Was
Vietnam the Beginning of the End?
Ever since Sept 11, 2001 (another day that will live in infamy), persons within the Churches of God have begun to speak out on how God is removing His blessing from all of Israel. These blessings that are spoken about, are the blessings that God promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which were then passed on to Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. We all know that England, Canada, Australia, and the United States of America are nations that are recipients of that promise. At one time, they controlled the gates of their enemies, and they have become as numerous as the stars in the night sky, just to name a few of the rewards of the promise.
Those of us in God’s Church, have had our minds opened to the plan of God, and are
fully aware that these great nations, along with others, will fall, so that God’s name
will be revered throughout the earth. It is prophesied that God will break the power of
Israel due to their lawlessness and return them to captivity. But how can we be absolutely
sure that God is breaking Americas’ military might and financial wealth at this time?
We are to remain awake and aware
God tells us (The Church of God) to remain awake and to be aware of current events, so that when we see events unfold which are spoken of within the pages of the Bible, we will not be caught unawares even as these events take place before our eyes. Though we know that horrors are to come, as happened Sept 11, 2001, many in the greater Church of God are as skittish as a cat with its tail near granny’s rocker.
A friend sent the following comment to me, and I have chosen to incorporate it here because I believe these words add weight to what is being said throughout these pages. "The prophesied events of the "end time" simply have not begun. We are not even into the "time of sorrows" yet. We are in a time when there are wars and rumors of war, etc, but that in no way puts us into the "end time". Also, a war, or act of terror, of and by itself, does not put us into the "time of sorrows", unless the time of sorrows has been going on for 6,000 years. It should be obvious that we have had these conditions for nearly long. Since "sorrows" translated from the Greek means "birth pangs" then the "time of sorrows" must be a more specific period of time, being much less than two or six thousand years. Birth pangs are an extremely short (temporary) period of time. If you need further proof, ask any mother. The "time of sorrows/ birth pangs" of Mat.24 is about a particular period of time that is directly connected to the "end", which would put these birth pains in the "time of the end" as we in the Church of God frequently refer to it."
Jesus told us what to expect
So were the events of Sept 11th anything out of the ordinary according to scripture? Also, was Sept 11th a "wake up call" from God to the Church or to the people of Ephraim and/or Manasseh? To answer these questions, please look closely at Matthew 24:1 thru 51. In this chapter, Jesus was asked by his disciples: "Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming, and the end of the age."
Notice that the disciples are asking Jesus three questions.
1. When will the destruction of the Temple take place?
2. What will be the sign of your (Jesus) coming?
3. When is the end of the (current) age?
Notice that Matthew 24:36 to 39 are scriptures that dispute the Trinity theory. Why? Because they show that Jesus was lacking specific information concerning question three. If Jesus were half God/man he would have known the answer to question three. Jesus simply did not know which day, and which hour had been set aside for His own return. Jesus told the disciples that ‘Only the Father in heaven’ knows the answer to that question. However, Jesus did his level best to answer their questions with the information that he had available to him at the time.
Notice that in Matthew 24:6 Jesus tells the disciples "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars". Then to stop anyone from saying "God is giving Israel a wake up call! Jesus continues by telling them: "But see to it that you are not alarmed". "Such things must happen, but the end is still to come". Imagine what "wake up call" rumors abounded among the disciples in Jerusalem when Roman General Titus marched toward that city in 68 A.D.
Jesus further elaborated by saying: "Nation will rise against nation, and Kingdom against Kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginnings of sorrows (birth pains)". Was Jesus saying that all would be as it always has been from the beginning of man? Notice in Matthew 24:38 "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the Ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away". It seems to me that the unconverted will be eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, making war and peace when the anti-Christ, and the Great Tribulation comes upon then, and they are all swept away?
So can we learn a lesson from what Jesus told His disciples at the time these words
were spoken? Yes we can! The lesson is this: That we in the Church of God are not to jump
to unsubstantiated conclusions at the first sound of a gun fired in anger, or the first
toppling of a sky scraper by a terrorist group, for
the end is not yet!
However, some people in the Church of God are running to and fro saying that they must flee because the end is soon, while totally disregarding scriptures that define the end times. Some select brethren believe that they must flee to the mountains and become a vanguard for those who are yet to follow them to the place of safety. And what words of wisdom are being used to stir these brethren to action? ‘America lost the war in Vietnam, which was a sure sign that God was breaking American military might and power. Look! The fall of the Twin Towers was another sign that God was destroying America’s financial wealth as well’.
Right after Sept 11th, falsified quotes from Nostradamus were running rampant on the Internet, while others were reading into Zephaniah 1:18, things which were never intended. The text often quoted is: "A day of trumpet and alarm against the fortified cities and against the high towers". This scripture was used as proof positive that God’s hand was in the destruction of New York City’s Twin Towers.
As far as I can tell there are four major problems with equating Zephaniah 1:18 to what happened on Sept 11th, and they are:
1. New York is a far cry from a fortified city*.
2. Scriptures speak about "fortified cities", meaning more than one.
3. The Pentagon is not a fortified city**
4.
The Twin towers were centers of trade and commerce, not battering rams, siege
towers, or High place of worship***.
* Fortify: 1. To strengthen and secure a position with fortifications. 2. A military
defensive works that serves to defend, strengthen or fortify.
**For those who want to embellish what happen with the Pentagon, I would like to remind them that the Pentagon is not a city, nor was it fortified. While the Pentagon is secured against unwanted intrusion, it does not meet the criteria of a fortification.
*** While there may be those who would say that these were towers of idolatry because the people inside worshipped the "Almighty Dollar", they are a far cry from the type of tower spoken about in this scripture verse.
Why I wrote this paper and my expertise for doing so
Lets turn our attention to the so-called Vietnam War and let’s try and answer the question as to whether America lost the war, or not.
Before we begin our discussion let me give you a brief resume of my knowledge and experience so that you might understand why I feel qualified to write this paper.
I am a veteran with 21 years of active duty service. I devoted four years to the U.S. Marine Corp, and seventeen to the U.S. Air Force. Most of my exposure to what transpired in Vietnam was while I was serving with the USAF.
One job I did was as a crewmember on B-52’s. Before going to Vietnam, I stood nuclear alert and was prepared to launch with my crew with the sole purpose to make Soviet cities glow in the dark. I was also faced with the reality that if and when we were ever to launch for this specific purpose, that there would not be anyone left alive to return home to. Over the skies of Vietnam, I lived through 108 hours of actual combat.
In addition, I spent a year in Cam Rahn Bay as a member of the 834th Air Division, Airlift Control Element. The 834th was primary responsibility for supplying all of the air bases in Vietnam, troop deployment to various stations, emergency air evacuation, and pick up and delivery of American KIA’s.
Though I did not have any personal encounters with the enemy, I did have to run for cover when we were rocketed. This happened on a frequent, but irregular basis. We also had our bomb dump destroyed by enemy sappers. The resulting explosions lit up the night sky and made the fourth of July look mild in comparison. I even have a few pieces of the shrapnel at home from that night.
I have been stationed in America, Europe and South East Asia. During my tours of duty I have been exposed to bits and pieces of unclassified information that have colored my understanding of what went on during the years that America was engaged in Vietnam.
Like the Bible states ‘here a little, There a little’. Well the same goes for information about any particular subject. All one has to do is stop, look, listen, and learn. Then put the bits of fragmented information together, and viola the puzzle is completed! Therefore this paper, along with my unorthodox approach to what transpired over the 10 years that America was in Vietnam.
Those of you who were avid readers of the worlds Newspapers and magazines, likely have come to the conclusion that America left Vietnam with its tail between its legs, thoroughly beaten by a small guerrilla army supported by North Vietnamese regulars. What the world press did not report is what really happened in Vietnam. Why? Because it wasn’t sensational, and it wouldn’t sell newspapers, and for the most part, they to, were not aware of what was truly taking place. As in Romans 1:22 "Claiming to be wise, they became fools"
A Couple of Questions for you
1) During the ten years that America was involved in Vietnam, if America had committed her full military might to the pursuance of that war, in which year would she not have won?
If your answer was that America would have won during the year that she committed her full military might to that war, then you would be very close to reality. If on the other hand, you believe that America could not have won because God was doing so and so, then you are in for a shock.
2) Of all that was going on in the late 60’s and 70’s, which nation or nations was the most serious threat to world peace?
Did you answer Vietnam or China? Sorry! However, if you said the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), then you go to the head of the class.
Aside from the Red Chinese, the Soviets were America’s greatest enemy. America had spent billions of dollars keeping ahead of the Soviet in industrial, technological, and military might. For all of you Anti-Military Industrial Complex people out there, here is a sad bit of news for you. America was spending 5% of her Gross National Product to protect you, while in contrast; the Soviet was spending 25% of its GNP to try and keep militarily ahead of the west.
Hegemony and why America did what it did
Have you ever heard the word ‘HE-GEM-O-NY’? It means: The predominant influence of one state over the other.
Example: Say you are a nation bent on destroying another, and then hegemony is what you need to bring the other nation to its knees. However, if you just want to peacefully coexist, then hegemony is the leverage needed to ward off any aggressor nation or at least keep it at bay.
What does hegemony have to do with the war in Vietnam? Almost everything
Remember that America, as part of NATO, was engaged in a "Cold war" against Moscow, Beijing, and the entire Communist want-a-be gang, like Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, etc. Remember Nikita Khrushchev pounding his shoe on a table, declaring, "We (Communism) will bury you economically"? So Americans were all engaged in a "Cold war" whether they liked it or not. A ‘cold war’ that could go ‘hot’ at any moment. Because the West was engaged in this cold war, Vietnam was to play a key role in America getting hegemony over the Soviet Union. This hegemony would eventually lead to the Soviet Union going into Afghanistan to reverse that which America gained in Vietnam.
As Paul Harvey says: ‘Now the rest of the story’
World hegemony is divided into three major areas of concern: 1) Industrial, 2) Political, and 3) Military.
If you were to historically compare the Soviet ability to meet the challenge of the three categories listed above, as opposed to American capability, then you will find out that the Soviets were never able to meet the challenge. Unlike the West, the Soviets were seriously lacking in their ability to provide the average Soviet citizen with the same creature comforts that were enjoyed in the "West". The reason for this was that the Soviet Union spent 1/4th of their Rubles on the military, with very little left to spend on its citizenry. Yet the West continued to maintain a superior military at 1/5th the cost, while giving its citizens all the advantages that technology would provide.
Due to the Soviet (Russian) paranoia that the West was determined to conquer Russia, Joseph Stalin began gobbling up buffer states during WWII, such as Hungry, Poland, etc, for the purpose of preventing an enemy from invading Russia. To do so, they would have to go through these buffer states first. Which would expend men and munitions, thereby weakening the enemy and giving the Russian military the advantage of coming against a decimated enemy.
There was also the idea that Russia was to spread communism around the world, and the West (capitalism) was an avowed enemy to world communism. So the United States and its allies were engaged in a war against communism. Regardless of what you wanted to call it "Cold or Hot," war is war, and the ends and means are the same! The conflict that raged over Vietnam was no comparison to the seriousness of the Soviet threat.
American involvement in Vietnam
You can refer to any encyclopedia and read about how America became involved with this country and it’s conflicts. At the beginning of American entanglement in Vietnam, Both President’s Eisenhower and Kennedy want a "Limited involvement". However, under President’s Johnson and Nixon, Vietnam was to play an important role in gaining the advantage over the USSR.
So lets get to the reason for the Vietnam conflict as Johnson and Nixon saw it, and how it affected world hegemony.
Understand that hegemony is occurring even as you are reading this paper. It is the interaction between nations that exists continually. The recent destruction of the Twin Towers was an attempt by Usama Bin Ladin and others to change the course of hegemony between Arab nations, the United States of America, and the present nation of Israel.
As I said before, one of the aspects of hegemony is military might. And when I speak about military might, I am not referring only to weapons of mass destruction, or about those people who voluntarily enlisted in the Armed Services, but of all the citizens of a particular country who are combat trained or available to be combat trained. Usually men have been between the ages of 18 to 50.
Note: Many European nations have counted woman in this tally, however historically, America has not.
Understand that in the parlance of nations being "Combat trained" is not referring to that military training that a recruit gets when they go to ‘Boot Camp’. Usually, when professionals say that someone is "Combat trained" they mean those who actually have had the experience of having someone shooting at you and trying to take your life. Combat training is surviving an actual combat experience. How does this ‘training’ differ from the normal ‘non-lethal’ training that one receives as a soldier? The answer is that while you can simulate death, nothing is as graphic, or that leaves the life long scars upon a person, as seeing someone getting ripped to pieces by a machine gun, or watching pieces of what was once a human being rise in the air as they disintegrate from the impact of a 500 pound bomb.
By 1963, all those who had fought in WWII, were at least 40+ years of age or better and had already fought in two major conflicts, that being WWII and Korea. By the time of the death of John F. Kennedy, most of the children born after WWII were at lest 20 years of age and were not combat trained.
While it is difficult to pin what happen in Vietnam on Lynden B. Johnson, anyone learning of the stumbling blocks this man put in the way of a military victory, would have to come to the conclusion that either he was totally inept as Commander in chief, or there was another reason for his delaying tactics and his constant involvement in areas where he had no expertise.
President Nixon was to inherit what had already been put into place by LBJ, and was forced to continue the ruse, or else, so he did!
Delay of the war
As I asked earlier, if the United States had applied all of its military might toward the war in Vietnam, would the war have been over within that year? The answer is Yes! Strategic bombing of the dikes that surround Hanoi would have put Hanoi and most of North Vietnam under water. Had the United States applied its full military and political might to ending this war, that end would have been sooner, rather than later. However, as stated above, the Johnson administration had other ideas.
Let me inform you about some of the administrative obstacles that Washington put in the way of American forces trying to fight and end this war.
· Troops in the field, at first, were hindered from making direct contact with the Vietnamese insurgents. Hindered, because they were ordered Not To Shoot unless they could actually identify the one(s) shooting at them.
· All engagements were to be coordinated through Saigon, and then on to Washington. Considering the fluidity of a battlefield and having to call for permission to engage the enemy. This delayed the successful outcome of many battles and cost the lives of many American soldiers.
· Airmen in aerial combat, whether Naval or Air Forces, were to disengage attacking their target if that target broke engagement and turned toward their home airfield. Once they dropped their landing gear and headed toward their recovery airfield they were considered non-hostile. Not even during WWII and Korea had such stupidity come out of Washington.
· To make matters worse, Air Force and Naval pilots were restricted from bombing or strafing enemy airfields unless specifically tasked to do so. The order to do so, if ever, had to come from the President himself.
· Hanoi, the enemy capital, as well as the major seaport of Haiphong, were off limits to aerial attack until late 1970. As I said earlier, if the dikes surrounding Hanoi were bombed, Hanoi would be under water that very day. i.e. end of war, end of story.
All of these hindrances by Washington were disguised as wanting to show the North Vietnamese that the United States only wanted to end the war and let the North live in peace, provided the North was willing to accept the government of the South. This was pure hyperbole on the part of the United States Government. What Washington had in mind was delaying the war for as long as it took to get as many of its younger citizens trained in combat.
Then why the Draft?
According to Washington, the draft was instituted because the United States needed additional men to fight in Vietnam while continuing to keep our military commitments to NATO, or so that was the official party line! The real reason for the draft was to get those untrained Americans boys away from their college dorms and into a Vietnam rice paddy for the purpose of learning combat skills.
To cover up this ulterior motive and to show that America really had a resolve to win, various and sundry campaigns such as Hunter/Killer, and Line Backer were designed to show the ‘Folks back home’ that America was making progress toward ending the war after all these years.
So you may ask, where is my proof to these accusations? I would ask you to really consider this: If the United States had actually lost this war, and had to leave Vietnam in disgrace, why then, did the Soviet do exactly the same thing in Afghanistan in 1986? Why? Because the USSR realized that the United States now had a potent weapon to be used against any possible Soviet aggression. This weapon was a combat trained citizenry.
Lets say that the Soviets were to attack NATO and move into West Germany! Then the US could field a military force, which had true combat experience. Even though the Soviet could field a massive numbers of troops, tanks, and aircraft, very few of these troops would have had the combat experience that their opponents from the West would have. In the world of hegemony, the outcome of the war would eventually go to the winner with the Red, White, and Blue trunks.
Did God break America’s military might in Vietnam?
American didn’t lose Vietnam, because Vietnam wasn’t a war to be won. Why! Because the rules had change when you weren’t looking! Some time over night, Vietnam became a prolonged live fire exercise, with the intent to train American males for combat. In addition, as an extra bonus, Vietnam proved to be an excellent weapons proving ground.
Consider that during the 10 years of the Vietnam conflict, America developed or improved tactics and weapons systems.
· The M-1, and M-14 rifle were useless in the jungle, which then brought in the AR-15 rifle using the NATO 7.62 tumbling round.
· The F-111 Aardvark, the aircraft that brought Libyan, Omar Kadafi to his knees, cut its teeth there.
· We proved the flak jacket, which gave rise to the Kevlar vest and helmet.
· Carpet bombing, as the press likes to call it, was also developed there.
· So was the Wild Weasel, that is, aircraft designed to destroy enemy radar installations as soon as they transmit?
· Combat tactics that were developed in WWII, where thrown out, and new doctrine was developed. That doctrine was used very successfully in Operation Desert Storm.
· Field surgery was enhanced, and the moving of the dead and wounded immediately from the battlefield became a totally new concept thanks to the helicopter.
· 1000-pound bomb explosions were used to create helicopter landing zones out of a dense jungle, which allowed for instant troop insertion.
· Combat Logistics were also improved.
· The C-5A/B, which was designed to move large vehicles, tanks, and supplies from the American continental to the combat zone in one day, made its entrance in Vietnam.
So if you want to believe the hue and cry of those who say that America lost in Vietnam, by all means, go and do so! However! You are now more information about that war then you ever learned from ‘News at 5’and all the other daily rags.
In Conclusion
Wouldn’t it be just a tad bit silly for God to take away American military might over Vietnam, while at the same time allowing America to defeat the Soviet Union, our greatest enemy ever? To me, to believe otherwise, is a contradiction of what we know about Our God?
There is a book written by Malachi Martin called the "Keys of this Blood". It discusses in detail, the actions between President Ronald Ragan, John Paul II, and Mikhail Gobachev and their attempts to come to an agreement to end the cold war. Mr. Martin makes it clear that the advent of the B-2 stealth Boomer, at $24 billion dollar’s per copy, with its ability to penetrate Soviet radar systems undetected, was the straw that broke the Soviet back. He also mentions that the Soviet Union was near bankruptcy in its attempt to keep up with American industrial and military might.
Communism had failed to bury us. Instead, the West, especially with American technological advancements, had buried it. And Vietnam had played its part in this death. How bad was the fall of the Soviet Union? When the Soviet Union fell, its troops had not been paid in ages. They had to sell their clothing and equipment to pay for their trip back to mother Russia.
So again, I ask you, why would God take away our military power in Vietnam while allowing our military technical prowess to defeat the Soviet Union? Does this make sense, knowing what we do of how God operates?
I know that Herbert W. Armstrong taught many of you that America would not win another war. Yet even Mr. Armstrong was not aware of the chess game that was taking place in the highest offices in Washington D.C and the Kremlin. You could say that Mr. Armstrong saw ‘through a glass darkly’.
While I know that God has a plan and is working his plan, it is my feeling that what we have experienced in Vietnam, the cold war, and the destruction of the Twin Towers, has very little to do with God breaking the military might and wealth of Israel, and a lot to do with ‘wars and rumors of wars’. If you want to understand how God will take away the power of Israel at the time of the end, I would suggest studying about how Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians.
While we are discussing what God may or may not have done to Israel over Vietnam, shouldn’t all of us be very careful when we say that God is doing so and so? What if he is, when you say he isn’t, or isn’t, when you say he is. Then we might be guilty of violating the 9th commandment by bring a false accusation against God. I don’t know about you, but I certainly would not want to fall into the hands of an angry God!
To answer the question that began this paper: It is my experience that the answer is a resounding no! Vietnam was not the beginning of the end. While the end may be soon, Vietnam was another war, among the many, that man has experienced since Cain slew Abel.
One last question: When has God ever used a murderer to bring a ‘wake up’ message, or any message of repentance, to Israel?