Could one man have shortened the VN war?

[ajbUSWM]

 

My point above. We should stop killing our young men and women if we don't intend to be the victor (as difficult as that is to define). That is, "going to war" without a clear defined reason for war, winning the war, and going home.

 

Ken

 

AMEN... bring them home.

[tw5270]

Vietnam was the first war that people at home saw daily footage of war. Separated a nation. You can't sit in suburbia and understand any combat zone. United we stand, divided we fall. We did. As has been mentioned, too many political factors being considered to fight that war properly.

 

Afganistan is different animal. Politics still plays too vital a role in the methodoly of fighting that war but there are other factors. As mentioned we are not fighting a nation. Every time we kill a terrorist / Islamic Extremist we create 5 more. We are trying to fight a conventional war in an occupied country. There are no battlefields, no line in the dirt that says hey, bad guys on this side. Yet we move our forces like a general designing battle plans in WWII.

 

Unleash the soldiers. No quarter, kill every single extremist, their sons, brothers, fathers, cousins, and friends.

[Sabrejet]

I think it's generally accepted that the US won the war militarily, prior to Nixon's "Vietnamization" policy....but lost it politically.

[Jack's Son]

What about the Korean War?

AJ, the question prefaced the VN war, honestly I didn't go back farther in history.

[Jack's Son]

I think it's generally accepted that the US won the war militarily......

I think your being kind, Ian?

[Sabrejet]

Have you read Shelby Stanton's "Rise and Fall of an American Army"? It's a very readable account of the highs and lows of the VN War and the reasons for America's "failure" as he sees it.

 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/334362.The_Rise_and_Fall_of_an_American_Army

[rr01]

It is interesting to me that Vietnam continues to be so analyzed, including by armchair pundits but nothing changes. As for the one Man who could have shortened that war or any war it is dependent on philosophies but it seems He is always ignored and only implored right before a major battle or while sitting alone in that foxhole.

[Jack's Son]

From my hilltop, it appears that economics and politics drive wars. If the military were felt alone to do their job, we would never be a looser, or even tied.

[ajbUSWM]

I'm all for bringing them home. Although we are starting to open even more new fronts .. goodness.

[J_Andrews]

Like the South Koreans, the Thai. Taiwanese, Filipinos and the Japanese (government) did not bemoan our presence and military ops in SEA. THEY understood the "Domino Theory" was not the stuff of a comdey skit

 

My RVN counterparts, in various personal discussions in 1970-1971, made it clear that they did not regard the war as a CIVIL war, between "brothers". With no prompting, they stated that any Communist is the brother of nobody but Communists; Communists cut themselves off fro, inter alia, Basic Humanity. They thought that VC/NVA "hoi-chanhs" were being coddled and had it too easy. They thought such folks should be put to hard labor, growing rice or eradicating mosquitos, etc.

 

They reinforced the above by pointing out that Tet 68 was a Great Watershed. Not just because it brought the VC "rats" out of hiding and facilitated their extermination. Very specifically it was the NVA massacre of thousands of innocents in and around Hue during Tet. One counterpart was Christian and stressed that his atrocity shocked Buddhists, a rare thing. Popular sentiment, according to them, was reflected in the numbers of draftees (dodgers had nearly dried up by 1970) entering service and then the numbers volunteering for elite units (Abn, Marines, Rangers, MPs) (The Abn Div was indeed over-strength and had a waiting list). Young men previously considered unfit were contesting "4F" status; some of these got into uniform by joining the Natl Police (and the NPFF gendarmerie especially).

 

When the U.S. and ARVN invaded Cambodia in May-June 1970, the South VNese were pleased -- time to dish it out, pay-back time. A VNMC CPT (son-in-law of a counterpart) told me that when his Bde formed up to head into Cambodia, it was 25-30% over-strength. It seemed that though the op was "secret" word seeped out and retirees showed up in ranks, MSGs acting as machine-gunners and drivers, long-missing deserters and light-duty wounded ones with them (in uniform and mostly armed, at personal expense). There were dozens of wives and daughters too -- for nurses. Nobody wanted to miss The Big Show.

 

They also advanced the notion that the war would not end until the South occupied the North, in whole, or in part, with a DMZ between VN and China. To do this, they had no doubt that the ARVN could and would gladly handle it, with little US on-the-ground involvement (tac advisors, TACPs, SF, recon), IF the U.S. "passed the ammunition".

[ajbUSWM]

Like the South Koreans, the Thai. Taiwanese, Filipinos and the Japanese (government) did not bemoan our presence and military ops in SEA. THEY understood the "Domino Theory" was not the stuff of a comdey skit

 

My RVN counterparts, in various personal discussions in 1970-1971, made it clear that they did not regard the war as a CIVIL war, between "brothers". With no prompting, they stated that any Communist is the brother of nobody but Communists; Communists cut themselves off fro, inter alia, Basic Humanity.

 

Communism/progressivism is a cult ... destroy not only anything in their path... but destroying anyone who disagrees with them. We are learning these lessons the hard way.

[hueytaxi]

So few today understand the frustration of fighting a war with Washington directing the process. Any war we enter is winnable, but the cost and outcome may not be what we seek. My first tour, we had war zones and could engage any target we encountered. Within a few months we had pacified the local area and found contact difficult. We began to branch out into other AO's to stay fresh.

[J_Andrews]

IMHO re VN, Nixon got it RIGHT. Vietnamization -- which I saw taking hold every day in 19701971 I CTZ -- was a valid concept.

 

BUT all the big plans hinged on material support from (90%) the U.S. And the "equation" changed drastically with Watergate/Nixon's resignation, then the throng of leftists elected to the House of Reps in 1972. NOTE: Many of these did not last in national elected office, as they were one-trick-pony (one issue, i.e.antiwar) lightweights. (BTW I got "background" on this situation from my aunt, who was a life-long Capitol Hill secretary/admin aide. She always worked for Dems and told me that many of The Old Line were "livid with rage" and "disgusted" with the "Hippie punks" of those days.)

 

Anyway, after Nixon the hippies in Congress "de-funded" even the TRANSPORT of war materiel that was already made and sitting in storage or even en route on ships at sea. We basically cut off bullets, most fuel, and repair parts.

 

After the 1973 Accords the aid cut-off just went down hill, and of course the NVA saw a great opportunity -- they could and would ignore the no-no's of the Accords, secure in the notion that we would not lift a finger.

 

On another tangent: If one accepts 1965 as the "beginning" of the war, please note that the US forces deployed then were there to defeat (or neutralize) the Viet Cong as a military force, period. THAT was accomplished.

 

By 1967, the VC was so bad off (generally) it needed the infusion of tens of thousands NVA helpers to carry the load (and their materiel improved greatly, thanks to Soviet and Chicom largesse and the HCM Trail). Then came Tet 68. Contrary to our dear mainstream media, it did not seem a DEFEAT to those in-country. The VC/NVA rose up -- and got slapped down; AFTER Tet, on into Tet 69, the VC was nearly gone and even the NVA Bad Guys were LOSING. And the war was an NVA show. In 1974-1975, Pres, Ford COULD use the NVA violations as justification for various "surgical" interventions, but did nothing. Obama ignores the Constitution and laws, and does strange things by one-sided Executive Order or with no excuse at all.

 

So, if "we" "lost the war", the "we" was not the U.S. armed forces. It was U.S. politicians. Who betrayed an ally and gave the war away.