By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite elevating relations to the highest diplomatic level with the United States, Vietnam’s military, according to an internal document, has been preparing for a potential “war of aggression” and views the U.S. as a “belligerent” power. This internal document, completed in August 2024, reveals a deep-seated fear of external forces instigating a “color revolution” against the Communist leadership. While acknowledging little immediate risk of war, Vietnamese planners expressed a need for vigilance against U.S. allies creating a pretext for invasion. This duality highlights Vietnam’s complex foreign policy, balancing diplomatic outreach with significant internal anxieties about American motives and intentions.
Read the original article here
The revelation of an internal Vietnamese military document suggesting preparations for a potential war with the United States has naturally sparked considerable discussion and, frankly, some confusion. It’s important to approach this news with a clear understanding of how militaries operate on a global scale. The core of this matter, as gleaned from various perspectives, is that preparing for all kinds of conflict is a constant and fundamental duty for any armed forces. This isn’t a unique or alarming practice; it’s standard operating procedure.
The assertion that Vietnam’s military has historically been tasked with preparing for potential conflict with either China or the USA is a perspective that has been part of military education for some time. This suggests a long-standing strategic outlook, acknowledging major regional powers as potential adversaries. In a world where even seemingly stable relationships can shift dramatically, and where public pronouncements can be quite assertive, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that any nation would be prudent to consider all possibilities, including those involving powerful, unpredictable actors.
The very existence of such a document, particularly one that is supposedly secret, raises questions about how it came to light. For those who live within Vietnam, the sudden emergence of this information in international news can be surprising, especially when the everyday discourse focuses on matters like trade wars rather than impending military confrontation. This disparity in perceived focus can lead to skepticism about the depth and accuracy of the reporting.
It’s worth noting that the understanding and internal workings of Vietnam’s administrative and document systems are complex. From this vantage point, the reporting might be seen as lacking a nuanced comprehension of how such documents are generated and classified. The timing of this particular leak, coinciding with the 96th anniversary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, is certainly noteworthy, and some might interpret it as having a strategic messaging component, rather than simply being an exposé of military planning.
The document itself, as analyzed by some, offers a “clear-eyed insight” into Vietnam’s foreign policy. It suggests a perception of the United States not as a cooperative partner, but as an “existential threat.” This perspective indicates that Vietnam may not be inclined to join any anti-China alliances spearheaded by the US, implying a different strategic calculus driven by its own national interests and historical experiences.
However, the idea that this represents a new or shocking development is debatable. Modern militaries are expected to engage in extensive war-gaming and scenario planning against a wide array of potential adversaries, including superpowers. It would be more surprising if Vietnam *didn’t* have plans for such eventualities, especially given its history. This is akin to a country that has faced invasion in the past continuing to plan for potential future conflicts with the same adversary.
The specific document, titled “The 2nd U.S. Invasion Plan” and reportedly completed in August 2024, might seem specific, but it falls within the realm of normal military preparedness. Many nations, including the United States itself, maintain contingency plans for various scenarios, including hypothetical invasions of neighboring countries. Therefore, the “newsworthy” aspect might be more about the framing and perceived implications rather than the act of planning itself.
Vietnam’s diplomatic approach is often characterized by its pragmatism and its ability to maintain security agreements with a diverse range of global powers, including the US, UK, France, China, Russia, and North Korea. This “pragmatic diplomacy” suggests a sophisticated understanding of international relations. The “leak” of this document could, therefore, be interpreted as a subtle way of communicating a message to various partners without directly alienating any of them, a hallmark of their diplomatic style.
The current political climate, particularly concerning leaders with a more unpredictable foreign policy, naturally heightens concerns. When leaders of major global powers exhibit what is perceived as belligerent behavior, it necessitates increased vigilance and preparedness from other nations. This heightened sense of caution is not exclusive to Vietnam; it’s a rational response to an unstable global environment.
The language used in the document, emphasizing vigilance to prevent the US and its allies from “creating a pretext” for invasion, highlights a defensive posture. It’s crucial to distinguish between a plan to *defend* against aggression and a plan to *initiate* an attack. The former is a standard defensive measure, while the latter would be a significantly different and more alarming development.
The notion that this document is about preparing for a possible war with the US is not inherently alarming when viewed through the lens of standard military practice. All well-run militaries conduct such exercises. It’s not a plan to attack; it’s a contingency to defend against perceived potential aggression. The act of children playing “what if” scenarios can be seen as a rudimentary form of this kind of planning, albeit on a much smaller scale.
Some argue that in the current geopolitical climate, with a leader known for unpredictable actions, it’s sensible for all countries to be preparing for a range of possibilities, including potential US aggression. This isn’t necessarily about a specific invasion plan but a broader strategic adjustment to a perceived shift in US foreign policy.
Ultimately, the existence of a document detailing war preparations against a potential adversary, even one as significant as the United States, is a reflection of the complex and often tense realities of international relations. It speaks to the fundamental role of militaries in ensuring national security and to the ongoing need for strategic foresight in an ever-changing global landscape. It is essential to discern between routine strategic planning and genuine intent, a distinction that might be blurred by sensationalized reporting and political rhetoric.