because the American have lost their credibility in regarding to their honesty of counting enemy's casualties.

Do you see how our enemies like to claim that they killed xxxxxxxx of our soldiers in this or that battles and they show all kind of aftermath pictures of the battles to glorify their "victory", but they have never even shown one picture showing just 20% of the bodies that they claim? Kinda like how the Australian claim that they killed like 243 VC at the battle of Long Tan but they have not even shown one picture of just 24 Viet Cong bodies , let alone if they can show the 25th, 26th, 50th, 79th, 155th, 186th,......243th Viet Cong body that they claim

so wht really happned at la drang valley anyways , i mean in terms of wht unfolded? (minus the hollywood junk)

For people who doesnt knoe wht human wave tactic mean, it means attacking in huge numbers i think, like overwhelming forces

Apparently the Aussies are proud of it so let them have their "pride". White people listen to each other so fact does not matter especially from the Viet point of view, but the fact is, those foreign failed in VietNam.


American claimed to have fought 2,000+ Viet soldiers but the actual number was smaller like 400.

They also claim that there were 2000 VCs at that battle

Strange don't you think?

VC Main Force usually operate with one battalion (less then 1,000) and often more successful that way, like the Battle of Ap Bac, Dong Xoai, Go Cong etc. but enemy forces always claim 2,000+.

One Viet Cong battalion numbered at the maximum 300 including combat and support personnels.

^Are you sure? I heard 1,000 was standard or did VC policy change?

Yes, I'm sure. During the Vietnam War, 1 VC battalion had 300 at the maximum and 1 NVA/VC regiment had an average of 625 combat and 625 support personnels for a total of 1250

Ah yes I was wrong, 1,000 is Divisional size

Battle of Binh Gia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Binh_Gia

Indeed, the 3rd VC division at Binh Dinh had on average 1500 troops.

Btw, don't ever trust what American or Westerners write about battles fought between ARVN and NVA/VC. The American always try to badmouth the ARVN and use them as a scapegoat for their failure in Vietnam while every Vietnamese knows that it was the ARVN who did the majority of the fighting and inflicted the majority of the casualties on the NVA/VC. I can understand why the American hate the ARVN so much because of the ARVN's lack of respect for the American while the American was expecting to be treated like a Super Hero when the arrived at Vietnam.

Do you know that during the Vietnam War, the ARVN often pulled the American over the physically slaped them across the face if the American saw an ARVN soldier and did not salute . Not only that, ARVN often shot to dead American GIs in broad daylight whenever a heated argument or fight broke lose. Fire fight between ARVN and American happened like a daily meal. Drunken GIs wandering at night would get "ambushed" by ARVN and got beaten to a pulp. I wonder why the History Channel won't ever talk about these things on their programs

As an American GI with a hero mentality coming to Vietnam, he would never have imagined that he would be b!tch slapped, shot at, and beaten by his own "ally". It's no wonder why the American hate the ARVN more than they hate the VC.

^No wonder, the Americans portrayed the ARVN as "cowards" and "pimps" despite big ARVN victories like the Battle of Quang Tri 1972 and An Dien in 1974. The Americans distorted history too often.

ignorant and arrogant whitemean who reckons they knoe everything
, and reckons that everybody owes them something.

The Vietnamese and American cultures are so different that they would be very difficult for the two to become real "ally". The American think that they do a favor for the South Vietnamese so they think that they are God and everyone has to treat them like a super hero. On the other hand, the Vietnamese has the you-do-me-a-favour-but-it-doesn't-mean-that-you-are-my-Dad mentality

recently Taiwan bought 66 F-16 for $3.1 billion US, or $49 million US for one. Vietnam cannot afford to do this like Taiwan.

Who fu-king cares about F-16?

The Russians are negotiating with VietNam for the delivery of one more battalion of S-300PMU-1 air-defence systems worth $250 million, we can blast F-16 easily with those missiles.

I love the way you talk.

^Thank you!

I think using money on missle defense is better since we are a country that want to defend ourselves mostly, most of the time we are not the aggressor

That's the problem. Why do you think everyone has always been picking a fight with Vietnam in the 20th century? It's because they know we only defend ourselves and won't strike back, so they know there won't be much conquences if they fight war and at most they'll just have to retreat.

Personally, I think Vietnam needs to become more offensive and launch attacks against countries that attack us first.

Like they say the Best defense is a good offense. Destroying an enemy's land is a good way of making others think twice before attacking Vietnam.

Anyone thinks that $4.9 millions USD worth of missles can bring one of those F-16 down?

yeah you are right, but we could always rain our neighbors with sea of missles if they ever try to take an inch of our land

Nah missiles aren't that great. Iraq launched a bunch of them at Israel, it got them nowhere.

If anything, I kinda hoped Vietnam would have started a secret Nuclear arms program, but then again I don't think the government is much of a risk taker.

To clarify, back then I believed every country that Vietnam needed nuclear weapons which would be used as a detterrant against aggression by other countries, which is the same reason why US, Russia,India,China,Britain haven't disarmed completely yet as they they are maintaining their nuclear supply to prevent aggression.

Personally I wish all countries completely disarm.