Why don't Americans admit that Vietnam was a failure? (Pax Americana, Britain, state)

[Tall Traveler]

Originally Posted by peppermintcandy88

Along with Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do Americans insist on believing that Americans won WW2, when the Soviet Union did most of the work.

Right that Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq were a gigantic failure, wrong that the Soviet Union did most of the work....WWII was a combined US and Soviet effort but Russia could not have done much without US air force winning the war of the skies.

[Old Guard]

Originally Posted by Dd714

The OP will no longer, shall we say, be joining us here in CityDataForum (at least under his/her user name).
Ignore the OP, the topic has moved on without her. Really, rational debate and discussion was not the intention of her post.

OH, Thank you.

[SquatBenchDeadlift]

Of course it was a failure. Most Americans will readily admit that.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

I wish I had the time to make a full response here but I'll give bullet points, and then try to flesh them out later:

1. The Soviet Union did a great job of defending itself and grabbing a somewhat bigger buffer than the Czar's empire possessed. Specifically they were able to enslave half of Germany, Hungary, the former Czechoslovakia, North Korea and for a short while Romania and Yugoslavia (the latter two didn't last long in the Soviet orbit). The Soviet Union contributed little or nothing to the salvation of Western Europe or Japan.
2. As for the title of the OP, had the Communists (whether independent, Soviet or Chinese-dominated makes little difference) been able to enslave South Vietnam in a cakewalk, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia would have been at deep risk of Communist takeover. All were unstable and impoverished. The Communists were stirring the pot in those locales. As it is both the actuality of being bogged down in Vietnam and the threat of U.S. involvement probably saved those countries from Communist takeover. Of note is the fact that Laos and Cambodia, as well as Vietnam are to this day Communist controlled;
3. Iraq violated U.N. Resolutions. Leaving Saddam in power would have demonstrated beyond a doubt that even Security Council resolutions are not worth the paper they're written on. I still have my doubts;
4. Afghanistan provided sanctuary for a direct attack on the contiguous 48 states; the first and only time this has happened since the War of 1812. Were we supposed to just whine, or seek a worthless piece of toilet paper from the U.N. also known as a "condemnation"?

Is there really any doubt that they're not?

Originally Posted by jbgusa

Even though I opposed the war in Vietnam it was a necessary evil. The problem is that the rules of engagement were ridiculous. As they are today.

In what way, shape, or form was it necessary?

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by burdell

Is there really any doubt that they're not?

I think you meant to say "is there any doubt that the Vietnam war wasn't a failure. Obviously, you didn't trouble yourself to read even the bullet points before making a snide response. I apologize for not fleshing them out but I have a life. Family and business come before CD posting.

As to Point 1: To the best of my knowledge, the Soviet Union didn't voluntarily open the Eastern front. They were forced into fighting when the Germans turned on them. Remember they allied with the Germans and had no love for the West until the smell of death from the Panzer units was in the air.

As to Point 2: Sukarno was busily allying Indonesia to the Communist powers. Malaysia expelled Singapore from its shaky and newly independent country and both places were in an uproar. Thailand and Burma weren't doing well. There is no way to no for sure what would have happened on "the path not taken" to paraphrase Robert Frost. But given the Communists' histories in Eastern Europe, Korea and Vietnam they weren't throwing birthday parties for the weak and shaky countries in the area. I have little doubt that China, given its history (even pre-Communist) of territorial ambitions would have made mischief throughout the region unless the West made it clear that there would be effectual resistance.

As to Point 3: Iraq even detained some U.N. inspectors. They were giving those inspectors a merry runaround. Should we really have tolerated the U.N. resolutions being totally disregarded? People forget that Saddam wasn't some meek leader singing Kumbaya. Also he stated that he had WMD's. Were we supposed to somehow know he was lying? It's a lot like going through airport security joking about guns and bombs.

As to Point 4: The point is obvious. And we gavce Afghanistan an opportunity to deliver up Osama. Since they didn't even seek to appear cooperative what was our alternative? To whine like a Golden Retriever who wants to be petted?

Originally Posted by burdell

In what way, shape, or form was it necessary?

See Point 2 above.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

I think you meant to say "is there any doubt that the Vietnam war wasn't a failure. Obviously, you didn't trouble yourself to read even the bullet points before making a snide response. I apologize for not fleshing them out but I have a life. Family and business come before CD posting.

No, I meant to say exactly what I did, that there's little doubt Security Council resolutions are not worth the paper they're written on , that you may not agree doesn't make my opinion a snide response.

Originally Posted by jbgusa

As to Point 2: Sukarno was busily allying Indonesia to the Communist powers. Malaysia expelled Singapore from its shaky and newly independent country and both places were in an uproar. Thailand and Burma weren't doing well. There is no way to no for sure what would have happened on "the path not taken" to paraphrase Robert Frost. But given the Communists' histories in Eastern Europe, Korea and Vietnam they weren't throwing birthday parties for the weak and shaky countries in the area. I have little doubt that China, given its history (even pre-Communist) of territorial ambitions would have made mischief throughout the region unless the West made it clear that there would be effectual resistance.

See Point 2 above.

Once again, I disagree, I don't believe any of that made US involvement in Vietnam necessary.

[Felix C]

I never read them but did not the Pentagon Papers indicate the war was unwinnable?

[2nd trick op]

Nearly forty years ago, Herman Wouk (who is still alive and lucid) observed that "Either war is finished, or we are." That observation seems to be holding up well as regards the total, industrialized warfare of 1914-1945, and the increasing unworkability of the planned economy as the focus shifts further away from "core" capital assets adds weight to that point.

So it would appear that economic rivalry among industrialized nation-states, while it will continue to manifest itself from time to time, is far less likely to degenerate into armed conflict; that, in turn can be linked to the point that an increasing portion of economic resources are not physical, but knowledge-based, and as such, requires formal recognition and protection under the rule of law, And as Justice Breyer points out in his recent work, The Court and the World, the development of at least a moderate amount of global standards regarding civil and commercial practices between industrialized nations has intensified in recent years.

And as previously pointed out:

When the concept of the nation-state replaced feudalism at the close of the Fourteenth Century, the growth of trade (and conquest) led to the call for a global policeman; that role bankrupted Spain and weakened France before what came to be called the Enlightenment developed; the British then slowly superseded France and eventually handed the leading role over to their North American cousins, as the folly of the misguided pursuit of colonial empires became apparent.

And we can all be grateful that the two great threats to the fragile institution called parliamentary pluralism, or democracy, in the form of Fascism and Marxism, were thwarted, albeit in history's worst mechanized bloodbath.

The United States inherited and strengthened its role as global policeman in the years following World War II, and the collapse of its last totalitarian rival led to a much stronger consensus regarding the role of individual enterprise in the advancement of civilization. So it could be argued that both the American experience in Vietnam and the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan were secondary acts in a century-long conflict which, fortunately, the developing industrialized democracies won. To those caught up in this struggle, and to their families, descendants and legatees, we can only offer our inadequate recognition and gratitude.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by burdell

No, I meant to say exactly what I did, that there's little doubt Security Council resolutions are not worth the paper they're written on , that you may not agree doesn't make my opinion a snide response.

Unfortunately we agree here, and I apologize for calling your remark snide.

Originally Posted by burdell

Once again, I disagree, I don't believe any of that made US involvement in Vietnam necessary.

Reasonable men can differ on this one. I believe though that if we went into Vietnam we should have gone in to win. North Vietnam wasn't trying to contain South Vietnam. They were trying to take it over.

[TheWiseWino]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

I believe though that if we went into Vietnam we should have gone in to win.

If dropping 2.5 million TONS of munitions, and commit 549,500 troops isn't trying to win... that canard needs to get dropped like the sell out of German troops in WWI.