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.
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.
When the rules of engagement prohibited invading the North we were not fighting 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.
Tough to fight in a box, though. No incursions into Cambodia and Laos, no invasion of the North. Our enemy permitted sanctuary, particularly along the Ho Chi Minh trail. Russian ships unmolested in Haiphong; Russian SAM batteries and MIGs in the sky. I'm not saying that the US public would have countenanced total war, but the fact remains that we did not commit ourselves to the degree that we did in either of the World Wars.
Interesting how doggedly we continue to deceive ourselves into believing that air power can prevail without motivated, well-supported ground troops. We're still playing that game in the Middle East and Afghanistan even now...
Anyone familiar with the governments the U.S. propped up in South Vietnam should agree we had a miserable chance of leaving a united country with a workable government, if/when the North had surrendered.
Tough to fight in a box, though. No incursions into Cambodia and Laos, no invasion of the North. Our enemy permitted sanctuary, particularly along the Ho Chi Minh trail. Russian ships unmolested in Haiphong; Russian SAM batteries and MIGs in the sky. I'm not saying that the US public would have countenanced total war, but the fact remains that we did not commit ourselves to the degree that we did in either of the World Wars.
Interesting how doggedly we continue to deceive ourselves into believing that air power can prevail without motivated, well-supported ground troops. We're still playing that game in the Middle East and Afghanistan even now...
It may have come late, but we did invade Cambodia plus there was a secret war going on in Laos (particularly along the border) that Prince Sihanouk (Laos's leader) chose to overlook. The harbor at Haiphong was mined. Oil storage facilities were blasted to smithereens. The United States also bombed Hanoi heavily. When permission was not given to bomb particular targets it was usually because of geopolitical reasons. North Vietnam borders China and during the Korean Conflict, China chose to join the war and fight with the North Koreans. Given that nation's virtually unlimited pool of manpower, LBJ desired to avoid a war with communist China.
Nothing short of nuclear annihilation of North Vietnam would have won that war and China would never have stood still for that.
LBJ's goal in the war was simply to force a stalemate just like the one in Korea and negotiate a ceasefire that would leave South Vietnam intact as a country. This strategy failed because he didn't grasp how powerful a force nationalism was for many Vietnamese who were determined to unite their country. I don't know that its wrong to make a comparison between the desire of Americans to free themselves from the yoke of Britain during the Revolutionary War.
The fact of the matter is the USA committed huge resources to a conflict with a third world country and couldn't win. The war showed the limits to our power.
I frequently do hear people insist that we "could have won in Vietnam if it hadn't been for the radicals and the communists". This is the same kind of nonsense that Germany used to excuse its defeat against the overwhelming forces of the allies in World War I. Its the American version of the "stabbed in the back theory".
It may have come late, but we did invade Cambodia plus there was a secret war going on in Laos (particularly along the border) that Prince Sihanouk (Laos's leader) chose to overlook. The harbor at Haiphong was mined. Oil storage facilities were blasted to smithereens. The United States also bombed Hanoi heavily. When permission was not given to bomb particular targets it was usually because of geopolitical reasons. North Vietnam borders China and during the Korean Conflict, China chose to join the war and fight with the North Koreans. Given that nation's virtually unlimited pool of manpower, LBJ desired to avoid a war with communist China.
Nothing short of nuclear annihilation of North Vietnam would have won that war and China would never have stood still for that.
LBJ's goal in the war was simply to force a stalemate just like the one in Korea and negotiate a ceasefire that would leave South Vietnam intact as a country. This strategy failed because he didn't grasp how powerful a force nationalism was for many Vietnamese who were determined to unite their country. I don't know that its wrong to make a comparison between the desire of Americans to free themselves from the yoke of Britain during the Revolutionary War.
The fact of the matter is the USA committed huge resources to a conflict with a third world country and couldn't win. The war showed the limits to our power.
I frequently do hear people insist that we "could have won in Vietnam if it hadn't been for the radicals and the communists". This is the same kind of nonsense that Germany used to excuse its defeat against the overwhelming forces of the allies in World War I. Its the American version of the "stabbed in the back theory".
It may have come late, but we did invade Cambodia plus there was a secret war going on in Laos (particularly along the border) that Prince Sihanouk (Laos's leader) chose to overlook. The harbor at Haiphong was mined. Oil storage facilities were blasted to smithereens. The United States also bombed Hanoi heavily. When permission was not given to bomb particular targets it was usually because of geopolitical reasons. North Vietnam borders China and during the Korean Conflict, China chose to join the war and fight with the North Koreans. Given that nation's virtually unlimited pool of manpower, LBJ desired to avoid a war with communist China.
Not to be flippant, but the phrase "geopolitical reasons" and LBJ's unwillingness to engage the Chinese -- and the Russians, who had thousands of "advisors" in North Vietnam (irony of ironies) -- simply underline my thesis that the US never intended to wage total war in Vietnam.
Quote:
LBJ's goal in the war was simply to force a stalemate just like the one in Korea and negotiate a ceasefire that would leave South Vietnam intact as a country. This strategy failed because he didn't grasp how powerful a force nationalism was for many Vietnamese who were determined to unite their country. I don't know that its wrong to make a comparison between the desire of Americans to free themselves from the yoke of Britain during the Revolutionary War.
Good points, but you neglect to mention the many Vietnamese who wanted no part of unification with the North's Stalinist regime. They fought and died by the thousands, and many thousands more attempted to escape after the fall of Saigon -- some to perish at sea, some successfully finding safe havens, including the many Vietnamese-Americans who have added significantly to our national character.
WWII and Vietnam are different, many Americans agree and admit that war was a huge mistake. Both the USSR and USA contributed to WWII suceess, though yes the mass number of casualty sustained by the Soviets is sometimes overlooked. I should point out that millions died at the hands of their dictator also.
20th century American foreign policy for such a young country is probably one of the biggest success stories in the history of mankind. You had basically had a country start out as a backwoods frontier nation at the beginning of the century into a world power from mid century on...finally to the world sole world power.
In the first half we had two world wars, both of which the US helped to end. The US and USSR emerged as world powers, but while one economic system and powerbase withered and died at the end of the century, the other prospered. Pax Americana!
Now, we existed in a world where, in the course of history up to the middle of the last century world powers had almost been at a constant state of war, as weapons become stronger and stronger. Yes regional conflicts still occurred, local genocides still occurred, but overall the powers remained at peace, stability reigned, the states under the US sphere of influence - western Europe and parts of Asia - prospered, rebuilt form a terrible war thanks both billions of dollars of US aid and the umbrella of US protection. There was no WW3 - that's simply a fact. There was no world war in the era of Pax Americana.
So yeah, as a world power, the US has made plenty of mistakes which are of our cause. Our military was tasked as a world police force. And, likewise, as a world power we get blamed for world events that are not of our cause. But, overall - Pax Americana - it worked. Given the weapons available to the world and the growing world population and extrapolating that to "what was" vs. "what could be" - I would suggest that the last 60 years were probably the most stable and peaceful in world history.
Now, as a current administration that seems to encourage the US dropping out of a world leadership role, along with the realities of global economics as they are, "Pax Americana" is ending. I cannot forecast what the future will bring - but it will not be stability.
I'm of the belief that everything bad that has happened since WWI can be blamed on WWI. Even today I still think you are seeing the negative side effects of WWI. You have the problems in the Middle East, of course, but you also have North Korea, a communist dictatorship formed with the help of the Soviet Union... an empire that may have never existed had some pissed off WWI Russian troops decided not to follow Lenin. And obviously wars like Vietnam and Korea would have never happened without a Cold War with the Soviet Union.
You should watch this video. It focuses on the British decision to enter the war, but perhaps you can think about it from the American perspective. How different would the world be today had we not declared war on Germany? Maybe not much different, but still interesting to think about.
I do not know ANYONE who thinks the Viet Nam War was a good idea at all or that there was any winning or losing . Plus That crazy draft when It had nothing to do with us at all . To most of us it was a political war .
You are forgetting the British and Canadians in WW2 . My husbands home town in Holland was completely destroyed by the Germans and they conducted regular searched of his grandparents house. The Canadians liberated them . Other than that I agree it was a collaborative effort aided by various underground resistance fighters trying to take back their country . The Russians just weren't going to have it . Period . and really gave it all they had and succeeded .
I'm also confused about the subject of this thread, but I'll address the question in the title. I don't know where you got the idea that Americans don't consider the Vietnam war a failure. In the 45 years since that conflict, I've had many, many conversations about it with many different people, and no one has ever said it was a successful conflict. That includes myself as well, and I was a participant in that war.
According to Pentagon reports, it was determined that 80% of the battles with the VC were engagements of THEIR choosing. They set the stage and had the advantage majority of the time.
They just needed to kill enough American troops, and demoralize the American populace. That was what worked for them. No need to match brawn nor firepower.
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.
