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 thnik keeenedy was caught up in the dominno threory too much in ever getting us into vietnam. besides the way they faugyht the war was not wanting to win but get the NV to sign a ceasefire like korea. In the end it would ahve taken a invasion of N. Vietnam and unlimited bombing to win which they didn't want to do for fear of drwing in the chinese.Much of this goes all the way back to the end of WWII when the french wanted to continue with thier colony of vietnam.FDR was actaully written to to not olet the french contiue and so was trumnan but they rejected the appeal of a nationalist named Ho Che Minh. He then turned to the communist for help.
I thnik keeenedy was caught up in the dominno threory too much in ever getting us into vietnam. besides the way they faugyht the war was not wanting to win but get the NV to sign a ceasefire like korea. In the end it would ahve taken a invasion of N. Vietnam and unlimited bombing to win which they didn't want to do for fear of drwing in the chinese.Much of this goes all the way back to the end of WWII when the french wanted to continue with thier colony of vietnam.FDR was actaully written to to not olet the french contiue and so was trumnan but they rejected the appeal of a nationalist named Ho Che Minh. He then turned to the communist for help.
That's pretty much it. Roosevelt at Yalta had agreed America would not pursue interests in Asia. Truman's actions in Korea reneged on that agreement and led to a stalemate. I think you're right, they probably were thinking they could get a similar "armistice" type conclusion to the war, and partition the country. Korea didn't have a general like Ho. When the Japanese were defeated Ho and his men came out of the jungle expecting to be greeted as heros. Instead they were met by the French, in the process of re-establishing their colony of French Indo-China, backed by American guns. Ho and his men just faded quietly back into the jungle. My Dad was over there in what had been Dutch Indo-China where the Dutch were trying to restore their colony status. He said the cruelty he witnessed there by the Dutch was the worse he saw anywhere in the in the Pacific War. He always said there would be trouble there, and that none of the native people would never accept foreign occupation after having fought the Japanese occupiers all that time.
There is much much more than the obvious on the Vietnam War, and discussion of it could get rancorous pretty fast. In some ways, Vietnam could be seen as a "hot" Korean war. The real concern, AFAICT, was never Vietnam itself, but China and the growth of the sphere of influence of China as a foe to the U.S., and the continuing growth of military manufacturing for export and profit by the Soviets. A continued war was never in the cards as a viable option.
Kennedy headed down the wrong path in Vietnam. The existing regime in Vietnam at the start of the war was corrupt (isn't that always the way with governments?) and the U.S. did not want a lock-up of the south seas by Chinese influence any more than it had wanted it by the Japanese pre-WWII. JFK, having been in the south seas during WWII, focused on that possibility as a problem without seeing the overview, in the same way that Rummy and Cheney focused on Iraq as a figural problem. As soon as real reports started coming back from Vietnam from the grunts and military support forces, it was known that the existing south Vietnamese government was not good and needed propping up. The idea of the U.S. destroying that government and enplacing a new one just wasn't on the table as an option.
Johnson was a total fool and meddler in the Vietnam situation and never understood the big picture, but was distracted with the homefront and civil rights. Had Johnson and his Washington buddies left the battles completely to the military, it is entirely possible that the same early success that we saw in Iraq could have been achieved. Long term, would that have worked? Probably not, looking on the example of Iraq.
Nixon and Kissy figured out a way to change the Chinese attitude towards the U.S. by promoting trade, and defused the big bomb temporarily. As much as I think Kissy is close to the devil incarnate, this was a pragmatic and brilliant way out for Nixon and the generation in power in the U.S. at the time. Leave the ultimate costs to the next generations.
Ford was the one who took the brunt of the heat from so many angles, with his pardon of Nixon, the increased disenchantment of the public over the war, the funding issues, and so on. Ford was our only President never elected as President or Vice-President, and he did a masterful job of guiding the country through multiple crises. In my mind, he is the most underappreciated President in history and a personal hero.
To put it in perspective, Vietnam was no more a "War" than the theatre of the western front was a war compared to WWII as a whole, just as Afghanistan was merely a "front" war for the Soviets.
Did we "win" Vietnam? In a way we did, the same way that Germany was won in WWII. Part of Germany went under Soviet influence, but eventually came back because of the power of the marketplace. Trusting that eventually that would happen was beyond the ken of most of the military and politicians, but psychohistory will out. Vietnam was lost to communism, but eventually has come back to the marketplace. The details of the government are less important to the real powers of the world than the fact that it will sit down to the table without trying to shoot the other card players.
The reality is that China played a bluff and a hand that Kissy and Nixon weren't prepared for, and quickly shifted focus from worrying about the war to gearing up for trade. By switching their focus to the economic possibilities of free trade with the U.S., they quickly grasped the game concept that manufacturing FACILITIES as well as jobs could be stolen from the U.S. with no loss of life and an actual gain in income, and that theft of knowledge and concepts were more easy in friendship with the U.S. than in war, China beat the U.S. at its own game.
Physical war is as much an act of desperation and frustration as a schoolyard fight is between bullies. Once the heat of the moment is past, the power will ultimately flow to the one with the most smarts and the most resources. Temporarily, that might be the bigger schoolyard bully, but the one that provides more to friends, knows how to block advances, and keeps the other one chasing his tail, ultimately wins.
The actual military conduct of the Vietnam War is a different subject. The South Vietnamese army was well trained and dedicated. The U.S. professional forces that were there were very professional. The cherries and cannon fodder were largely cherries and cannon fodder for a while and either got with the program or died. There are other books on 'nam. One on the Tet offensive and the siege of Hue is particularly accurate according to my brother, who was there and is in the book.
Did any of the guys going over there and dying know what the war was all about? Almost to a man I would say no they didn't. Their task was to be the pawns on the battlefield, and knowledge would have been more of a detriment than a help. Drafted 18 year olds don't have the wisdom of age anyway.
There is much much more than the obvious on the Vietnam War, and discussion of it could get rancorous pretty fast. In some ways, Vietnam could be seen as a "hot" Korean war. The real concern, AFAICT, was never Vietnam itself, but China and the growth of the sphere of influence of China as a foe to the U.S., and the continuing growth of military manufacturing for export and profit by the Soviets. A continued war was never in the cards as a viable option.
Kennedy headed down the wrong path in Vietnam. The existing regime in Vietnam at the start of the war was corrupt (isn't that always the way with governments?) and the U.S. did not want a lock-up of the south seas by Chinese influence any more than it had wanted it by the Japanese pre-WWII. JFK, having been in the south seas during WWII, focused on that possibility as a problem without seeing the overview, in the same way that Rummy and Cheney focused on Iraq as a figural problem. As soon as real reports started coming back from Vietnam from the grunts and military support forces, it was known that the existing south Vietnamese government was not good and needed propping up. The idea of the U.S. destroying that government and enplacing a new one just wasn't on the table as an option.
Johnson was a total fool and meddler in the Vietnam situation and never understood the big picture, but was distracted with the homefront and civil rights. Had Johnson and his Washington buddies left the battles completely to the military, it is entirely possible that the same early success that we saw in Iraq could have been achieved. Long term, would that have worked? Probably not, looking on the example of Iraq.
Nixon and Kissy figured out a way to change the Chinese attitude towards the U.S. by promoting trade, and defused the big bomb temporarily. As much as I think Kissy is close to the devil incarnate, this was a pragmatic and brilliant way out for Nixon and the generation in power in the U.S. at the time. Leave the ultimate costs to the next generations.
Ford was the one who took the brunt of the heat from so many angles, with his pardon of Nixon, the increased disenchantment of the public over the war, the funding issues, and so on. Ford was our only President never elected as President or Vice-President, and he did a masterful job of guiding the country through multiple crises. In my mind, he is the most underappreciated President in history and a personal hero.
To put it in perspective, Vietnam was no more a "War" than the theatre of the western front was a war compared to WWII as a whole, just as Afghanistan was merely a "front" war for the Soviets.
Did we "win" Vietnam? In a way we did, the same way that Germany was won in WWII. Part of Germany went under Soviet influence, but eventually came back because of the power of the marketplace. Trusting that eventually that would happen was beyond the ken of most of the military and politicians, but psychohistory will out. Vietnam was lost to communism, but eventually has come back to the marketplace. The details of the government are less important to the real powers of the world than the fact that it will sit down to the table without trying to shoot the other card players.
The reality is that China played a bluff and a hand that Kissy and Nixon weren't prepared for, and quickly shifted focus from worrying about the war to gearing up for trade. By switching their focus to the economic possibilities of free trade with the U.S., they quickly grasped the game concept that manufacturing FACILITIES as well as jobs could be stolen from the U.S. with no loss of life and an actual gain in income, and that theft of knowledge and concepts were more easy in friendship with the U.S. than in war, China beat the U.S. at its own game.
Physical war is as much an act of desperation and frustration as a schoolyard fight is between bullies. Once the heat of the moment is past, the power will ultimately flow to the one with the most smarts and the most resources. Temporarily, that might be the bigger schoolyard bully, but the one that provides more to friends, knows how to block advances, and keeps the other one chasing his tail, ultimately wins.
The actual military conduct of the Vietnam War is a different subject. The South Vietnamese army was well trained and dedicated. The U.S. professional forces that were there were very professional. The cherries and cannon fodder were largely cherries and cannon fodder for a while and either got with the program or died. There are other books on 'nam. One on the Tet offensive and the siege of Hue is particularly accurate according to my brother, who was there and is in the book.
Did any of the guys going over there and dying know what the war was all about? Almost to a man I would say no they didn't. Their task was to be the pawns on the battlefield, and knowledge would have been more of a detriment than a help. Drafted 18 year olds don't have the wisdom of age anyway.
If Kennedy had had advice like this history would have been different. Hey another good read is "Chickenhawk" by Robert Mason. Just a Huey pilot's personal story, but you'll never look at choppers the same way after reading this.
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.
