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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
Perhaps, but their advice were for the most part blindly optimistic. And in many instances gave the pentagon an impression of a winning battle through shoddy data. Check the case of Westmoreland.
And the fact we trade with COMMUNIST! Vietnam today with no great downside can only lead me to believe preventing that was NOT of the vital importance we were told it was.
Y'all cain raise your hand if you had your ****e together when you were 17 years old. Most of us did not. For that reason Vietnam when the war came calling us seemed out of time, another time and to many more of us a threat to our lives. We did not understand the larger issues of communism and capitalism. But we knew in between learning how to type and speak a language in high school, the unstated prerequisite was to fight for our country.
There were deferments originally, Student, Conscientious Objector, Health and others. Those who had supportive families or friends learned how to approach the issue and apply based upon beliefs or disability. But mostly we were naive and pretty unprepared. There was no national feeling except the silent majority and the protestors.
It was a dirty dirty business which failed. Many of us cannot hold our weeping back and many more are still in shock. There was no imbedded journalists there were no sides really there was only a bloody war in a hot jungle which created nothing except misery for millions.
Ive never really liked Ken Burns. I admire his work, but I don't care for the man. Perhaps it's the lack of empathy, or the tearless eyes. Maybe it's he can spit out TV shows on Baseball and War in the same breath...catastrophically chilling the latter and an amusement the former.
If you are younger than I then know this. The plague of war touched everyone in the USA during this time No one was immune to the effects of the deaths the injuries and the protests. Imagine a million people marching every week in the streets. Very few things broken just marching. The war was a catastrophe for our culture. No one escaped the effects. I have never seen more tears shed or more sadness from a war in my lifetime. I pray that I never do. If evil has a face Vietnam would be the left half of the face, grinning at you., teeth bared laughing, as it invited you into death, shame, disability and tragedy.
Excellent summation! You and I may disagree on many other things, but on this one we are in full agreement. Bravo!
Perhaps, but their advice were for the most part blindly optimistic. And in many instances gave the pentagon an impression of a winning battle through shoddy data. Check the case of Westmoreland.
I would characterize the advice of our career military officers as bluntly pragmatic, not "wildly optimistic":
"Commit the full power of our military to fighting this war, and we will win it. If you hobble our military we will lose."
Our military leaders were proved correct. Johnson fought a bizarre war with so many restrictions and crazy rules that we lost.
Westmoreland's body counts seemed to be a fabrication he made up for the general public and Johnson - not the Pentagon. Westmoreland couldn't fool the Pentagon. He is not one of my personal favorite generals, anyhow. My Dad liked Westmoreland but I don't really know why. There was much my Dad left unsaid. Like most other vets, he had little desire to go into great detail about his war experiences.
I would characterize the advice of our career military officers as bluntly pragmatic, not "wildly optimistic":
"Commit the full power of our military to fighting this war, and we will win it. If you hobble our military we will lose."
Our military leaders were proved correct. Johnson fought a bizarre war with so many restrictions and crazy rules that we lost.
Westmoreland's body counts seemed to be a fabrication he made up for the general public and Johnson - not the Pentagon. Westmoreland couldn't fool the Pentagon. He is not one of my personal favorite generals, anyhow. My Dad liked Westmoreland but I don't really know why. There was much my Dad left unsaid. Like most other vets, he had little desire to go into great detail about his war experiences.
What was the more pragmatic approach? Sending more troops? Retaining military occupation of the region like on the Korean peninsula?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler
I would characterize the advice of our career military officers as bluntly pragmatic, not "wildly optimistic":
"Commit the full power of our military to fighting this war, and we will win it. If you hobble our military we will lose."
Our military leaders were proved correct. Johnson fought a bizarre war with so many restrictions and crazy rules that we lost.
Westmoreland's body counts seemed to be a fabrication he made up for the general public and Johnson - not the Pentagon. Westmoreland couldn't fool the Pentagon. He is not one of my personal favorite generals, anyhow. My Dad liked Westmoreland but I don't really know why. There was much my Dad left unsaid. Like most other vets, he had little desire to go into great detail about his war experiences.
Can I ask who you're quoting there?
To me, if 500,000 troops in a theater as small as Vietnam, not to mention carrier based air-power as well as Philippines based B-52s isn't a full commitment, what would be?
And the fact we trade with COMMUNIST! Vietnam today with no great downside can only lead me to believe preventing that was NOT of the vital importance we were told it was.
I wasn't there at that time but this just tells me hindsight is 20/20. If they could know it would have ended up this way, they probably wouldn't have bothered. Heck even my parents didn't know Vietnam would end up this way, and they lived there! It could have just as well gone down like Cambodia... that's why people left in droves.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn
I wasn't there at that time but this just tells me hindsight is 20/20. If they could know it would have ended up this way, they probably wouldn't have bothered. Heck even my parents didn't know Vietnam would end up this way, and they lived there! It could have just as well gone down like Cambodia... that's why people left in droves.
Listening to a number of LBJ's recorded phone and other conversations it seems apparent he had little belief it would end well. For me it isn't hindsight, I was opposed to the war as a high school student in 1965, given the combined land masses/populations of the USSR and China, the two big COMMUNIST! threats at the time, I simply didn't see Vietnam becoming communist or even the whole of SE Asia doing the same significantly increasing the threat to the US. I have yet to see any reason to change my mind.
To me, if 500,000 troops in a theater as small as Vietnam, not to mention carrier based air-power as well as Philippines based B-52s isn't a full commitment, what would be?
By way of answering your question, but not advocating such options: invading North Vietnam, mining Haiphong harbor, bombing the China/North Vietnam border, blockading the North and South Vietnam coastline, permitting U.S. Forces to pursue NVA troops into Cambodia and Laos, and to sever and hold the Ho Chi Minh trail.
American forces fought in a box, against an enemy which had freedom of movement into and out of the theater of war, and whose major sources of supply (China and Russia) had free access to North Vietnam by land, sea, and air.
It was the equivalent of what World War II would have been like if the allies had not been permitted to enter Germany and Italy, or to bomb the oil fields in Rumania.
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.
Vietnam today with no great downside can only lead me to believe preventing that was NOT of the vital importance we were told it was.
