Us Victory in Vietnam?

Whatever their nominal allegiance, the majority of Vietnamese seem to have been better understood as Confucian - which pretty well means essentially secular. Googling on 'fitzgerald vietnam confucian' produces lots of references.

A few reasons why America could not win, no full support from the South Vietnamese, Soviet Union support, Chinese support, and the decreasing popularity of the war. All lead to the the withdrawal of America not to mention we could not win in 4 years which really upsets the public.

Originally posted by Kevin Originally posted by WolfHound85 A few reasons why America could not win, no full support from the South Vietnamese, Soviet Union support, Chinese support, and the decreasing popularity of the war. All lead to the the withdrawal of America not to mention we could not win in 4 years which really upsets the public.   All of this combined with other factors in how the war was waged shows us the Vietnam War was fought in everyway in how not to wage a counter-insurgency.

There seems to be some view that these Cold War conflicts, including Viet Nam, and all the rest that involved evolving strategic thinking, were like football games - wins, losses, draws.  In reality, there were substantial changes in strategic thinking on the part of the US, and on the part of the USSR from, say, 1965 to 1975.

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 06-May-2009 at 15:25

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 There seems to be some view that these Cold War conflicts, including Viet Nam, and all the rest that involved evolving strategic thinking, were like football games - wins, losses, draws.  In reality, there were substantial changes in strategic thinking on the part of the US, and on the part of the USSR from, say, 1965 to 1975.   By 1973, the Middle East, because of a perceived problem with access to oil, was far more a concern to the West and to the US than ideological warfare in Indochina.  There was also a problem of confidence that included a presidency in crisis (Nixon's disgrace; Ford's perceived ineptness and Carter's total incompetence) in addition to the conceptual weakness of the US as a power after Viet Nam.  The USSR, rather than moderating anything, embarked on a very aggressive stance to take advantage of the US poor view of itself after 1975.   "Losing" Indochina turned out to mean nothing at all as the most important lines of commerce run not through the South China Sea but mostly to the west over the Indian Ocean.  Future conflicts in the South China Sea will involve China in the scramble for natural resources in that geography.  It won't involve the US very much.

what I think Duke C meant and what i posted on the end of my post was, the war was never meant to be one just substained. The goal as stated was not to liberate a people, but to use them and their theatre for a shield to stop the spread of Communism, especially after Diem was killed. If, like we said , the goal was not to help whole heartedly the Vietnamese people and unite the North and the South, the goal must be, the hedging of the soviet influence. That would not "appease" the Soviets, it just allowed America to put enough into the war to keep the Soviets abay. That's why, like we all mentioned, is why when the conflicts are done America is on it's next agenda.... that's why I wrote about Afghanistan, if the goal was peace and democracy, a country would have to help rebuild, insure a clean gov't..etc.. One reason for ww2 was because after the first world war Germany held the goal of fixing all the economic/political issues after the war. That led to the hyperinflation of Weimar. Botton line, the argument on who won the war is questionable. But if the goal was to shield the Soviets and their advancement on a pacific port country, we succeeded, if the goal was to help the Vietnamese, then we failed. Could we win if we had wars at all angles? Another good question is, if we faught only to substain, then we must of really underestimated the force of guerilla warfare, to have it drawn out for the length it did. Was our fate no different than the French's? Even with the Soviets aiding the VietCong and other communist/socialist loyalist, it's still a debatable question! Good post fellas!!!

Originally posted by Temujin so if i understood you right, you're actually arguing the US participated in a war with the ultimate goal of losing it? to appease the Soviets?

Edited by DukeC - 07-May-2009 at 17:31

Originally posted by pikeshot1600   The promotion of "good government" and of social justice were concepts that general staffs would have laughed at over their bourbon or their vodka.

Originally posted by truth of the matter what I think Duke C meant and what i posted on the end of my post was, the war was never meant to be one just substained. The goal as stated was not to liberate a people, but to use them and their theatre for a shield to stop the spread of Communism, especially after Diem was killed. If, like we said , the goal was not to help whole heartedly the Vietnamese people and unite the North and the South, the goal must be, the hedging of the soviet influence. That would not "appease" the Soviets, it just allowed America to put enough into the war to keep the Soviets abay. That's why, like we all mentioned, is why when the conflicts are done America is on it's next agenda.... that's why I wrote about Afghanistan, if the goal was peace and democracy, a country would have to help rebuild, insure a clean gov't..etc.. One reason for ww2 was because after the first world war Germany held the goal of fixing all the economic/political issues after the war. That led to the hyperinflation of Weimar. Botton line, the argument on who won the war is questionable. But if the goal was to shield the Soviets and their advancement on a pacific port country, we succeeded, if the goal was to help the Vietnamese, then we failed. Could we win if we had wars at all angles? Another good question is, if we faught only to substain, then we must of really underestimated the force of guerilla warfare, to have it drawn out for the length it did. Was our fate no different than the French's? Even with the Soviets aiding the VietCong and other communist/socialist loyalist, it's still a debatable question! Good post fellas!!!

Originally posted by DukeC   No, I'm saying it was part of the overall U.S. strategy to contain the growth of communism. And the U.S. wasn't trying to appease the Soviets, it was trying to display the willingness to oppose them without taking the conflict to the ultimate and mutually suicidal level as just about happened a few years previously. Both sides were walking the nuclear tightrope and seeking to defeat the other at the same time.   The Cold War was an insane conflict in some ways and produced the kind of war that Vietnam became.   I guess in another sense you can look at Vietnam as having no clear winners. The US lost direct control in Southeast Asia but the Vietnamese were left with a shattered country and there wasn't much chance of communist expansion much further in the region. Relations soon broke down with China and as Pikeshot describes the U.S. moved on to the more strategically important Gulf region.    And we all know how well that's turned out.

now hold on sec. before American involvement, there was only North Vietnam that was Communist. as a direct result of the war, Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam became Communist. isn't that failure on the highest level? i mean how was Communism in SE Asia contained other than by natural borders?

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Duke,   It has turned out well.  There is access to the oil and there are US forces established in the region now that are unlikely to leave soon (regardless of the rhetoric).  This is good? Yes, of course it has been expensive, To the extent that the US is bankrupting itself (though that's not the only cause). The current economic recession in the US is the only one I can think of which happened/is happening while a sizeable war is being fought. The result is that the people trying to get the US out of its mess are handicapped even more by the huge wartime deficits.  but the costs of not doing what has been done would be catastrophic in 10-20 years. The cost of doing what has been done include pretty well guaranteeing losing any influence in the middle east, exacerbating economic collapse and alienating most formerly dependable allies. How is that not catastrophic?

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 07-May-2009 at 20:59