Vietnam War was unwinnable

[rightwinger]

LBJ, who managed to get American Troops to Vietnam with a fake crisis, had the full support of the democrat party that dominated politics at the time. He set the rules so that the U.S. could win every battle and still lose the war. Just when LBJ achieved the unthinkable on the backs of Marines after the Tet offensive and the V.C. were whipped he gave up. Instead of claiming victory and forcing the VC into capitulation and just when the U.S. needed leadership, LBJ gave up on public T.V. and gave Giap crucial capital for Chinese support and recruitment. Democrats managed to blame the whole thing on Nixon.

LBJ wanted no part of Vietnam

But he did not want to be the President that allowed Vietnam to turn communist on his watch

 

[rightwinger]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.

stable???!!!! hahahahhahahahahahahhaahah
...again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
....if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have
...even though Thieu was in, you STILL have that corruption/instability/etc--you don't get rid of it in a few years

....you--of all people---should know you can't create an EFFICIENT military force with esprit de corp/etc in just a few years---especially with crap leadership

ANOTHER
ANOTHER COUP IN SOUTH VIETNAM RAISES QUESTIONS FOR A CRITICAL AREA; Asian Turmoil
Military Coups in South Vietnam

South Vietnam used high ranking military ranks as political patronage. Those Generals were more interested in filling their pockets than in obtaining victory

 

[Camp]

• The Vietnam War was fundamentally, like so many wars, was a war of attrition. American leaders and military commanders believed they could inflict so many casualties on the communists Vietnamese they would be forced into surrender on negotiated terms that would leave a democratic independent South allied with the USA. It was an uneducated strategy doomed for failure. Communist in both the north and south were willing to accept huge casualties. Of note, insurgency wars bring large "collateral casualties", so, the communists were even willing to accept those casualties of innocent civilians. Those huge numbers of civilian casualties would greatly help the communist and hurt the American side.
• The communists believed correctly that the American population would only tolerate a limited number of casualties. The number was unknown, but the communists were confident they could inflict enough casualties on the Americans to reach the numbers. The communists were willing to wait decades for victory. Their history taught them patience. Americans burned out from high casualties quickly, and the more soldiers America sent to Vietnam, the higher the casualties got.
• America's attrition strategy did not work. Communist Vietnam's did.

 

[rightwinger]

• The Vietnam War was fundamentally, like so many wars, was a war of attrition. American leaders and military commanders believed they could inflict so many casualties on the communists Vietnamese they would be forced into surrender on negotiated terms that would leave a democratic independent South allied with the USA. It was an uneducated strategy doomed for failure. Communist in both the north and south were willing to accept huge casualties. Of note, insurgency wars bring large "collateral casualties", so, the communists were even willing to accept those casualties of innocent civilians. Those huge numbers of civilian casualties would greatly help the communist and hurt the American side.
• The communists believed correctly that the American population would only tolerate a limited number of casualties. The number was unknown, but the communists were confident they could inflict enough casualties on the Americans to reach the numbers. The communists were willing to wait decades for victory. Their history taught them patience. Americans burned out from high casualties quickly, and the more soldiers America sent to Vietnam, the higher the casualties got.
• America's attrition strategy did not work. Communist Vietnam's did.

Even if we “won” in Vietnam we would have had to maintain a peacekeeping force. The insurgency would have remained picking off Americans
It was a no win situation

 

[westwall]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= unwinnable

No, not unwinnable, just not worth the cost.

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= unwinnable

No, not unwinnable, just not worth the cost.

that's what makes them unwinnable
if all wars are winnable, how come Russia lost in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam?? the two MOST powerful military nations??
..the US was involved with Vietnam for over 7 years!!!!!

..as Righwinger says, we could've went into NVietnam but it would've made no difference
to be continued

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= unwinnable

No, not unwinnable, just not worth the cost.

...please explain how it could've been won....details please

 

[harmonica]

You mean they are a source of cheap labor? How did we win anything?

Your leftist comrades won. Surely you're pleased about that outcome. After all, we wouldn't want a South Vietnam that resembles a thriving, capitalist South Korea, correct?

why would we want that ---? they are competition --correct?

Why would we want what? I don't follow.

...a thriving capitalist country like SKorea because they are competing with us--taking jobs from the US/business/etc

 

[Desperado]

• The Vietnam War was fundamentally, like so many wars, was a war of attrition. American leaders and military commanders believed they could inflict so many casualties on the communists Vietnamese they would be forced into surrender on negotiated terms that would leave a democratic independent South allied with the USA. It was an uneducated strategy doomed for failure. Communist in both the north and south were willing to accept huge casualties. Of note, insurgency wars bring large "collateral casualties", so, the communists were even willing to accept those casualties of innocent civilians. Those huge numbers of civilian casualties would greatly help the communist and hurt the American side.
• The communists believed correctly that the American population would only tolerate a limited number of casualties. The number was unknown, but the communists were confident they could inflict enough casualties on the Americans to reach the numbers. The communists were willing to wait decades for victory. Their history taught them patience. Americans burned out from high casualties quickly, and the more soldiers America sent to Vietnam, the higher the casualties got.
• America's attrition strategy did not work. Communist Vietnam's did.

Even if we “won” in Vietnam we would have had to maintain a peacekeeping force. The insurgency would have remained picking off Americans
It was a no win situation

Sounds like your describing Afghanistan and Iraq We never learn from our mistakes

 

[K9Buck]

...a thriving capitalist country like SKorea because they are competing with us--taking jobs from the US/business/etc

Their capitalist system allows the people to be productive and they are! They create and grow wealth and are a very wealthy, stable democracy.

If China were to become a full-fledged democracy, North Korea would eventually change and reunify with the south, we could significantly reduce our defense spending and we would all be far more prosperous.

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= unwinnable

No, not unwinnable, just not worth the cost.

if they go into NVietnam--which is the only way they could TRY to win, they would be taking mucho casualties

...a thriving capitalist country like SKorea because they are competing with us--taking jobs from the US/business/etc

Their capitalist system allows the people to be productive and they are! They create and grow wealth and are a very wealthy, stable democracy.

If China were to become a full-fledged democracy, North Korea would eventually change and reunify with the south, we could significantly reduce our defense spending and we would all be far more prosperous.

1. the USSR fell apart and we STILL spend mucho $$$$!!!!
2. reduce defense spending was not the point---competing with us is the point--SKorea takes business/jobs/etc from the US because we help it be a thriving capitalist country
Japan also

 

[westwall]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= unwinnable

No, not unwinnable, just not worth the cost.

...please explain how it could've been won....details please

You have to have a military force present that is strong enough to deal with any situation. You then have to set up secure areas and allow no one in who is not strongly vetted. Those secure areas live their lives apart from the rest of the country which is fighting. You kill every bad guy you can, and you destroy their support network. But, the people from their support network you place in separate secure areas and over years of education you wean them off of the indoctrination. Sometimes they fall back and decide to be bad guys, and they kill whoever is around them, and then they are killed in their turn, but never do they get to attack those who are in the secure areas. After a couple of generations have passed the bad guys are dead, and the secure areas can then be opened again and the good folks allowed back out to repopulate the country.

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= unwinnable

No, not unwinnable, just not worth the cost.

Please read the OP again
....we are talking about the Vietnam War --not WW2--also we are talking about reality--per the OP
jesus f christ!! you people and your IF scenarios--they are RIDICULOUS
..no we are NOT going to invade North Vietnam
..no we are NOT going to use nukes
etc
= unwinnable

 

[westwall]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= unwinnable

No, not unwinnable, just not worth the cost.

Please read the OP again
....we are talking about the Vietnam War --not WW2--also we are talking about reality--per the OP
jesus f christ!! you people and your IF scenarios--they are RIDICULOUS
..no we are NOT going to invade North Vietnam
..no we are NOT going to use nukes
etc
= unwinnable

Yes, this is how you defeat an insurgency. They are MULTI GENERATIONAL WARS. That's how you defeat these people. Otherwise you are merely playing whack a mole. I am sorry you're not smart enough to think of a solution. But this is the least violent way. The other way to win is you kill everyone in the country. That is not acceptable to any civilized person, but it is certainly possible.

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= unwinnable

No, not unwinnable, just not worth the cost.

...please explain how it could've been won....details please

You have to have a military force present that is strong enough to deal with any situation. You then have to set up secure areas and allow no one in who is not strongly vetted. Those secure areas live their lives apart from the rest of the country which is fighting. You kill every bad guy you can, and you destroy their support network. But, the people from their support network you place in separate secure areas and over years of education you wean them off of the indoctrination. Sometimes they fall back and decide to be bad guys, and they kill whoever is around them, and then they are killed in their turn, but never do they get to attack those who are in the secure areas. After a couple of generations have passed the bad guys are dead, and the secure areas can then be opened again and the good folks allowed back out to repopulate the country.

O my Freakin Lord!!
please stop the comedy
...THAT is your scenario for a WIN????!!!
you just made a fool of yourself
that doesn't even make sense
you MUST be trying to be a jerkhead

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= unwinnable

No, not unwinnable, just not worth the cost.

Please read the OP again
....we are talking about the Vietnam War --not WW2--also we are talking about reality--per the OP
jesus f christ!! you people and your IF scenarios--they are RIDICULOUS
..no we are NOT going to invade North Vietnam
..no we are NOT going to use nukes
etc
= unwinnable

Yes, this is how you defeat an insurgency. They are MULTI GENERATIONAL WARS. That's how you defeat these people. Otherwise you are merely playing whack a mole. I am sorry you're not smart enough to think of a solution. But this is the least violent way. The other way to win is you kill everyone in the country. That is not acceptable to any civilized person, but it is certainly possible.

Vietnam---SAME as Afghanistan in 1839, 1979 and NOW--unwinnable

 

[westwall]

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= unwinnable

No, not unwinnable, just not worth the cost.

Please read the OP again
....we are talking about the Vietnam War --not WW2--also we are talking about reality--per the OP
jesus f christ!! you people and your IF scenarios--they are RIDICULOUS
..no we are NOT going to invade North Vietnam
..no we are NOT going to use nukes
etc
= unwinnable

Yes, this is how you defeat an insurgency. They are MULTI GENERATIONAL WARS. That's how you defeat these people. Otherwise you are merely playing whack a mole. I am sorry you're not smart enough to think of a solution. But this is the least violent way. The other way to win is you kill everyone in the country. That is not acceptable to any civilized person, but it is certainly possible.

Vietnam---SAME as Afghanistan in 1839, 1979 and NOW--unwinnable

OK, you're a troll. Bye.

 

[mikegriffith1]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation

Facts and Myths

Vietnam War Myths

AIM Report April A, 1975

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.

Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign

proof please of this AMAZING claim
!!!!!
NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
NV is NOT surrendering

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia

again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years

bold mine
thank you--that's another reason WHY it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam

again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing

the French lost before us --
then the US lost
like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous

 

[Desperado]

Bottom line is that it was unwinnable because we were not fighting to win. Politicians got in the way, Our Military leaders just wanted to play with the latest equipment , soldier's lives be damned. We should never get involved in a country;s civil war.
This lesson still has not been learned by our government