Could America Have Won the Vietnam War?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh, you misunderstand. It wasn't that it was a qualtiy bridge, it was that it was way overbuilt. They used far more steel and concrete than the project required.

oh, ok, communist inefficiency. I gotcha

[cgannon64]

Does anyone know what NSC-68 is (I think its NSC, might be something else. Or a different number even)? It was this secret Cold War document that basically said: "We will fight a war if any non-communist country shows signs of becoming communist." This document basically led us into Vietnam, because we had every intention of keeping our word.

I do not think Vietnam was an unwinnable situation, chegitz. I think Vietnam was unwinnable, without the use of nuclear weapons, an immense amount of troops committed, or an invasion of North Vietnam. However, a and c could bring the USSR in, and b would result in huge civil unrest here in America. So, I think Vietnam was unwinnable, because none of our options for victory were very good.

[Ned]

We could have piled the body count in the South to the moon and still we could not win. The war, both in concept and execution, was an unmitigated disaster. All involved in the planning and strategy of from 1963-1969, but primarily Lyndon Johnson, deserved to be utterly condemned by every American. Nixon pulled us out, to some not fast enough. For an anti-communist, that was a unexpected. But it was a very clearheaded decision. I believe Bobby Kennedy, had he been elected, would have done the same as Nixon.

I was floored, though, the day my daughter came home from school and flatly told me that Nixon was the worst president ever - because he was responsible for the Vietnam war. Interesting how liberals like to rewrite history.

[Kitschum]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The country should have been reunified in 1956, when the people of Vietnam voted overwhelmingly for reunification.

Or even better, its independence recognized in 1945. The history since then is tragic.

For the original question: There's not a chance the US could have won. There's a reason the Viet Minh signed that deal that kept the Chinese out and let the French in.

[Kramerman]

We could have piled the body count in the South to the moon and still we could not win.

I disagree based soley on raw numbers, though in reality those numbers are far to brutal. 57,000 Americans died in the war, over 2 million Vietnamese. If this rate would continue, the number of Vietnamese deaths would exceed the fighting population long before this happened in the US. If you wanted to get technical you could figure as the Vietnamese fighting numbers got smaller, their death rate would rise because they would be less able to defend themselves properly. Thank God, Jesus, Buddha, and/or Allah for that war not being an 'all out war. Personally, in hind sight, the death of anybody for the 'concept' behind the Vietnam war is rediculous, IMO. However, i think the war did have the effect of showing the Soviet Union and other communists that we had the balls and were willing to live up to the Truman Doctrine, that we would help those who wanted our help resisting communist subjugation. Though by this definition we shouldnt have been in vietnam, most werent resisting communist subjugation at all, and many welcomed it. *sigh*

[JCG]

If the U.S. was willing to lose 2x or 3x as many people, and would try to make a serious effort to invade North Vietnam (even if the Chinese and Soviets got uptity), there would have been a much better chance of winning the war, or at least keeping it under control...

Unfortunately for the U.S govt. , public opinion threw the towel before anything like that could happen.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
If we got rid of Ho Chi Minh and his followers, then the boys with machine guns, and women and children ready to blow themselves up, wouldn't have had anything to blow themselves up FOR. To deal with them, we could have "bombed them with butter" as they say.

The Americans poured millions of dollars worth of aid into Vietnam, but a lot of it got siphoned off by corrupt officials.

Getting rid of Ho Chi Minh probably would not have made a difference. Afterall, things didn't change after he died.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by JCG
If the U.S. was willing to lose 2x or 3x as many people, and would try to make a serious effort to invade North Vietnam (even if the Chinese and Soviets got uptity), there would have been a much better chance of winning the war, or at least keeping it under control...

Unfortunately for the U.S govt. , public opinion threw the towel before anything like that could happen.

US forces in Vietnam were routinely increased during the early years. The American casaulty rate continued to climb. Yet the situation never changed. The US was no more in control of Vietnam in 72 than they were in 64. So it could be argued that the only thing additional American causalties would have meant was more dead Americans.

[Chris 62]

Che came closest, but not far enough.

The US could never win a limited war as long as the SOVIETS kept resuppling the North, and this is what happened.
The bridge story is true, as it is also true bombing the trail was a waste of time.

The US did come very close to getting the stalemate that would have made Vietnam into Korea, right after Tet in 1968, the Noth realized it had comitted an unmittigated military disaster, and was ready to talk, but QUICKLY realized that US public opinion on the war took a DRASTIC negative turn during this battle, and fully exploited this.

The NLF developed a new idea, talk to the Americans, get them to leave, and build conventional forces.
Just as the US could not defeat the gurillas, the NLF realized they could never win with just an insurgency, it needed a conventional attack.

They made their first such attack in 1973.
Only a MASSIVE infusion of US airpower stopped the North from winning, but this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Congress and the Senate had enough, and refused to vote more funds to prop up the south, and sealed their fate, because the US taught South Vietnam the US way of war, FIREPOWER KILLS, but it also takes a monumental amount of ammunition, something the South found it didn't have during the next NLF attack, and ended up taking Saigon in 1975, ending the USA's misguided attempt to fight the cold war in South east Asia.

The only way the US could have won a complete victory was to risk a shooting war with the Soviets, by a mainforce invasion of the North, and preventing Russian Naval resupply, and attempting to block the overland routes from China with troops, aircraft could not do this job.

[Ned]

Chris, Everyone at the time knew that we had to invade the North if we wanted to win. But we also "knew" that China would intervene and we would have another Korea. So we trusted the President to do it his way and put our troops into S. Vietnam and "convince" the North that it could not win.

Tet came after years of escallation and promises that the light was at the end of the tunnel. Even though we "won" that battle, the American people began to turn against the war because we knew that President Johnson really had no strategy. If we were not willing to invade the North, we could not win.

Johnson had one, golden opportunity to invade the North with the full support of the American people. This was right after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Most of us actually believed that we would invade the North right away. There was talk that the troops would be home by Christmas, etc. But what happened in fact was the worst nightmare ever inflicted on America since the Civil War.

Down with LBJ!

[Tingkai]

From what I have read about the Vietnam war, it doesn't seem like it is the fault of any individual or that any individual could have changed anything. The events spiralled out of control and the American leaders were swept along, trapped by their perspective of the world.

The more I read about Vietnam, the more I get the feeling that the people in command were puppets forced by fate to do things that they really didn't want to do. None of them had the strength or foresight to break free. It is similar, in this respect, to the start of the First World War.

[Dom Pedro II]

Yep, we could've won the Vietnam War... if back in 1945 we had said "Sure, Mao... we'll help you out. We understand what it's like to have a revolution. We want to see the people's will carried out too... Of course, we need you ease up on the Commie stuff first."

*Sigh* The best place to hold back the enemy is right at his side. If we had been more supportive of the people who were clearly going to come to power, we could have driven a lot of nasty dictators farther toward center. Inundate the people with consumer products and food, and they'll be yours forever...

[Dom Pedro II]

Tingkai, that's actually a very good example, and quite eloquently put as well I might add. I think there is a lot of truth in that.

Unfortunately, indecisiveness more than aggression is the cause of most wars. Somebody starts the pissing contest, and as a matter of political necessity, nobody can back out of it.

[OldWarrior_42]

What do you think would've happend if we decided to not pull out when we did, but to give it another year?

What woud have happened was that I would have had to go, as most likely I would have been drafted. I had just signed for the draft when we basically pulled the last of our forces fron there.

Since both of my older brothers were able to be lucky enough not to be drafted, I am assumng that the law of averages would have caught up with our family and I would have been screwed, so to speak.

Thank goodness for the end, when it happened. I was not much looking forward to playing.

[OldWarrior_42]

And that is how I see things. Simple survival for myself. No other thoughts... based on the above quote.