Us Victory in Vietnam?

go to post options and a drop-down menu will unfold, there youc an edit your post.

Originally posted by DukeC Call it a draw.   The Vietnam War wasn't really about holding territory for the Americans, it was about demonstrating to the Soviets Americas' willingness to defend itself. During the Cuban missile crisis a few years before the two super-powers came very close to all out warfare and under the MAD doctrine that would have meant near total destruction. Nuclear armed Soviet subs would have fired on US naval vessels manning the Quarantine if they had been attacked while trying to escort merchant vessels carrying Soviet military equipment which almost occured.   The tensions between the two powers persisted after the showdown and had to have some outlet and the Vietnamese conflict presented itself to both sides. Men like Curtis Lemay on the US side and his contemporaries in the Soviet military didn't get to launch their massive attacks, just millions of Vietnamese and thousands of US and allied troops died. The Vietnamese did eventually get their country back and WW III didn't happen.    A draw.

Korean War was a draw, Vietnam was by all standards applicaple a defeat, Republic of Vietnam was taken by the Communist North Vietnamese and the US lost an ally in SE Asia while even Cambodia and Laos became Communist.

I was going to say the same, gcle2003, our vietnam was the soviets afghanistan. I think that alot of people do not consider these wars as a "proxy war", faught during a bigger, broader war, Communism. You had the soviets working their cause against the vietnamese, and you had america working the muhajideen in afghanistan. You can tell that these countries were stepping stones, or pawns if you will, because after the fighting in afghanistan america left without rebuilding, or supporting the counry. The same can be said of vietnam. I always laugh when people ask and talk about afghanistan and their demise for the u.s. It's because we used them as a shield against the soviets and then left them where they lay after the threat was gone. It's called blowback. Why do you think Iran hates us? It has to do with the over throw of Mossadeq in 1953, and the instillment of the Sha of Iran untill the revolution of 1979, with Ayatollah Khomeini.

Dominating the battle doesnt mean you won the war. Its a myth to think the USA was defeated at home, when they couldnt hold ground in the jungle or win hearts of the people they were suppose to defend.

Well, just lets people who think USA win in the Vietnam keep the believe. Such Patriotism is healthy. But just don't brought this patriotism to the people from other countries. Because the worldwide view is a bit different than the US People.

But, please just keep your believe. Because it is healthy and necessary for US people in order to keep patriotic and proud.

People, People, People! I thought this was a forum of intellect, and an open-minded base to share ideas, and thoughts in a civil manner. I know some people, who may not be versed in subjects, post replys, but don't bicker about it. Anyway the truth of the matter( plug, plug) is that you can't just look at the "casualties" as the underlying factor in claiming victory. Realize we, even Kennedy and LBJ, knew this war could and would be an uphill battle. We were not ready for their style of guerrilla warfare, even if we thought it could be done with our superior warfare technology and deep pockets. The war, if was so easily won by the U.S. would not of lasted as long, obviously the Vietcong and Communism were still a threat. Remember in Afghanistan in the 80's when Russia was fighting Afghanistan, the U.S. trained infadels to combat Russia from taking a Communist hold on the country. Hmmm... where did America get that idea from? Russia! They supported the Communist and Socialist forces of Vietnam. As far as the fact that the American people were not whole-heartedly in this war, especially as it draws out. Look at Iraq today as comparison. Remember that when a country has not the military or financial aid to fight a superpower, they must use unconventional ways. The Communist and Vietnam supporters loved when footage of America looking bad in Vietnam, hit's the press and media, it's a way of turning the American people against the war, the American people could end it before a victory could be had.I liken it to Saddam in the late 90's and early 2000-2001, he and the country of Iraq, after the Kuwait war was under sanctions by the U.S., Being a poor country, (they had oil but they couldn't sell it on the markets much, untill the oil for aid scheme) had to use unconventional way to hurt the U.S., and that's when he decided to sell his countrie's oil in euros, or other currencies other than the petrodollar. Remember oil is sold in U.S. dollars, for Saddam it's one way to start economic unstableness. It's funny how we went to war against Iraq and Saddam a short time after. Remember the U.N. found no WMD'S ( even if they were moved to Syria or where ever) and was still against U.N. charter. I digress... anyway people just realize that we all see things different but be positive and share information openly. There are always more underlying factors in war,politics, religion, etc.. I think we can't just read what we learn by mainstream education, we must dig deeper, the people who made these problems, wrote the mainstream books, you think they will shine light upon their faults? I don't!

Originally posted by Leonidas the myth is that we coulda - shoulda won the war. unless you were going to nuke the country to dust you could not win the war by conventional means. If you cannot win the population over or secure the countryside its will be a lost war. It was already lost- before the protestors made the difference.

This may sound a little cheesy, but the way i see it, the US had the ability to have won the war by conventional means, but only at the significant price of selling it's soul?

As for the protesters and the mood of the country, it caused LBJ too retire much earlier than anyone expected and caused Nixon too develop a rarity not often seen in US Presidents... Paranoia.

LBJ didn't retire, he never had a chance. America dropped a crook and picked up another...... NIXON!! "I am not a crook" ... lying douche! LBJ had Kennedy killed and hid it in a sloppy commission.. the Warren Comm. Stupid ass LBJ! In 5 years he took American involvement in Vietnam from 15,000 to 500,000, and they still couldn't do it. Russia should of beat the Afghans, yet with the U.S. help and their guerilla style of fighting they couldn't. The same with the U.S. and Vietnam. Even if we killed 100 million Vietnamese, and in casualties, we claimed victory, if the right people are not in place to insure U.S. interest in Vietnam, then you still have an occupied country. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, if you kill 50,000 or whether it's 500,000, it doesn't matter. If the same government is established again, you have worked in vain. It's not the numbers, it's the change in establishment that will benefeit America that is crucial to our war agenda. Look at all the coup d'etat attempts. If we can come into a country and overthrow a government, and not kill a soul, than good, but if not then it's war. In 53' we overthrew Mossadeq, in 54' it was Jacobo Arbenz, the C.I.A. will try a coup, if it fails then they will enter with a real or mock cause for invasion. Search the Northwoods Document.

Originally posted by Panther Sure, i am always interested in hearing a new view.

the US was always on the strategic defensive and giving the North Vietnamese/VC total freedom of movement was already the first nail in the coffin, wars are simply not to be won this way. the US established several SF camps all over the place, many of which were simply overrun by the NVA/VC, sometimes with the help of tanks or artillery. despite the disadvantages of the terrain they were still able to move around field pieces without the US even taking notice. the US dropped a considerable number of bombs on North Vietnam, much more than on Germany in ww2. the results of which are clsoe to zero, Vietnemse industry was basiclaly non-existent and infrastructure was not really a factor here given the Ho-Chih-Minh trail. the US emerged from ww2 as a winnign power that didn't knew how they won. strategic bombing of Germany prooved fruitless and the surrender of Japan coudl also argued differently. it was critizised that the German Air-force focused too much on CAS instead of strategic bombing and cite the battle of London as an example. this is a big failure in analysis. CAS was a vital element of "Blitzkrieg" and even if Germany have had strategic bombers with enough range it wouldn't have changed the BoB in any way as Germany late in the war bombed Britian with V-1 and V-2 to no avail. with that background in mind, it is obvious that the US completely wasted their potential in air superiority for nothing. Northern Vietnam was the area of the world with the highest density of AA batteries and every downed US aircraft was a sucess for Notehrn Vietnam while ani bombardement of North Vietnam was utterly pointless. indeed after Vietnam the US airforce shifted its doctrine towards tactical bambardment and CAS as seen in the more recent years.

some battles are attributed as US victories while they are not, maybe most famously Khe Sanh. the SF camp Lang Vei in its vicinity was sucessfully overrun, Khe Sanh base popularly known not. however the base was given up after the Tet offensive due to its vulnerability. the whole strategic objective of the North Vietnamese was to remove Khe Sanh and thus they achieved it which makes it a North Vietnamese victory irregardless of the actual tactical situation. it was clearly obvious that a second offensive would reach its goal. other examples of SF bases falling are A Shau (which led to Hamburger Hill) and FSB Ripcord.
another example is La Drang. while the US as with Khe Sanh was able to not be overwhelmed and defeated tactically, the whole operation achieved nothing and getting out alive was enough to be considdered as victory for the US.

another factor were the firearms. the Communist forces had an immense advantage of handguns in the form of the AK 47 assault rifles and SKS carbines. particularly the AK 47, which is arguably the best assault rifle until this day was considderably better than the M-16 used by the US. the AK 47 was reliable, had superior penetration power and a larger magazine compared to the standard 20-rounds mag of the M-16. the 7.62mm cartridge of both the AK 47 and the SKS was able to pierce helicopters while the 5.56 of the M-16 could not and could penetrate the thickets of the Jungle better. M-16 captured by the VC were not prefered due to this and reliability issues. recently, the SU started a new programme to replace the M-16/M-4 carbines still in sue as "the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had shown that the cartridge is not strong enough" and now they're experimenting with 6.8mm cartidges. pretty funny how they phrased it, considdering this was already an issue 40 years ago...

coming back to the strategic initiative. i believe the US couldn't invade the North because they feared a repetition of the Korean War. even though the Tet offensive achieved not much for the Vietcong, it displayed impressively the capabilities of the Communist Forces and it was arguably the largest offensive conducted by anyone during the war. compare that for example to operation Lam Son 719 which likewise resutled in nothing despite the supposed superiority in equippment et al of the US and their allies. desertion in the South Vietnamese army was consdierably higher (also due to the unpopular government) than in the VC and Vietnamization didn't really worked either which effectively was the US abandoning its ally and leaving them to their own accord. even the Montagnard tribes trained and equipped by the SFs mutinies already in 1964 due to mistreatment and i don't think the situation considderably improved overall until the end of the war.

CAS = close air support.

If there was a David Petraeus then the US might have won even in the North. The doom of America began when it sided with the catholic elite against the majority Buddhists. Even after the US corrected its mistake it was too late.