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.
Did you read the statistic at the end? Our government did not even allow the dogs to return home..........most were put to death.........kind of what happened to the south Vietnamese........both were treated like dogs........
Thanks for your thoughts. I remember our previous conversation on this topic months ago. Your husband's suffering is something with which I have had some experience as well. I am very grateful for the help I received from the VA doctors and psychologists which permitted me to get my life back after ten years or so of emptiness and horror. From what I remember of our previous conversation, your husband did not make it through the nightmare of PTSD successfully. I grieve for him; I commiserate with you.
What an evil war. What an evil time.
I am so glad to read that you were finally able to get your life back together after suffering from PTSD for so long. My Dad came home a changed man after his second tour in Vietnam. We didn't know much about PTSD in 1969, nor did we know all that much about agent orange which my Dad had also been exposed to. My Dad's nightmares were terrible as I have posted before. He took an early retirement from the military and began to drink too much and kept a gun at the ready in his nightstand. Once he shot one of my cats when it walked into his room in the middle of the night and woke him up. My folks ended up getting divorced 2 years after my Dad's final return. My Dad fought in WWII and Korea, but it seemed like Vietnam was the war that finally did him in.
I think the way Vietnam vets were treated upon their return home was unconscionable. At that time the VA was all but worthless. They refused to check my Dad for symptoms from Agent Orange exposure. They gave him a few valium for his PTSD and that was the extent of the treatment he received.
My bitterness about that evil war will never fade for as long as I live. I have gotten tears in my eyes more than once as I read about your and other vet's experiences both during and after the war.
Thanks for posting this. I remember seeing, some time ago, on Dog Whisperer about a dog he had to help who had served in Iraq and had severe PTSD. He ended up helping him (he was afraid of all noises mostly). It was very good to see the dog get back his normal life. They suffered, too.
Thanks for posting this. I remember seeing, some time ago, on Dog Whisperer about a dog he had to help who had served in Iraq and had severe PTSD. He ended up helping him (he was afraid of all noises mostly). It was very good to see the dog get back his normal life. They suffered, too.
This was what it meant that the military 'was not allowed to do its job'. By restraining ground forces at the 17th parallel, the US could not do debilitating damages to NVA forces. At the very least, US forces could have pursue retreating NVA forces, cross north of the 17th, utterly destroy any NVA units encountered, which includes bases of support, then withdraw to below the 17th. But that was not what happened.
Eventually, the patience of the US public got worn out so the US had to withdraw from SE Asia.
There was no need for China to commit combat troops the way the US committed combat troops. Once it became clear that the US self restrained via the 17th parallel, all Mao had to do was supplied purely defensive measures, which includes support personnel, to the North Vietnamese.
This kind of self restraint was what Colin Powell talked about and the US successfully avoided during Desert Storm.
Finally, as an FYI, just in case anyone want to criticize the US for bombing Laos and Cambodia...
Laos and Cambodia failed to enforce their borders. Whether they were too weak or willing partners with North Viet Nam are besides the point. Belligerents are expected to respect the borders of countries not party to their conflict.
In the above convention, Article 1 is respected by the US only if Articles 2 thru 5 are enforced by Laos and Cambodia. Neither did. North Viet Nam used Laos and Cambodia as components of its war against South Viet Nam and effectively opened the door for the US to engage the soil of those countries as hostile territories.
I suspect what you view as "restraint" might be something like the "restraint" that is appropriate before jumping off a cliff...
Americans relied heavily on air superiority for a variety of reasons, and we bombed the daylights out of NV with limited proof the effort was paying off. Yes, we wanted partition. The north wanted a unified Vietnam. To believe the US military could have "won" the war by committing still more troops (and losing them) in NV, beyond the 17th, is also what some might consider some pretty wishful thinking.
In any case, I like to feel I am not so much out to "criticize" the US for what it did other than from a critical thinking standpoint, now that we can look back and assess all of what happened in a different light, in hindsight. At a minimum I am interested in better understanding many an aspect of the Vietnam War that is not so easy to understand.
Americans relied heavily on air superiority for a variety of reasons,...
For most of man's history, wars have been two dimensional. It is only recently that wars have been waged from the 3rd dimension -- aircraft and submarine.
Attack from above and from below. Powered heavier than aircraft and the submarine have been around before WW II, but it was WW II that finally removed all doubts on the efficacy of these two vehicles as legitimate instruments of battles and influences their outcomes.
The sword extended a fighter's reach. Then came the spear. Then came the bow and arrow. Then came firearms. From firearms, we created weapons that increasingly keep the fighter further and further away from his enemy, such as artillery and later, the rocket/missile.
If I could use ten artillery shells to save one soldier, I would. Same idea for airpower. The US is not unusual from any other military in wanting to rely on airpower as much as possible to save its own forces. The US is unusual only from its industrial might that produced unusually high capacity and high quality airpower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
...and we bombed the daylights out of NV with limited proof the effort was paying off.
There is no 'limited proof' about it. Airpower forced NVN to plea for negotiations, which everyone, including the North Vietnamese themselves, that NVN had no intentions of keeping to any pact. When NVN plead for negotiations, the US/SVN alliance had to acknowledge and cease. The facade had to be maintained. But the facts were undeniable -- that US airpower was so overwhelming that for the first time in military history, airpower may just be on equal footing with ground forces in defeating an enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
To believe the US military could have "won" the war by committing still more troops (and losing them) in NV, beyond the 17th, is also what some might consider some pretty wishful thinking.
But no one in the military believed that -- at the time.
You are the politician. I am the general. While you ponder the strategic goals of the war, I have no choice but continuously conduct the war, if at least to maintain the status quo. The longer the hand wringing, the more costly the war in terms of both materiel and manpower. As the war continues, I have no choice but to commit more troops and equipment to replace what I lose daily, not to advance because you have not made up your mind on what you want out of the war.
That was what happened in the Vietnam War.
That was why in the final analysis, the conclusion that it was the politicians, not the military, who lost the war. That was why we have the phrase 'let the military do its job'. Set definitive strategic goals then stand aside. That was what happened in Desert Storm.
Most civilians have no idea on how much Desert Storm changed conceptual perspectives on how wars should be waged. At the lower level, Desert Storm showed other militaries on what could happened if one was to fight an unrestrained US military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
In any case, I like to feel I am not so much out to "criticize" the US for what it did other than from a critical thinking standpoint, now that we can look back and assess all of what happened in a different light, in hindsight. At a minimum I am interested in better understanding many an aspect of the Vietnam War that is not so easy to understand.
If you look at the maps of all the battles of the Vietnam War, you cannot help but wonder why were they concentrated in southern Viet Nam. It is a mystery only if you do not understand the difference between long term strategic goals and short term objectives, who is responsible for which, and their necessary partition.
For most of man's history, wars have been two dimensional. It is only recently that wars have been waged from the 3rd dimension -- aircraft and submarine.
Attack from above and from below. Powered heavier than aircraft and the submarine have been around before WW II, but it was WW II that finally removed all doubts on the efficacy of these two vehicles as legitimate instruments of battles and influences their outcomes.
The sword extended a fighter's reach. Then came the spear. Then came the bow and arrow. Then came firearms. From firearms, we created weapons that increasingly keep the fighter further and further away from his enemy, such as artillery and later, the rocket/missile.
If I could use ten artillery shells to save one soldier, I would. Same idea for airpower. The US is not unusual from any other military in wanting to rely on airpower as much as possible to save its own forces. The US is unusual only from its industrial might that produced unusually high capacity and high quality airpower.
Took me awhile to understand why I was getting this lesson on the evolution of war, with a bit of concern you are interested in ways that I am not, but of course I know this too. I was not in any way being critical or questioning the use of air power. In no way did I intend to suggest we were "unusual" about what you explain here, and yes of course where we ARE unusual is the level of our superiority, military might. Exceptionally unusual! Sorry I am apparently not making myself clear. These particulars -- for the most part obvious -- are not the sort I am interested in better understanding...
There is no 'limited proof' about it. Airpower forced NVN to plea for negotiations, which everyone, including the North Vietnamese themselves, that NVN had no intentions of keeping to any pact. When NVN plead for negotiations, the US/SVN alliance had to acknowledge and cease. The facade had to be maintained. But the facts were undeniable -- that US airpower was so overwhelming that for the first time in military history, airpower may just be on equal footing with ground forces in defeating an enemy.
The "limited proof" I was referring to is with respect to our ultimate goal of "winning" the Vietnam war like so many complained the military was not being allowed to do. Not many claim our war in Vietnam was successful in general. Again, I may be mistaken, but reading what you are writing here almost suggests we had clear goals and met them, succeeded. If that's what you are saying, then maybe we can leave it at that, but I keep reading different versions about that "success" as previously explained.
I wrote before that I didn't want to "re-fight" the cold war, and I don't. However, I am interested to know if and when we may have been able to find success without the sort of body count we've had to endure in Vietnam, in Iraq, etc. Whether there were alternative ways to achieve our goals, because in many ways we've got those same questions lingering now with Afghanistan, even still in Iraq, the ME in general, now too N.Korea.
You are the politician. I am the general. While you ponder the strategic goals of the war, I have no choice but continuously conduct the war, if at least to maintain the status quo. The longer the hand wringing, the more costly the war in terms of both materiel and manpower. As the war continues, I have no choice but to commit more troops and equipment to replace what I lose daily, not to advance because you have not made up your mind on what you want out of the war.
That was what happened in the Vietnam War.
That was why in the final analysis, the conclusion that it was the politicians, not the military, who lost the war. That was why we have the phrase 'let the military do its job'. Set definitive strategic goals then stand aside. That was what happened in Desert Storm.
Most civilians have no idea on how much Desert Storm changed conceptual perspectives on how wars should be waged. At the lower level, Desert Storm showed other militaries on what could happened if one was to fight an unrestrained US military.
If you look at the maps of all the battles of the Vietnam War, you cannot help but wonder why were they concentrated in southern Viet Nam. It is a mystery only if you do not understand the difference between long term strategic goals and short term objectives, who is responsible for which, and their necessary partition.
What you describe as pondering the strategic goals, others (including me) might describe as wondering why the prior set strategic goals were not being met as originally thought. Or, that maybe the advice and military intelligence to date was not proving as good as first thought. What you describe as "hand wringing" might also be considered the processing of additional/new information and developments that don't so easily get answered with a simple commitment of more troops and air power wherever those on the ground are calling for it, along with more body bags.
Again, not to rethink the cold war, but you do make an important point about the very important task of knowing what the goal and exit strategy are to be at the beginning. How success can be had, all considered, with as little as possible precious American lives and treasure lost. If/when those important considerations and strategies are not well thought out by the leadership, whether political or military, then everyone is doomed for the failure that comes from not knowing what you're doing. In particular as you say with regard to short-term and long-term goals, emphasis on the importance that both are intelligent, viable -- "winnable."
On this no doubt we surely agree and also no doubt what American leadership needs to better accomplish going forward.
The "limited proof" I was referring to is with respect to our ultimate goal of "winning" the Vietnam war like so many complained the military was not being allowed to do. Not many claim our war in Vietnam was successful in general. Again, I may be mistaken, but reading what you are writing here almost suggests we had clear goals and met them, succeeded. If that's what you are saying, then maybe we can leave it at that, but I keep reading different versions about that "success" as previously explained.
I wrote before that I didn't want to "re-fight" the cold war, and I don't. However, I am interested to know if and when we may have been able to find success without the sort of body count we've had to endure in Vietnam, in Iraq, etc. Whether there were alternative ways to achieve our goals, because in many ways we've got those same questions lingering now with Afghanistan, even still in Iraq, the ME in general, now too N.Korea.
One point I have made before..... not sure if on this forum or not...........
I think the consensus from our side was that it would only take so many years of us battling the NV and them sustaining large losses for them to capitulate and come to an agreement. Our idea of an agreement did not meet theirs. Our major mistake was not realizing that their propaganda was much more intense than that in the south. We could not believe that they would sacrifice their people to the point of genocide.
That is what was part of the reason the war dragged on for so long......we underestimated their resolve...
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.
