Could We Have Won Vietnam?

[andyfox]

"modern politicians have stated that vietnam was a good war precisely because it deterred other countries from going commie."

Ridiculous. The fact that American leaders didn't understand that Vietnamese communism was related to Vietnamese issues doesn't mean other countries' leaders didn't get it. Which modern politicians have called Vietnam a "good war"? Seems to me politicains from all over the political specturm feel (for different reasons) it was a disaster.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
"modern politicians have stated that vietnam was a good war precisely because it deterred other countries from going commie."

Ridiculous. The fact that American leaders didn't understand that Vietnamese communism was related to Vietnamese issues doesn't mean other countries' leaders didn't get it. Which modern politicians have called Vietnam a "good war"? Seems to me politicains from all over the political specturm feel (for different reasons) it was a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, I should have said "modern day total scum p;oliticians".
people like newt gingrich. probably most high level right wing republicans.

I'm almost positive that piece of human garbage UN guy Bolton holds that view, to name another.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
"modern politicians have stated that vietnam was a good war precisely because it deterred other countries from going commie."

Ridiculous. The fact that American leaders didn't understand that Vietnamese communism was related to Vietnamese issues doesn't mean other countries' leaders didn't get it. Which modern politicians have called Vietnam a "good war"? Seems to me politicains from all over the political specturm feel (for different reasons) it was a disaster.



sorry, I should have said "modern day total scum p;oliticians".
people like newt gingrich. probably most high level right wing republicans.

I'm almost positive that piece of human garbage UN guy Bolton holds that view, to name another.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol I type in

youtube vietnam good war

in google, and one of the first things is that crappy bill maher show where bill himself thinks the vietnam war was good in the sense that it stopped communism. what a tool.

another link where bush said in a press conference basically that we should have stayed in vietnam and won it or somethign like that.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
"modern politicians have stated that vietnam was a good war precisely because it deterred other countries from going commie."

Ridiculous. The fact that American leaders didn't understand that Vietnamese communism was related to Vietnamese issues doesn't mean other countries' leaders didn't get it. Which modern politicians have called Vietnam a "good war"? Seems to me politicains from all over the political specturm feel (for different reasons) it was a disaster.



sorry, I should have said "modern day total scum p;oliticians".
people like newt gingrich. probably most high level right wing republicans.

I'm almost positive that piece of human garbage UN guy Bolton holds that view, to name another.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol I type in

youtube vietnam good war

in google, and one of the first things is that crappy bill maher show where bill himself thinks the vietnam war was good in the sense that it stopped communism. what a tool.

another link where bush said in a press conference basically that we should have stayed in vietnam and won it or somethign like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe the quote was driven by the millions of vietnamese and cambodians killed, but i'm not 100% sure...

leaving vietnam had some very severe negative consequences, and to ignore them or dismiss the people who point them out as idiots or insane illustrates either a large ignorance pertaining to the war or dishonesty.

[illini43]

Do the consequences of leaving Vietnam outweigh consequences that would have happened to both Americans and Vietnamese if the US never involved itself in the first place? In other words, US does not intervene in Vietnam > US intervening in Vietnam?


Pertaining to the current war, and I quote Ron Paul,

"The argument [for the continuation of the war] has been reduced to this: if we leave now, Iraq will be a mess, immplying the implausible, that if we stay, it won't be a mess."

In re: ikestoys last comment,

Leaving Vietnam had severe consequences, and it is important to point those out. However, more severe consequences would have resulted if the US stayed (more lives on both sides lost, further destruction of Vietnam geographically) rather than thrown in the towel on the whole situation.


The US has had a problem with "winning" WARS (not battles) since World War II and I believe this is a direct result of trying to play world police and mediator. Every major conflict we have been involved with since WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq part I, Somalia, Kosovo, and others I am forgetting) has ended without a "victory" in the traditional sense of the word. The 'bad guy' was never truly defeated and these crises evolved and settled as a result of internal politics, not pressure from abroad.

[Nonfiction]

Grunch,

No, we could not have won Vietnam. It is impossible for an attacker to inflict his will on a defender who refuses to be defeated. Only a defender can wage absolute war, that of guerrilla warfare. War is an extension of politics, and all wars have a political objective. If the defender has the will to never admit defeat, he can make sure that the attacker will never be able to succeed in accomplishing its political objectives. The attacker is then forced to either change its political objectives, resulting in victory for the defender.

This has been proven many times, especially when the attacker is a democratic nation (as are most world powers). For modern examples you can look at every single war of independence against colonial powers, as well as Vietnam (for US), Afghanistan (for soviets) and Iraq (for US). If the defender has the will to resists to the end, no matter the destruction rained down on them, they will eventually emerge victorious. The only way for an attacker to succeed in its task against such an opponent is total and complete genocide (which will obviously not happen when the attacker is a democratic nation).

Btw all of this was written almost 300 years ago by Clausewitz. Dude was such a genius.

[vulturesrow]

In a strictly military sense, we won the war. Yes we dropped a huge number of bombs. A good deal of them were on militarily insignificant targets. Many times we struck the same targets over and over, going "same way, different day". This incidentally, was definitely a factor in the number of aircraft that were shot down. Once we made the decision to start striking the heart of the North Vietnamese, there was a marked change of heart on the part of the leadership. There is a great quote on the palpable effect of the B52 raids late in the war from Admiral Stockdale, I'll look it up tomorrow in my books for all of you.

If you dont think Communism was worth fighting in Vietnam, just take a look at some of the actions of the Communist leadership after the departure of US forces. Its not for nothing that we have such a relatively large population of Vietnamese immigrants in the United States. As an interesting aside, in my experience in the military so far (almost 10 years now), there is a small but significant number of Vietnamese people (at least in the Navy).

If nothing else, Vietnam is a testament to the dangers of the civilian leadership to try and completely run a war. I'm not saying we shouldnt have the structure we have in place now, but the once the civilian policy makers make the decision to go to war, they ought to leave the running of it to the hands of the people that are there to do it.

For better or worse, Vietnam left a distinct mark on the US military and one that I feel is only now really starting to diminish in any appreciable respect.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
In a strictly military sense, we won the war.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL


The vietnam war was won, without a doubt by the Vietcong! It was a humiliating defeat for the US strategists.

The OP question is of little import, it implies a great big "If" and many subordinates ones. To me Vietnam was the first objective sign of the weakening of American imperialism. It has gone downhill ever since. It simply showed that technological superiority has little to do with cultural will and history.

US:Vietcong - 0:1

Simple as. Of course, there are many revisionists views in the US, as other wars have been lost by the US also, since. Not all, but a sufficient numbers, to question US world superiority! I mean the US could not even achieve a victory against Cuba! Cuba is still there thumbing its nose at the US! Talk about David and Goliath! LOL!

[lehighguy]

Nobody in Vietnam liked the communists, but they didn't like us either. We weren't fighting communism, we were fighting nationalism. We were fighting people who, like nearly every civilization at that time, wanted to throw of the yoke of colonialism.

What exactely was our endgame in Vietnam? We went in there to support a cruel dictator that started te insurgency to begin with. Would we have had to stay there forever? What was South Vietnam suppose to look like in the end? It seems to me that we were just trying to prop up one or another corrupt despotic thug in the hopes they would be our puppet. Is that why all those people died?

Every year in Vietnam made it worse. Every year the war itself created more insurgents. Every time you bomb a village and kill a mother or brother or child you create a new VC. We killed millions of Vietnamese. We dropped checmical weapons on them. Victory?

We need to destroy the village to save it. That pretty much sums up the entire war.

[andyfox]

I would say that most, if not all, of the Republicans at the debate, with the exception of Paul, would say that Vietnam awas a noble enterprise that went awry because we didn't fight the war to win, because the media and peace movements subverted our efforts. They would say the war was a disaster because. Whereas I would think most of the Democrats running would say it was a dissaster because it was the wrong war to fight in the wrong place.