Jump to content

Vietnam after Tet


gpspartans
 Share

Recommended Posts

my opinion is Tet cost us victory as we lost a large part of the American public support. however, militarily we kicked their butts and set them back years. I wonder, with the nature of that war and of the enemy, if we had kicked it up and stepped on them could we have gotten much better terms on peace? could we have saved S. Vietnam or was it truly a lost cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere a couple years ago that the North Vietnamese General in charge said that if the US had continued the bombing of the North for one more month they were ready to negotiate peace on our terms or completely surrender. To me Vietnam was not a lost cause, but a cause lost in Washington and the streets of America. Without getting political, I know we may have been caught off guard with Tet, but we still won all the major battles. Long story short, to many American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen lost in a "conflict" we just couldn't or wouldn't make a total commitment to. To many South Vietnamese allies and friends and Montagnard which assisted us and helped us were sacrificed. God Bless those that served, God Bless those that gave all, and God Bless those that supported us and we turned our backs on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vietnam proved that politicians should leave wars to the Generals, and it stands true to this day. It's one of those "you can't have your cake and eat it too" situations. Politics are handcuffs in combat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is a tough one. MacArthur wanted to Nuke China and N Koreans. LBJ wanted to micromanage the war. LBJ tied the hands of his commanders. but, Mac would have started WW3. I was just too young by a couple of years to serve in Vietnam but I admit I hated the protest while we had men dying. the public should damn well not decide anything when our men are in combat. So, who decides? in my opinion, once you go to war the only way to end it is to win or lose. and every effort, short of starting WW3, should be made to bring the enemy to their knees and have them surrender like we did in WW2. with non-state enemies I don't know how to close the war but you can't pick a date and call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God Bless those that served, God Bless those that gave all, and God Bless those that supported us and we turned our backs on.

 

2nd that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

You should do a bit of research on our goals and reasons for being there.

 

It was never our war to win.

 

We agreed, in response to events of the 50s and the percieved communist threat at the time, to aid the recognised govt of S Vietnam.

 

They were fighting a National Liberation Front, the VC, and purely communist insurgeants from the North.

 

Both these had a communist based ideology and in those days, our thinking was their expansion had to be contained.

 

We were supposed to provide materials, air power and manpower to support and train the South.

 

The South did not live up to their commitment and we did not do much to change that.

 

After long years of casualties and no end in sight, the plug was fianlly pulled. Reasons and blame are fairly broad.

 

It is disturbing to me that Americans find issues with protesting and questioning policies and practices .Those are some of our most cherished rights.

We get to stand up and question affairs and expect responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1SG_1st_Cav

If you want an honest answer as to why we lost the war, read the book "A Bright Shining Lie'.

 

The South Vietnamese government and Military was totally corrupt. It was an impossible task

to think we could win that war. The enemy had infiltrated all of the South Vietnamese military

entities. And the leadership was very poor quality. But they all wanted to make money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it was never our war to win. my question was, could we have won it after Tet. my answer is yes. there is no way they could have beat us. we lost the war in the USA not in the field. if we had gone to it we could have hurt them so bad they would only have non-trained troopers left & we could have bombed the crap out of them.

 

my thesis is we should never go to war without the will to win, just as we did in WW2. I say that because the life of one American soldier is too precious to waste on BS. sure there are operations that have limited goals but Vietnam was not that. I trace our current situation to the awful use of American power in Beirut & Vietnam, and with Black Hawk Down, all we did is show the world if you hurt us we will pull out. the NAZI's would have loved that. 9/11 would have never happened if OBL knew we would come in and kick his rump.

 

now, we can protest. but when the situation is so serious, with troops in the field, we need to be realistic and not idealistic. I will say that I think most protesters were chicken of going to war. they wanted to smoke pot and make love. well, the world isn't so dang nice as to let you alone to find your safe place. sometimes you need to fight and if you do you need to win.

 

sorry I ramble, my thought are not so fixed as my anger at those that forced the end of a war we should have one and that I link to 9/11 and the situation were in now. no end in sight of the fighting and dying (of mostly poor American kids).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I will say that I think most protesters were chicken of going to war. they wanted to smoke pot and make love. well, the world isn't so dang nice as to let you alone to find your safe place. sometimes you need to fight and if you do you need to win."

A too broad and all inclusive statement. What of those who weren't as you describe, such as the veterans of the War in Vietnam, expecially in the 1970-1973 period?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep, you got me on that one. however, a lot of those guys were drafted and didn't support the war in the first place. what I am saying is. it was stupid to go into an Asian War. Once we were in, we should have been all in. those protesters (some of them) treated our soldiers (and me a few years after Vietnam) like dog doo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my personal experience (admittedly limited) of service during my first enlistment from Jan 1970 to Jan 1973 was that I was not ill treated by anyone who disagreed with our actions in SVN. Plenty of active duty GIs (EM and officers of all grades) disagreed with the war, too. It is not a simple and clear cut issue for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, I agree. my comments are personal. I was treated bad, even in S. Calf. spit on twice and a favorite when I was hitching a ride was for the car to pull over a little ways away and when I caught up, they drove off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garandomatic

I've been following this, figured I'd post. I have such a hard time forming a solid opinion on Vietnam, and I have to teach it to Freshmen and Sophomores. Best I can do is lay out the sides and hope they get the basics.

 

I can see it as an easy thing to fall into, given the Cold War politics at the time... We backed up South Korea, propped up a lot of European Allies, so some of it is a kind of no-brainer if you put yourself in the shoes of the leaders of the time.

 

I think Johnson screwed up pretty bad, though. 1963 was a bad year... Kennedy and McNamara were working on getting out because it was such a mess, and them Diem is overthrown, which complicates it (McNamara said the US government had something to do with it outside of JFK's authority), and then Kennedy. There is an interesting clip from a documentary on McNamara on youtube that I show... has audio from the White House were Johnson pretty much silences McNamara and says he's going to blunder on in...

 

You can excoriate Nixon a bit, too. I've read that Watergate basically ended the show regardless of whether the South had the upper hand or not in 1975. A lot of Congressmen got elected by jumping on the anti-establishment bandwagon, and consequently denied pretty much anything Ford requested. I saw something that said that ARVN had the NVA and VC outgunned, but their vehicles were basically out of fuel...

 

I also think that there is a lot to be said for reducing political leadership interference. A statement I shared with my kids regarding the decision to use the A-Bomb basically says that if your country is powerful, concessions are unnecessary because they are an admission of weakness that would embolden the enemy. I think Johnson and Nixon pulled punched that might have ended the war more favorably here and there. At the same time, I can't fault Truman for firing MacArthur, though. Mac may as well have sent the Chinese invitations to WWIII. I think Eisenhower may have had it figured out, though. He eschewed "limited wars" as unwinnable for the most part, and probably from the very beginning, that kind of notion might have done us well, and possibly would have allowed us to avoid the schisms (if not their presence, maybe the extent of their division) that have greatly divided our politics ever since.

 

One idea that I would like to read more about is the regional impact of Vietnam. I have read that even though the South fell, it consumed so many resources that it made it too difficult for Communism to spread to Thailand, the Philippines, and other spots in the region (Cambodia and Laos, of course, excepted). I kind of wouldn't mind seeing people's opinions of that, or anything else I wrote for that matter.

 

At the end of the day, it's such a hard thing to feel like you can find decent unbiased information about. You can always find an "on the other hand." One of Dad's buddies had dog doo thrown on him in San Francisco in '68 when he came home, I'll never forget that, and though it's silly, not being alive during the period, I'll never let it go. Just can't. Heck of a good guy, and a mountain of a man. Then another buddy of his was about TEN sheets to the wind when he came home, so gone he barely knew his name, and had to get across the airport to his next plane. Who should help him find his plane AND carry his luggage? Some hippy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jumpin Jack

I want so badly to address this subject, but I'm hours away from leaving on vacation. I'll pick this up when I return. I can provide a great deal of insight into this period from first hand experience. Jack Angolia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cutiger83

sorry I ramble, my thought are not so fixed as my anger at those that forced the end of a war we should have one and that I link to 9/11 and the situation were in now. no end in sight of the fighting and dying (of mostly poor American kids).

 

I believe you are way over-generalizing the facts based on your personal feelings and not on any true facts.

 

The military is not “mostly poor American kids”. The military today is an all volunteer military that is better educated than the American population.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/military-education-infographic_n_1873842.html

 

“As a whole, the U.S. military is far better educated than the American population it defends. 82.8% of U.S. military officers in 2010 had at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 29.9 percent of the general population. 93.6% of enlisted soldiers had at least a high school diploma, compared to 59.5% of America.”

 

You state “9/11 would have never happened if OBL knew we would come in and kick his rump." You cannot compare what is happening today with what happened 50 years ago in Vietnam. The extremists of today are far more radical and ruthless. You cannot possibly think that OBL would have behaved any differently based on past history. His extreme political and religious views were so far out there that I believe he would have still behaved the same way. Religious wars have been happening for thousands of years.

 

Only 25% of the Vietnam veterans were drafted. To state that the Vietnam veterans who were against the war were draftees is WAY over-generalizing the statistics. In addition, to state that most of the drafted soldiers did not support the war, is another over-generalization based on your perception not on facts. Where are any of the facts stated that you keep throwing into this thread?

 

Are you basing any of your “ramblings” on actual statistical facts? If so, please post your research. I did a quick google search before replying to this thread. I prefer to research and state my opinion based on facts rather than ramblings.

 

...Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gpspartans

I prefaced my remarks with, I believe. I do know this without even looking, there are many more poor - middle class kids in the service then upper class. having a better education does not mean much if you can't find a job and your family is lower class. religious wars have been happening a thousand years or so. prior to that it was war for land or riches. the Barbarians didn't come after Rome for religion. if you (your country) is scared of what will happen should they attack you, they might not attack you. just look at Europe in the 30's, they let Hitler run because they were afraid and knew what a war would be like if there was another, tech advanced, World War. if they had stepped on Hitler early maybe no other country would dare challenge them. there are no stat's, for or against, to state what OBL would have done had we done this or that, but it is safe to say, if he knew we would step on his butt he might not be so eager to attack us on 9/11.

 

almost 1/3 of combat deaths in Vietnam (30.4%) were drafted & 76% of those sent to Vietnam... were from lower classes. 82% of vets believe the war was lost because of political will and that was lost due to the American civilians.

 

today is different than 9/11, I give you that. but...maybe, if we had lived up to our power since Beirut our enemies would have had more respect for us and not attacked us on 9/11 in the first place. it is common for our enemies to claim (and it is true) that all they have to do is wait us out and we will go away and then they can do as they please.

 

still, I agree you have your points & today is not yesterday and who knows what the situation would be like today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of historic perspective that I still find useful today ....

 

In the immediate aftermath of WWI, Major General Fox Conner had tutored Dwight Eisenhower on the 3 pillars of American warfare: Never fight unless you have to, never fight alone, and never fight for long.

 

Apply these pillars to wars fought since WWI, and I think you'll find that Major General Conner was a pretty insightful individual.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

“As a whole, the U.S. military is far better educated than the American population it defends. 82.8% of U.S. military officers in 2010 had at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 29.9 percent of the general population. 93.6% of enlisted soldiers had at least a high school diploma, compared to 59.5% of America.”

 

 

...Kat

One needs to keep in mind that the military has greatly increased its educational requirements since Vietnam, as well, and this educated increase is not due to the military drawing a smarter group of civilians. Many applicants are turned away for not meeting the educational prerequisites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cutiger83

 

today is different than 9/11, I give you that. but...maybe, if we had lived up to our power since Beirut our enemies would have had more respect for us and not attacked us on 9/11 in the first place.

 

 

Based on the percentage of upper class in America, of course the military will be comprised mostly of the middle class. However, that does NOT mean that “mostly poor American kids” are fighting and dying for our country. The 76% you mention were from the lower/middle class not just the lower class.

 

Since you brought up Rome and the barbarians, one of the reasons listed for the decline of Rome dovetailed with the spread of Christianity, and some have argued that the rise of a new faith helped contribute to the empire’s fall. But we digress by getting off on this tangent. :)

 

You keep talking about our “power” being lost since Beirut. During WWII, we were the industrial power of the world. We won WWII by out-producing the other nations not by our military prowess. We are no longer the industrial power that we were during WWII. I noticed you failed to mention Korea which was only 5 years after WWII.

 

It is not “safe to say if he knew we would step on his butt he might not be so eager to attack us on 9/11.” People with extreme views have their opinion and nothing anyone says or does will change their opinion. People with views such as OBL don’t listen to reason or might. They will always believe their way is correct and their means are justified. Nothing we say or do will change their extreme views.

 

What exactly is it that you want our country to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is steering dangerously close to modern day politics, we all know we don't allow such discussions here, so, on all sides, let's steer it back on track to the topic at hand...Vietnam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cutiger83

Back to the discussion about Tet, this is an interesting article in the Smithsonian magazine about some new unclassified tapes:

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist

“Nixon Prolonged Vietnam War for Political Gain—And Johnson Knew About It, Newly Unclassified Tapes Suggest Nixon ran on a platform that opposed the Vietnam war, but to win the election, he needed the war to continue”

 

“In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings,”

 

“President Johnson had at the time a habit of recording all of his phone conversations, and newly released tapes from 1968 detailed that the FBI had ‘bugged’ the telephones of the South Vietnamese ambassador and of Anna Chennault, one of Nixon’s aides. Based on the tapes, says Taylor for the BBC, we learn that in the time leading up to the Paris Peace talks, “Chennault was dispatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Got to jump in on the enlistment rates. This gets shouted to death from the rooftops and is misleading and innacurate.

 

Before the lottery, which was not until about 1969, There were classsifications related to being deferred. 2s was if you were in school with a C average, 4s was unfit.

There were others, such as married with children, surviving son, etc.

1A was the bloody ticket-no deferment, no excuse-you were a goner-you were transparant. People looked right through you.

You really had to be there to appreciate the oppression of it. Not the sword of Damoclese, more like the nine-ton shithammer.

 

Many thousands of us, facing being called up, volunteered in order to get it over with and get more of a choice.

Mere handfulls actually enlisted to go fight in a place nobody had heard of for a cause they had never heard of.

Just did not happen. Another large group were young miscreants who had committed minor crimes and were given a choice by a judge.

I had lost my school deferment in 1966 and enlisted with the draft at my heels.

 

This was not a patriotic move by we who did it. It was a desparate act by guys standing on the rails of sinking ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1SG_1st_Cav

I was a professional SSG with 7.5 years in the service when I deployed to Vietnam. Most of my men were draftees, and some were very educated. While the others had at least a High School education. I, on the other hand, was working with just a GED Certificate.

Thanks to the nuns at my grade school, I had great math skills, and that made a big difference. I also had many years of family military history to live up to. My Dad, two uncles, and a cousin all served in WWII. Then two of my uncles served during the Korean War. My step-father served 8 years active in the Navy during, and after WWII, then 22 years in the Navy Reserve. My younger brother served 8 years in the Navy, 4 cousins served in the Army, and another cousin served in the Navy. Also, my older brother served 4 years in the Air Force, with a tour in Vietnam. Another cousin served 22 years in the Army, and served two years in the sand box before retiring. I had a lot of relatives watching me for sure. After the first shift troops returned in 1966, they all went thru San Francisco. And all hell broke loose, and a lot of hippies got their butts whipped. From then on, 101st,1st Cav, and 173rd Abn Bde troopers were not allowed to come back thru Oakland/San Francisco. We came back thru Fort Lewis, Washington.

 

We did not get the public support from the public. And our politicians should have let the Generals develop the strategies to use to WIN the war, not PACIFY the Vietnamese. I will bite my tongue about the debacle we've gone thru since 9/11. We've never learned our lesson. Disgusted!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...