Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I believe this to be true. Unfortunately, to win you must be ruthless, and Americans can no longer stomach the ruthless behavior that it takes to win. You must not only crush the enemy and his war making capability, but you must also (and here is the critical part) crush those who support the enemy; especially "civilians." Is this immoral? At some level all war is immoral. But what is more evil than ruthless war, is allowing war to drag on and on, draining blood and treasure, without a clear path to victory.
GunnyL may not like this particular example, but Tecumseh Sherman clearly understood: War is cruelty. Theres no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. These words were not spoken by some barbarian from the 8th Century. They were spoken just 143 years ago by a top US military commander, educated at West Point. Sherman prosecuted the war precisely as he spoke. Not only did he crush the insurgency, he also crushed those that backed it up. When the war was over did the armed rebellion fester indefinitely? No. The spirit of the insurgency was crushed. To Sherman it would have been more cruel to merely destroy enemy combat forces thereby allowing the insurgency to live on. There is another factor that contributes to the failure to win modern war that Sherman understood quite well. Ill offer this quote, and you can draw your own conclusions: If I had my choice, I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast. Loyal sons of the South despise Sherman, who can blame them? But they cannot deny that Sherman was an extremely effective military commander that crushed the spirit of his enemy and extinguished the war without subsequent insurgency.
Eighty years later did America confine itself to merely destroying German combat units? In February 1945, the British and the Americans sent more than 1200 heavy bombers to attack the city of Dresden. No one knows for sure, but perhaps as many as 135,000 German civilians were killed. When the war ended three months later was there a significant insurgency? No. Not only did we destroy enemy combat units, we also destroyed the spirit of the people backing them up. Again, War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. The short form: kill 3000 thousand of our men at Pearl Harbor, and we will drop nuclear weapons on your cities. Was there a Japanese insurgency against American occupation? You know the answer.
We used to know how to prosecute war and win. But somehow winning became immoral. And losing was acceptable because at least there was not much collateral damage. I submit that smart bombs are more immoral than carpet bombing. Smart bombs leave enemy supporters alive and ready to help kill again. In Viet Nam, the subject of this thread, it was Lyndon Johnson who lost his moral compass. He restricted the military from attacking North Viet Nam, the source of the insurgency. He prevented the military from attacking the Russian and Chinese supply lines to North Viet Nam. He did not order the military to attack the North Vietnamese "civilians" that backed up the war, much less their supporters in China. Johnson turned 550,000 American combat troops into a giant police force, confined to a corner of the battlefield that did not contain the source of enemy supplies or the supporters of the enemy. Please make no mistake, regardless of government press releases, we were not in Viet Nam fighting merely to quell a civil war, or push the North Vietnamese out of the South. We were fighting the Russians and Chinese through their proxy. Despite the immoral constraints imposed from above, the US military won every battle in Viet Nam; an amazing performance. But overall, they had no chance to crush the enemy and its supporters. You can thank Lyndon Johnson.
The same immoral policy is currently being played out in Iraq. The aseptic rules of engagement prevent America from winning the war, even though it will never lose a battle. Bush prevents the American military from attacking the financiers of the insurgents in Saudi Arabia, he stops attacks against enemy supply lines in Syria and Iran, he blocks attacks on the civilians that back up the insurgency. Given these constraints, if General Petraeus pulls out a win, it will be a miracle.
PS. Why 1148?
China would not have allowed an American Invasion into North Vietnam , at least not one that wasn't VERY limited. Such an action would have lead to Chinese troops invading ( or coming in asked) North Vietnam to throw the US out. This could easily have escalated into a nuclear exchange.
I don't think China would have reacted to a limited incursion into N Vietnam. We could have extended the DMZ buffer without fear of retalition, IMO.
Thus my comment on "very limited incursion" But even that wouldn't satisfy the people posting here that claim we should have invaded. They claim we could have marched to the Chinese border and that would have been the end of it.
I disagree Gunny. No way would the Chinese have exchanged the protection of Hanoi for the obliteration of Beijing. They were zealots, but not insane. Besides, in the mid 60s, the Chinese had only a few nuclear weapons, coupled with very questionable delivery systems. As you know, war is not a zero-sum game. It is a risk-reward endeavor. If you are not willing to take the risks, then you should stay home. I do not believe that China would have risked war with the US in order to save Hanoi. Diuretic rightly points out the historical Vietnamese-Chinese hostility. If the Chinese responded with conventional cross-border attacks, then the B52s would have made them regret it. I do not believe that an American invasion of North Viet Nam would have sparked a world war. Instead, I think that it would have had a chance of making SE Asia free of communism, and prevented the unforeseen consequences in places such as Cambodia in the 70s.Thus my comment on "very limited incursion" But even that wouldn't satisfy the people posting here that claim we should have invaded. They claim we could have marched to the Chinese border and that would have been the end of it.
All of which strengthens the case for pressing to the Chinese border. Goodness, you cannot believe that Russia would have exchanged Moscow for Hanoi; it was after all, as others have pointed out, only a regional battlefield. I never suggested that we should nuke China. I only pointed out that China would not risk Beijing by starting a nuke war with the US over Hanoi. No, Gunny. We held almost all the cards, and Johnson refused to play them.In 1950 through 1953 the Chinese had NO nuclear weapons, yet they went to war with the United States. I wonder why they weren't worried then.
As for Nuclear war, China and the Soviets were great buddies for most of the time we were in Vietnam. They would have supported and defended China. We could not nuke China because the Soviets would have retaliated.
I suggest you do a little history, you will discover that the Soviets not the Chinese supported and supplied the North Vietnamese. In the late 60's Mao had his followers loot supply trains from the Soviets to Vietnam for weapons and materials so he could launch his new revolution. The Chinese do NOT like the Vietnamese. But they were a buffer between us and them.
Perhaps you should research what the Cold War was and why it was. Maybe a quick check on the MAD doctrine.
All of which strengthens the case for pressing to the Chinese border. Goodness, you cannot believe that Russia would have exchanged Moscow for Hanoi; it was after all, as others have pointed out, only a regional battlefield. I never suggested that we should nuke China. I only pointed out that China would not risk Beijing by starting a nuke war with the US over Hanoi. No, Gunny. We held almost all the cards, and Johnson refused to play them.
not to be nit-picky, but the comment was "A foriegn entity can NEVER win a civil war." YOu replied by stating that that statement was inaccurate and that a foreign military power could, in fact "halt" a civil war.... and my point was "winning" and halting" are two different things
I cannot imagine that the millenium-old hatred between sunnis and shi'ites will go away anytime soon
Wouldn't it be nice to see someone in control of Iraq would COULD instill absolute control so we could not have to worry about Iraq and get on with the business of fighting islamic extremists? Oh...wait...we had that already. oops!
How can you compare Warsaw to Hanoi? One city is next door, and the other is thousands of miles away. I disagree that there was any hard evidence that the Soviets would engage in a nuclear war with the US over cities outside the USSR. Empty bluster, yes. Real evidence, no. Havana is a good example. Certainly it was a better strategic partner for the Soviets than Hanoi, yet when confronted they backed down. Had we actually invaded Cuba, in my opinion the Soviets would have done nothing.Using your logic we could have taken eastern Europe back. I mean no way the Soviets would risk Moscow over Prague or Warsaw or Budapest. And of course the Soviets could have believed no way would we risk Washington DC over Germany or Denmark or Italy.
The Chinese wouldnt have started a nuclear war, they would have invaded to stop us in North Vietnam. the ENTIRE purpose of the cold war, the entire planning and pussy footing around was that neither side ( and China was in the Soviet camp) could risk a shooting war with each other because from there it could escalate if one side was losing.
In Korea Truman threatened the Soviets with nuclear strikes if they openly intervened in Korea. We didn't help the East bloc countries in the 40's and 50's and even the 60's when they tried to throw off Soviet rule. Korea proved the point... the other side WAS willing to go to war over other countries in their sphere.
It doesn't even matter if the Soviets would have or not gone to nukes for China.... the reality is the United States military and civilian leaders BELIEVED they would.
The Soviets almost went to nuclear war over Cuba..... why they wouldn't over China beats me.
Sure thing, all the boat people weren't from Vietnam , got ya. It was such a great place after the North "freed" the south that all those people put to sea in sinking boats , they would rather die at sea then be "freed" by the North.
I do not think that leaving the battlefield with the threat of Russia/China/NVA stronger than ever can be described as winning. I do not think that withdrawing support from a South Viet Nam that collapsed as that threat advanced can be described as winning. It is not clear that South Viet Nam could have withstood intensified attacks from Russia/China/NVA post 1975, even if continued funding had been available, because still (as when the Americans were present) North Viet Nam, enemy supplies, supply lines, and “civilian” supporters were not being attacked. Always the South was the battlefield. The only way to have changed the military equation would have been to make the North the battlefield, but by 1972-5 that chance was long gone. The US military did not lose on the battlefield, but neither did it eliminate the Russia/China/NVA threat. The politicians would not allow it.We had ALREADY won. The Tet offensive destroyed the internal cadres, there was in effect no insurgents left. The Northern Generals are CLEAR on this point. They were simply amazed that they had won a strategic victory from such a total loss on the ground.
By 1972 the South was solely responsible for the Ground war. All we provided was money and air power ( and some naval bombardment). The 72 offensive was stopped by the South with no discernable use of US ground forces. By 74 the South was winning the battles to reclaim the lost provinces.
In 1975 when the North invaded they were again amazed that the US didn't respond. By this time the DEMOCRATS in the Congress had cut funding to a fraction of what was needed by the South and prevented any help to the South at all. The South never fell to an Insurgency, it fell to 25 North Vietnamese Divisions. An external Invasion.
Some military experts have suggested that if we had continued to support the South that the North would have been exhausted by 1988.
Don't take my word for it, Google the North Vietnamese responses about what they thought.
