Why did the USA lose the Vietnam War?

coincidentally, I'm also doing a project about the same thing! I haven't
researched it yet, but if I find a good site, I'll be sure to post it here!

The Vietnam War of the 60s and 70s was only the continuation of a much older struggle for the indepence of Vietnam. About the very beginnings of the wars see    here

The second Vietnam war starting in the early 60s was one the many substitute wars of the Cold War, where the US and the SU fought out their political differences in, what was then called, the 3rd World.
As AA said above the US became involved as it quite rightly feared that all the other states in the region would adopt Communist regimes, something that eventually happened in Cambodia and Laos.

There are two main reasons the US were defeated or had to pull out, although militarily far superior they had no chance to defeat either the Vietcong or the North Vietnamese Army in the jungles of Vietnam, the Communist forces relied heavily on guerilla warfare to which the Americans had no answer. Another factor was that at the end almost the entire South Vietnamese population supported the Vietcong guerillas, and the US could not defeat a whole people.
The other reason for the American defeat was the internal and international pressure against US intervention in Vietnam, or the way the US conducted the war. There was huge protest all over the US and the rest of the world against the US bombardement of North Vietnemese and Cambodian cities, against the employment of Napalm or the use of chemical weapons (Agent Orange) in the jungles of Vietnam.
By the mid seventies it had become obvious that the US could not win the war militarily, and had already lost the propaganda war. So they pulled out of Vietnam on April 30, 1975 when Saigon was liberated by the Vietcong.


For more info look here

Edited by Komnenos

I think the USA (nor France before them) had no chances of winning Vietnam. You can't defeat a willing nation in their own territory unless you are ready to exterminate them 100% (what would have unpredictable consequences anyhow).

The people of Vietnam was willing to gain their freedom, what could the USA do to counter it? Nothing.

But, in a sense, the USA won Vietnam: it left the country so deeply destroyed that it was bound to poverty and underdevelopement, being therefore not an attractive example for its neighbours to follow, nor a viable economic power to challenge US regional hegemony.

Originally posted by Maju I think the USA (nor France before them) had no chances of winning Vietnam. You can't defeat a willing nation in their own territory unless you are ready to exterminate them 100% (what would have unpredictable consequences anyhow). The people of Vietnam was willing to gain their freedom, what could the USA do to counter it? Nothing.

I agree with this statement. But also, US troops are not famous for being good fighters on foreign terrain... and when it is jungle !!! The local population was like a fish in the water (building tunnels and other means to move without being seen) while many "boys" were not used to this terrain. 

The second thing is that the US could have blasted the Vietnamese - they had the shotpower to do so (atomic) but the consequences would have been terrible as this could lead to NUKE show-down between the two blocs.

Cheers and good luck with your report.

There is another twist to this on the military side.

The US military were fully aware of the reasons they couldn't fight the war as it was going but they knew that if they could get the NVA to start the final conventional push (which they knew would include putting Vietkong into uniforms and attacking the cities) they could inflict sufficient casualties on them to stop the offensive ang give a military 'win' that would allow a reasonably dignified political exit.

They actually suceeded and were inflicting massive casualties but they hadn't expected, or allowed for, the immediate and very damaging press coverage.  The political situation then collapsed before they could gain the military 'win'.

For your eassy, you should start at the peace settlements made at the end of WW2 (at which piint the British were controlling all Vietnam, using rearmed Japanese POWs as police!). The North was given back to France who proceeded to try to run the colony in pre war style, the South was given over to a 'democratic' goverment which lurched rapidly into a right wing state.  Then you can focus on the CIA 'anti communist' involvement, black ops, military advisors, and the slow sucking of the US into a full scale war without proper military preparation and planning.  All factors in the eventuall defeat.

It's a very big topic though..
for references I'd actually suggest going to the library and getting a couple of books rather than sifting through internet sites that may, or may not, be strongly biased.

Originally posted by deniztc1983 and lets dont bs each other ..  U.S. didnt sent his best people there ... p.s. if you watch forest gump you know what im taling about

This is true, the US did not send their best troops, as always (and this is not a criticism it's a fact) the poorest and uneducated are always the first one to be sent to the front. The problem with the demonstations on US Universities' campuses really started when the US army started to enroll America's Elite children. John Kerry is a pure product of this.

I bet there is no Hampton House owner whose son was in Vietnam or is in Iraq right now.

Cheers.

Follow the link, I gave. Explain who HochiMinh was, who the Vietcong was, how Vietnam got divided in the mid 50s, and how in the beginning of the 60s, slowly but surely the war started, first the US only send advisors, the more and more and troops and at the end of the 60s the whole country was in flames.

Originally posted by Illuminati the US had the ability to invade and defeat the North. They would have had to deploy more troops to do it, but the numbers were there. However, public support was not with the Vietnam War. America defeated itself.

This is a wrong analysis: invading or not invading Northern Vietnam was trivial, as the guerrilla was everywhere... there's nothing to invade when you're fighting against a guerrilla.

Also the USA somehow "won" the war: it had to retreat but it left Vietnam so deeply detroyed that even today it hasn't recovered. This prevented that Vietnam could grow as a model for neigbour nations.

The domestic protests were just an aspect. Important, yes, as imperialist powers found themselves unable to persuade its own populations of the need of imperialism, at least when so costly. But I think that war-wise, it is the least relevant item.