Could the Vietnam War had been won had they stuck it out no matter what?

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

No, if they'd listened to the US they would have remained a divided country with the south under French colonial control.

so you are saying being under a totalitarian communist state is better than a Republic under U.S. protection?


Go ask South Korea if they are better off united under Kim Jon UN.

[Jaggy001]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

so you are saying being under a totalitarian communist state is better than a Republic under U.S. protection?


Go ask South Korea if they are better off united under Kim Jon UN.

I think there are a couple of points to be made here.

First, it is time that we stopped trying to impose our form of government on other countries. It didn't work in Iraq and it hasn't worked in Vietnam.

Second, there is really no comparison between Vietnam and North Korea.

Third, while Vietnam is politically communist the reality is far more nuanced. Economically, this is a developing capitalist country. I took the picture below in Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) about 18 months ago ... I could just as easily have taken a photo of the Saigon Dunkin Donuts or many other examples of capitalist consumerism.

What I found when I was in Vietnam was a vibrant and young country which was working hard to develop its economy, which was very friendly (and I mean very) to the USA and which had put the war behind them.

Worth remembering that the Vietnam war was as much a civil war as a war against the USA. We took a tour to Hue and, in talking to our guide, it turned out that his father had been in the South Vietnamese army and his uncle in the NVA. At one point he was asked about communism and his response was that it was good in theory but didn't work in practice.

Sometimes we need to scratch the surface and try to see the reality underneath.

[InchingWest]

"Won" what?

An extra 10 million people? Territory? Resources? Trade routes? Land? Factories? Rice Paddies? What would we have captured and secured there that would've been any use to ordinary Americans?

What exactly would "victory" look like?

Would we control a client state with a puppet government? Would we establish more bases and naval outposts there? Who pays for those? Who would want or "need" those other than the MIC and the bankers?

Maybe if some of you guys would go oversees and see how KBR or Haliburton operate.....you'll know why we have so many wars and you might be able to figure out who's benefiting. It certainly isn't the working class and middle class taxpayer who gets to bear the debt and subsequent inflation.

GE, L3, Northrop, Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, Blackwater (whatever name they have now), Triple Canopy, KBR, Haliburton, Raytheon, Oshkosh....those companies benefit while the sucker in uniform (I was one of 'em) gets very little for the time and effort he's putting in paving and securing the way for the contractors get their coin.

You'll also understand why they're dragging out longer and longer now, because the real money isn't in any sort of concrete "victory". The real money is in perpetuating the contracts for supplies and logistics services. Defense Contractors benefit while the taxpayer foots the bill even as the hoodwinked public initially cheers the conflict on.

[karstic]

It was a non-declared war in which politicians had their hands toed.
Victory was possible, but bombing Haiphong, Russian vessel ships, etc.
Voetnam was a great treason, as Bay of Pigs.

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by Jaggy001

I think there are a couple of points to be made here.

First, it is time that we stopped trying to impose our form of government on other countries. It didn't work in Iraq and it hasn't worked in Vietnam.

Second, there is really no comparison between Vietnam and North Korea.

Third, while Vietnam is politically communist the reality is far more nuanced. Economically, this is a developing capitalist country. I took the picture below in Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) about 18 months ago ... I could just as easily have taken a photo of the Saigon Dunkin Donuts or many other examples of capitalist consumerism.

What I found when I was in Vietnam was a vibrant and young country which was working hard to develop its economy, which was very friendly (and I mean very) to the USA and which had put the war behind them.

Worth remembering that the Vietnam war was as much a civil war as a war against the USA. We took a tour to Hue and, in talking to our guide, it turned out that his father had been in the South Vietnamese army and his uncle in the NVA. At one point he was asked about communism and his response was that it was good in theory but didn't work in practice.

Sometimes we need to scratch the surface and try to see the reality underneath.

of course Vietnam had no choice but to take capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union and their economy turned further into $hiAT. Is the same thing as Cuba after the fall of the Soviets, now they want American capitalism investing in their country......they learned something from China.



Why is it when the communists during the Cold War invades others to impose their way of government you call it a "civil war" and then criticize the U.S. to counter balance them?

Weren't the communists imposing their ideology on others by military means during the cold war?.......funny, since they don't believe in democratic elections and believe in a 1 PARTY TOTALITARIAN STATE.

[M3 Mitch]

Originally Posted by markg91359

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.

Thanks for a very informative post. I had thought about starting a thread about "Why did what worked in Korea, not work in Vietnam" (I'd consider US military involvement similar, but not identical of course, in both of these "police action" wars) - but you have already posted pretty much the whole story here. You can't save someone (or a country) who is not trying to save themselves.