Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I should preface by stating the U.S getting involved in Vietnam at all was a stupid mistake and never should have happened. However, hypothetically had the U.S had a "We don't care how many U.S soldiers die, or how much money is spent" mentality, do you think the U.S could have won the Vietnam War, had they been willing to fully engage in war all through the 70s, and possibly beyond?
Could the Vietnam War had been won had they stuck it out no matter what?
Nope.
No matter what, however long we "stayed" at some point we'd have figured out it just wasn't worth it and then leave. Remaining behind would be the Vietnamese, who would fashion their country in a Vietnamese style.
Just like Iraq.
Just like Afghanistan.
Just like the American Revolution.
Just like so many African nations in the 1960s that gained independence from colonizing Europeans.
Just like any other nation where an unwelcome foreign presence eventually peters out. The foreigners eventually realize that the cost of staying isn't matched by the benefits. Then they pull out.
We won the war by pulling out. Now Vietnam is a friendly nation with ever closer links to the USA and a natural ally against Chinese encroachment in the area.
I should preface by stating the U.S getting involved in Vietnam at all was a stupid mistake and never should have happened. However, hypothetically had the U.S had a "We don't care how many U.S soldiers die, or how much money is spent" mentality, do you think the U.S could have won the Vietnam War, had they been willing to fully engage in war all through the 70s, and possibly beyond?
Of course.
The immediately objective of the war was to preserve South Vietnam as a non-communist state. So long as the United States was willing to keep spending enough blood and treasure maintaining that status quo, that objective could be met. But ultimately, the benefits of paying that cost exceeded the downsides. So the United States folded.
That's how most wars end - one side or the other decides that political/social/economic costs of pursuing the war exceed the benefits to be obtained from that pursuit. And they quit. Few wars are fought right to the end of physical defeat.
The problem is when 'winning' is seen as the only acceptable end. And it almost always is, for awhile. Such was the case in Vietnam, so a lot more was spent and a lot more was lost and a lot more had to die before the United States was ready to call it off. Johnson couldn't bear to concede the failure of the war. Nixon had to draw it out in his pretense of 'peace with honor' for political reasons.
I may be one of the few that says "yes". By the late 60s North Vietnam was on the outs with Communist China and was no longer getting support from them, the Viet Cong insurgent elements in the south were militarily defeated (taking devastating losses in their Tet offensive that they would never recover from), and strategic bombing was taking it's toll. I submit we could have outlasted N. Vietnam and met them at the Paris Accords with a settlement by the early 70s if we stayed the course (that is, did not start withdrawing in the late 60s). Not a perfect one - picture the Korea border with 50,000 US troops stationed on a DMZ for decades, at least until the early 90s when the Soviet bloc collapsed and N. Vietnam moderated. Also the S. Vietnam government would not be stable.
But a democracy is not influenced by a war of attrition, totalitarian governments don't have this concern - but by the late 60s the people of the US had enough and as soon as we started a withdrawel and "vietnamization" of the war in the late 60s, the war was lost.
I may be one of the few that says "yes". By the late 60s North Vietnam was on the outs with Communist China and was no longer getting support from them, the Viet Cong insurgent elements in the south were militarily defeated (taking devastating losses in their Tet offensive that they would never recover from), and strategic bombing was taking it's toll. I submit we could have outlasted N. Vietnam and met them at the Paris Accords with a settlement by the early 70s if we stayed the course (that is, did not start withdrawing in the late 60s). Not a perfect one - picture the Korea border with 50,000 US troops stationed on a DMZ for decades, at least until the early 90s when the Soviet bloc collapsed and N. Vietnam moderated. Also the S. Vietnam government would not be stable.
But a democracy is not influenced by a war of attrition, totalitarian governments don't have this concern - but by the late 60s the people of the US had enough and as soon as we started a withdrawel and "vietnamization" of the war in the late 60s, the war was lost.
Here is why I disagree.
I don't dispute that from a purely military point of view, you could argue that the U.S.A had the upper hand by the end of the Tet Offensive. The problem is that you can't look at the Vietnam War from an entirely military point of view.
That strategy you described worked in Korea, but there was a major difference. Most of the people in South Korea were truly committed to having a non-communist country. They understood deep down that the regime in North Korea headed by Kim Sung was a Stalinist Regime that thought nothing of human life or limb. As such, even those people who opposed Sygman Rhee and the generals who ran the country after he was gone knew that that was a better alternative. Dissidents of the military government that existed in South Korea prior to the 1980's repeatedly told reporters in interviews that despite their quarrels with their regime that North Korea was far worse. Simply put, an independent South Korea enjoyed the support of the people there.
This was not true in South Vietnam and there was plenty of evidence of it. After the assassination of President Diem, things went continually downhill. Military coup after military coup occurred. President Thieu was the ruler of South Vietnam during the late sixties until the capitulation to the communists in 1975 and he never enjoyed much support. The Viet Cong almost always knew what Americans were going to do next because virtually every level of South Vietnamese society was penetrated by Viet Cong informers and spies. These people were not rooted out because the ordinary citizens had little to no faith in what was supposed to their own government.
It was never realistic to think that the USA had unlimited blood and treasure it was willing to expend on a war halfway around the world that had no national security implications for our own country. The fact that we were committed to this cause as long as we were is remarkable. As I have written in other threads, the fact that our commitment lasted as long as it did can only be explained by fear of communism.
What I am saying is this: The element that was always missing was an effective government in South Vietnam and a populace that supported that government and was willing to make sacrifices to be a free country.
The absence of those things is the real reason the Vietnam War did not result in an independent South Vietnam.
I should preface by stating the U.S getting involved in Vietnam at all was a stupid mistake and never should have happened. However, hypothetically had the U.S had a "We don't care how many U.S soldiers die, or how much money is spent" mentality, do you think the U.S could have won the Vietnam War, had they been willing to fully engage in war all through the 70s, and possibly beyond?
The truth is, with that mentality, we would could have started a nuclear war. We just happen to have level headed people in the 60's to make a 'near miss'. I also think, by adopting this absolute military agenda, we would have casted a worse image of ourselves that the socialist could use to their advantage for there propaganda. Wars are fought with more than guns and bombs, you need to also provide propaganda for moral and a rightful intent to invade and/or occupy. This was a major problem in the Vietnam Wars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
I may be one of the few that says "yes". By the late 60s North Vietnam was on the outs with Communist China and was no longer getting support from them, the Viet Cong insurgent elements in the south were militarily defeated (taking devastating losses in their Tet offensive that they would never recover from), and strategic bombing was taking it's toll. I submit we could have outlasted N. Vietnam and met them at the Paris Accords with a settlement by the early 70s if we stayed the course (that is, did not start withdrawing in the late 60s). Not a perfect one - picture the Korea border with 50,000 US troops stationed on a DMZ for decades, at least until the early 90s when the Soviet bloc collapsed and N. Vietnam moderated. Also the S. Vietnam government would not be stable.
But a democracy is not influenced by a war of attrition, totalitarian governments don't have this concern - but by the late 60s the people of the US had enough and as soon as we started a withdrawel and "vietnamization" of the war in the late 60s, the war was lost.
As I like your logic, I think you fail to realize that the 'certain victories' in Vietnam could have changed the future thoughts and actions of nations and leaders. Therefore we would have different chess board set up from the one we experienced after 75'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could the Vietnam War had been won had they stuck it out no matter what?
