- Sep 14, 2004
- 2,677
- 481
- 98
- Thread starter
- #21
None of what you have written contradicts my earlier post. I never said that the US lost any battles in SE Asia. The US military was in no way responsible for the American defeat in SE Asia. However, leaving South Viet Nam incapable of defending itself against the obvious Russian/Chinese/North Vietnamese threat cannot be described as anything other than an American defeat. It was for political reasons that the US abandoned the Vietnamese battlefield to the enemy. Yes, the South Vietnamese were there, and they collapsed when attacked in strength from the North. America lost its best chance to win in SE Asia long before it pulled off the battlefield in 1972, or when it disgracefully failed to support the South Vietnamese in 1975. If there had been a US combat commitment in the mid 60s to recover the ground lost by the French, then I believe that the communists could have been stopped at the Chinese border, Viet Nam would have been a non-communist country, and the atrocities committed by communists in SE Asia in the 70s might never have happened. Certainly, if there had been a strong US presence in SE Asia, Pol Pot could not have gotten away with genocide. Anyway, had we pressed forward to the Chinese border in the 60s, when Johnson had the chance, the history of SE Asia could have hardly turned out any worse than it did. Instead, Johnson chose to neither win or lose. He chose to "contain." Thereby uselessly draining the blood and treasure of America, and setting up SE Asia for the humanitarian catastrophes of the 70s. That is why I put Johnson on my worst Presidents list.militarily we DID win. Our troops were no longer involved in ground combat at all by 1972 and the South Viet Namese were able to contain the North with just our support from the air and naval forces.
I suggest you read what actually happened. The South defeated a Northern Invasion in 72 and was in the process of recovering the lost provinces when the democraticly controlled congress cut off funding. In 1975 the North conducted a probe in force and were shocked when the US did not aid the South with air power or naval support, they switched from a probe to an all out Invasion sending 25 Divisions against the 10 to 12 the South had. Outnumbered, with no supplies, no repair parts and no replacement ammo the South fought for a month against this invasion before surrendering.
If you don't believe me, do a little research on what the North Vietnamese generals and leaders had to say about it. Start with how they knew they had lost after the Tet offensive and were surprised the US couldn't see it.
Nixon did EXACTLY what people on the left are demanding be done in Iraq. he made the South take responsibility for their own defense, and yet we have these same people claiming he failed.
Some theorize that by 1988, if we had continued to fund and support the South they would have basicly won the so called insurgency as well. An interesting term, since after Tet there were almost no South Vietnamese insurgents, they were almost all North Vietnemese regular soldiers slipped into the country to pretend there was still an insurgency.
As for Invading North Viet Nam, umm you are aware of who borders them right? The Chinese hate the Viet Namese, but there is no way they would have allowed a US invasion of that buffer country.
Nixon had cut off ( virtually) the Ho Chi Mein trail and forced the North to talk. Sure the talks were a bid for time, but Nixon had also forced the South to do its own fighting.