Was the Vietnam War Won (and then lost) - Forgotten History of the Vietnam War?

[GHook93]

I want to point out that this is not about whether we should have gone into Vietnam or not. Nor whether we should have stayed in so long.

Funny when I used to hear about the Tet Offensive in school by liberal professors, they stated it as a major victory for the Viet Cong and NVA. However, that couldn't be further from the truth. First, the Viet Cong was decimated and was no longer an effective fighting unit. The damage of this failed operation knocked them out.

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/P...The Defining Year 1968 PCN 19000313800_1.pdf
Horrendous losses inflicted on Viet Cong units struck into the heart of the irreplaceable infrastructure that had been built up for over a decade. MACV estimated that 181,149 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops had been killed during 1968.From this point forward, Hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the Viet Cong's ranks with North Vietnamese regulars

Second, the Tet Offensive also critically wounded the NVA.

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/P...The Defining Year 1968 PCN 19000313800_1.pdf
North Vietnam had little difficulty making up the casualties inflicted by the offensive.

Prior to Nixon taking office, LBJ was wary of China and/or Russia directly entering the war as China did in the Korea War. Therefore, the loser approach, was not to engage in operations in North Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos. Nixon understood you couldn't win if you didn't take out North Vietnam resupplying capability. Therefore he stated the bombing of the North. He then also took the fight to Cambodia and Laos. I know the revisionist will say this did nothing. However, the bombing of the North, which should have happened YEARS before, crippled the North in resupplying and decimated their economy.

This forced them to the table of at the Paris Peace Accords, which they previously refused to do. The sides signed the Accords. Then Watergate occurred. The Democrats took Congress, they defunded all war operation (as it was agreed upon in the Paris Accords) and went back on ALL promises they made the South Vietnamese. They left the South without the weapons promised, with out the foreign aid, without the air support promised and left them on a silver platter for the North. The North saw this act of weakness and started to attack the South. Make no mistake, if the North won't have tested the US, if they though the bombing campaign of the North would have continued.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 21 | 1975: Vietnam's President Thieu resigns
Nixon was driven from office due to the Watergate scandal in 1974 and when the North Vietnamese did begin their final offensive early in 1975, the United States Congress (controlled by the Democratic Party) refused to appropriate the funds needed by the South Vietnamese, who collapsed completely. Thieu resigned, accusing the U.S. of betrayal in a TV and radio address:

"At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men"

The NVA tested whether the US would keep it's promise with a small attack in the North against Buôn Ma Thuột. The US did nothing. Since the US did nothing, they pushed on. When they saw the news that the Democrats in control of Congress stated no funding, no air support and no support at all, they pushed it into full gear.

Make no mistake, the South Vietnamese army wasn't the best army, but if they were equipped funded and supported with US air support they would have been able to stop this next offensive. If the US then bombed the North the North would have backed off.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk]The Truth about the Vietnam War - YouTube[/ame]

 

[GHook93]

I think it was a poor decision to enter the Vietnamese civil war. We lost 58,000 men and it was costly. In the end, Vietnam shifted toward a market based economy, with private property, private enterprise, private bankers and foreign investment anyways. Much in the same way China did.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/2002/fdi/eng/pdf/doanh.pdf
Over that period, the economy has experienced rapid growth. Nowadays, Vietnam is in a period of being integrated into the global economy. Almost all Vietnamese enterprises are small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Vietnam has become a leading agricultural exporter and served as an attractive destination for foreign investment in Southeast Asia.

They did it surprisingly quick. It started int he 1980s, not even a decade after the North won the war.

 

[whitehall]

LBJ set the rules so that the US could win every battle and still lose the war. The NVA ceased to exist after Tet but Walter Cronkite saved the day for the VC when he pronounced the American overwhelming victory to be a "stalemate" and the freaking coward in the WH threw in the towel and tearfully announced that he would not run for re-election.

 

[jwoodie]

The US military is brilliant at the tactical level, but stupid at the strategic level and delusional at the political level. Civilian control (e.g., Hitler) over military strategy is almost always a bad idea. (FDR's best contribution to WW2 was letting the generals win the war; his worst contribution was losing the peace.)

Case #1: Our sole military objective in the Vietnamese civil war should have been to secure the borders against outside (e.g., North Vietnamese) incursions. Instead our CIC couldn't resist the chance to play with toy soldiers.

Case#2: Our sole military objective in Iraq (after removing Saddam) should have been to establish secure administrative districts (e.g., Kurds) which could function autonomously unless/until a legitimate national government could be formed. Instead, our CIC couldn't resist the chance to proselytize democracy to this tribal fiefdom. (His successor then followed FDR's example by snatching defeat from the jaws of any victory.)

Case#3: Our sole military objective in Afghanistan should be to limit that country's ability to foment terrorist activities outside of its borders. Instead, we have tried to instill our political and social values on this tribal fiefdom. As in Iraq, our CIC is now forfeiting any gains by abandoning that country back to our enemies.

Instead of asking the military to come up with a plan to implement his own political objectives, our CIC should ask the military what objectives are within its capability to achieve (i.e., NOT being the world's police or social workers).

 

[Vigilante]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnNGfcKHyVY]MOV01484.MPG Know Why We Lost The Vietnam War? You Will After You Watch This Video! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Pointing fingers and assigning blame for the fiasco which was the Vietnam War (The American War, according to our current trading partner and tourist destination) is ridiculous, as well an example of mental masturbation. The RED SCARE (currently under resurrection by the the Neo Fascist far right) has begun anew; this hackneyed policy which has cost our nation too much blood, treasure and prestige is nothing more than hate and fear mongering.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The North Vietnamese had been fighting one enemy or another since WW2, and were prepared to continue to do so forever. The South Vietnamese Regime was so hopelessly corrupt that no amount of help from us could possibly keep that government alive. The South was doomed from the start.

 

[regent]

So did America win or lose the Vietnam War?

 

[GHook93]

Pointing fingers and assigning blame for the fiasco which was the Vietnam War (The American War, according to our current trading partner and tourist destination) is ridiculous, as well an example of mental masturbation. The RED SCARE (currently under resurrection by the the Neo Fascist far right) has begun anew; this hackneyed policy which has cost our nation too much blood, treasure and prestige is nothing more than hate and fear mongering.

Typical you didn't read the OP. I stated I wasn't arguing whether it was right or wrong to go into Vietnam, since I didn't think so. So take your self-righteousness and shove it up your ass.

I was bringing up the FACT that the Tet offensive was a victory for the US and the bombing campaign of the North brought the NV government to the negotiating table to sign a peace agreement.

After that agreement we gave the South Vietnamese many promises and assurances. We backed out of them and left the South high and dry!

 

[GHook93]

The North Vietnamese had been fighting one enemy or another since WW2, and were prepared to continue to do so forever. The South Vietnamese Regime was so hopelessly corrupt that no amount of help from us could possibly keep that government alive. The South was doomed from the start.

Not true! The Tet offensive destroyed the VC and the NVA was decimated, however, it wasn't until the US started to bomb the North's infrastructure that the NVA decided to come to the negotiating table. They did sign a peace agreement. We promised the South many things including air support. When then turned our backs on them!

 

[GHook93]

So did America win or lose the Vietnam War?

We could have won it in the same senses we won the Korean War, but we didn't!

 

[Sunni Man]

The North Vietnamese had been fighting one enemy or another since WW2, and were prepared to continue to do so forever. The South Vietnamese Regime was so hopelessly corrupt that no amount of help from us could possibly keep that government alive. The South was doomed from the start.

100% correct. ..

 

[GHook93]

The North Vietnamese had been fighting one enemy or another since WW2, and were prepared to continue to do so forever. The South Vietnamese Regime was so hopelessly corrupt that no amount of help from us could possibly keep that government alive. The South was doomed from the start.

100% correct. ..

Are you going to now lie and tell us you were there. Should we just call you Howard Stern?

 

[Sunni Man]

[ame=http://youtu.be/55H0M2N-oA4]Howard Stern - Recounts Duty in Vietnam - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wry Catcher]

So did America win or lose the Vietnam War?

Apparently you were too young to see the fall of Saigon, or recall the South Vietnamese people in full panic storming our embassy hoping for rescue.

Who won?

Watch:

 

[Wry Catcher]

Anyone else wonder, who won?

 

[Indofred]

The US never had a hope of winning, exactly as the Soviet union and the US never had a hope of winning in Afghanistan or Iraq.
You can claim victory all you like, but your troops get killed until your populations demand you get out.

Like it or not, America got seriously fucked in Vietnam - except for the arms dealers - they did really well out of your dead fathers, brothers and sons.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The North Vietnamese had been fighting one enemy or another since WW2, and were prepared to continue to do so forever. The South Vietnamese Regime was so hopelessly corrupt that no amount of help from us could possibly keep that government alive. The South was doomed from the start.

Not true! The Tet offensive destroyed the VC and the NVA was decimated, however, it wasn't until the US started to bomb the North's infrastructure that the NVA decided to come to the negotiating table. They did sign a peace agreement. We promised the South many things including air support. When then turned our backs on them!

You have got to be living in an alternative universe to believe that:
1. The North was intimidated enough to sign a peace treaty that was only a thinly disguised cut and run strategy by the USA, and 2. that our bombing the North phased them at all. It has been proved over and over again in history that bombing has little, or no effect in war. We learned that in WW2 when we bombed Germany so much that we ran out of targets, but our brilliant generals had to relearn it all over again in Vietnam. It was also especially amusing when we sent the battleship Missouri, or New Jersey, or something or other, over there to shell the North. I remember thinking at the time that our generals and admirals had lost their frigging minds.

 

[regent]

FDR was determined that the European powers would not reclaim their colonies after WWII ended. Churchill and DeGaulle differed. Vietnam and other Asian areas saw WWII as their chance to be independent particularly since they had fought the Japanese. I think a number of their leaders asked America for help to gain their freedom, but after FDR died, America could not decide. And then the communist threat entered the picture, would we be helping communists take over those areas? So we dwaddled as their wars for independence continued. What would have happened if America had helped Ho and the others gain independence, despite communism?

 

[PratchettFan]

I want to point out that this is not about whether we should have gone into Vietnam or not. Nor whether we should have stayed in so long.

Funny when I used to hear about the Tet Offensive in school by liberal professors, they stated it as a major victory for the Viet Cong and NVA. However, that couldn't be further from the truth. First, the Viet Cong was decimated and was no longer an effective fighting unit. The damage of this failed operation knocked them out.

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/P...The Defining Year 1968 PCN 19000313800_1.pdf
Horrendous losses inflicted on Viet Cong units struck into the heart of the irreplaceable infrastructure that had been built up for over a decade. MACV estimated that 181,149 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops had been killed during 1968.From this point forward, Hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the Viet Cong's ranks with North Vietnamese regulars

Second, the Tet Offensive also critically wounded the NVA.

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/P...The Defining Year 1968 PCN 19000313800_1.pdf
North Vietnam had little difficulty making up the casualties inflicted by the offensive.

Prior to Nixon taking office, LBJ was wary of China and/or Russia directly entering the war as China did in the Korea War. Therefore, the loser approach, was not to engage in operations in North Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos. Nixon understood you couldn't win if you didn't take out North Vietnam resupplying capability. Therefore he stated the bombing of the North. He then also took the fight to Cambodia and Laos. I know the revisionist will say this did nothing. However, the bombing of the North, which should have happened YEARS before, crippled the North in resupplying and decimated their economy.

This forced them to the table of at the Paris Peace Accords, which they previously refused to do. The sides signed the Accords. Then Watergate occurred. The Democrats took Congress, they defunded all war operation (as it was agreed upon in the Paris Accords) and went back on ALL promises they made the South Vietnamese. They left the South without the weapons promised, with out the foreign aid, without the air support promised and left them on a silver platter for the North. The North saw this act of weakness and started to attack the South. Make no mistake, if the North won't have tested the US, if they though the bombing campaign of the North would have continued.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 21 | 1975: Vietnam's President Thieu resigns
Nixon was driven from office due to the Watergate scandal in 1974 and when the North Vietnamese did begin their final offensive early in 1975, the United States Congress (controlled by the Democratic Party) refused to appropriate the funds needed by the South Vietnamese, who collapsed completely. Thieu resigned, accusing the U.S. of betrayal in a TV and radio address:

"At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men"

The NVA tested whether the US would keep it's promise with a small attack in the North against Buôn Ma Thuột. The US did nothing. Since the US did nothing, they pushed on. When they saw the news that the Democrats in control of Congress stated no funding, no air support and no support at all, they pushed it into full gear.

Make no mistake, the South Vietnamese army wasn't the best army, but if they were equipped funded and supported with US air support they would have been able to stop this next offensive. If the US then bombed the North the North would have backed off.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk]The Truth about the Vietnam War - YouTube[/ame]

We lost because we were fighting a non-existent enemy. We thought it was about communism, but it was about nationalism. We were fighting for an ideology, they were fighting for their country. We never stood a chance.