Was it inevitable that the US lost the Vietnam war?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
when youre in country for what, 10 years, you cant say we never tried to win.

Depends on what your objectives are. Some people made a lot of money off of that war - a whole hell of a lot of money.

[Ned]

nm

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think we lost the political battle, and then there was no way to win. The US kept trying to win the political war and it just made things worse, especially for the troops and back home.

Tet was decisive. After Tet, there was no further discussion of victory by anybody.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ned


Tet was decisive. After Tet, there was no further discussion of victory by anybody.

Two thing happen after Tet.

One the VC were no longer a threat of any kind. We had kicked their a$$ big time and until the end of the war, we fought the NVA all the way.

Two when W. Conkrite of CBS News came home and said we cannot win the war because of Tet, the antiwar moment was given the green light it needed to start masses demonstration against the war.

From then on we were not going to win on the Political front.

[Ned]

We also pulled back from Khe Sahn, giving up our plans for invasion of the North, and began "Vietnamization." I never again heard anybody predict a victory. Shortly thereafter, Johnson gave is "resignation" speech, and the whole of the political landscape was about withdrawal and ending the war.

[Lancer]

"Two when W. Conkrite of CBS News came home and said we cannot win the war because of Tet, the antiwar moment was given the green light it needed to start masses demonstration against the war."

I was surprised at Walter for doing this. The reaction was so powerful that it meant that one person, not elected by anyone, could change the course of a national effort. I read once that Johnson said, 'If I've lost Walter I've lost the people"...or the war or something.

[chequita guevara]

Ted didn't say we couldn't win. Ted said, "I thought we were supposed to be winning this thing!" In other words, he publically accused the U.S. government of lying, which it was. That it what hurt the government.

We would have lost the war anyway. It was never ours to win.

[Lancer]

Korea was ours to win but Vietnam was not?

[lord of the mark]

1. AFAIK, no one in the US, including the military,wanted a war with China. Aside from the Korea precedent, at this time such a war would have been a grand strategic gift to the USSR. I dont think a land invasion of the North is a realistic approach.
2. Given that, a workable strategy would have required cutting off the VC, and NVA units in the South, from their supply line from NVA, the Ho Chi Minh trail. Cutting the line at the border didnt work, as the western border of South Vietnam was too mountainous for armor, too canopied by jungle to be patrolled by air, and too long to be protected by infantry/border guards without a far larger force than it was worth it to the US to put in.
3. The only alternate strategy ive ever seen, that halfway makes sense, would have been to go into southern Laos and stay there, establishing a line from the DMZ across to the Thai border, perpindicular to the Ho Chi Minh trail. However, apart from the political difficulties, this is still rough terrain, if shorter than the entire South Viet Namese border, and Im not sure it would have been militarily feasible.
4. Did we in fact lose? The announced grand strategic purpose of the war was to prevent dominoes from falling down through southeast asia. By the time we got out, countries like Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia were arguably more stable than they were in 1965. Ergo the grand strategic goal was achieved.
5. Was it a grand strategically stupid war, even granted 4? Arguably the war restrained the Sino-Soviet split, which only began to really assert itself when the US began to withdraw in 1969. Arguably an earlier open Sino-Soviet split would have been worth say, losing Thailand.

[Lancer]

Interesting post lotm, I'll be mulling that over all day at work.

[chequita guevara]

Oh sure, lotm says it, and you'll mull it over. I say it, and you ignore me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, most of the locals haven't turned against us. That's not the same thing. In the areas in which the rebels operate, however, most of the population is against us, and that's why they can't be rooted out.

Overall, most of the local support the political process with which we are aligned, and either A. Support us (the Kurds and secular Shiites) or B. Take their cues from Grand Ayatollah Sistani and other Shiite leaders, who want us to stay, for now.

As for the Sunni Triangle, somewhere between 15 and 20% of the Sunni Arab population voted on Jan. 30, despite the boycott calls of even groups like the AMS and IIP. One assumes that in addition there were some who wanted to vote, but stayed home out of fear. So its likely at least 25% of the Sunni Arab population supports the political process, and is opposed to the stand of both the insurgents and the AMS. Of the remaining 75% only a minority (25%?) actively support the insurgency. The remainded seem to sympathize with it, but can probably be led away from it by political concessions, improvements to material life, etc. That is why the discussions of Sunni participation in the constitution writing process, future elections, etc is so important. The military campaign is important as well, since continued insecurity slows down economic reconstruction.

[Lancer]

"Oh sure, lotm says it, and you'll mull it over. I say it, and you ignore me. "

Not so! At work I occasionally start laughing for no apparent reason because of you.

[GePap]

NO ending is inevitable, but the Vietnam war was a marvelous example of stupidity.

As for the Domino notion: it is an inherently moronic idea, always has been, always will, whether the dominos are supposed to be falling for communism or democracy.

The Vietnam war did nothing to "stabilize" any of the South East Asian states around Vietnam: Local murderous thugs did that (I guess the muder of 500,000 people will do a lot to "stabalize" a country ). If anything, Cambodia fell to the murderous Khmer Rouge regime thanks to our invasion of that country and the chaos we created trying to stop the North Vietnamese. Its a sad truth that it then took the Vietnamese regime to remove the Khmer Rouge form power.

The sad fact was that when it came to it, the 'South" Vietnamese were not willing to put up a to the death fight for their own country. Did any ARVN units fight as courageously for their own "state" as fellow Southeners in the VC fought for a reunited comunist Vietnam? Its does not seem so- in the final offensive SV fell like a house of cards.

Its hard to think how one state can save another when the very members of that state don't themselves fight for it to the death.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Was it inevitable that the US lost the Vietnam war?

Originally posted by Lancer
How did the US lose, and how might we have won?

I think we lost because we wouldn't invade North Vietnam, and we could have won by doing so.

1) Leave the countryside in the hands of the ARVN and consentrate all US forces, except the marines, south of the DMZ.

2) Drive across the DMZ. The NVA will come south to meet the attack. The consentration of NVA will present many targets for tactical and strategic air attack. Perhaps this will also lessen pressure on the ARVN as well.

3) When the NVA come south, the marines do an end around and land behind them supported by naval gunfire, carrier and ground based air.

4) Hit from the north and south, by tactical and strategic airpower and naval gunfire, the NVA would be defeated. Then the US forces drive on Hanoi against whatever remains.

5) The VC would wither on the vine without the support of North Vietnam.

We wouldn't have won, under any circumstances:

(a) The Phrench held Hanoi and Haiphong and the entire south for 8 years, until they had their souffles handed to them at Dien Bien Phu.

(b) The froggie legionaires at Dien Bien Phu kicked ass if you look at the casualty counts, and they kicked ass regularly the rest of the time too.

(c) The Vietnamese weren't going anywhere, it was their country.

(d) The Phrench, US, etc., were a long way from home.

(e) The Vietnamese were willing to take the casualties without question. We weren't.

(f) Since the Phrench held Hanoi and Haiphong and the entire south, and lost after 8 years because they said "**** it, this hole ain't worth the cost," it's a fallacy to think if we'd only invaded Hanoi, we'd "win."

(g) You totally fail to understand NVA/VC tactics. They tried us at Ia Drang not because they needed to, but because they wanted an opportunity to test our capabilities. They tried us at Khe Sanh because they understood the political aspects of it, and realized worldwide attention on one focal battle involving a siege would lead to all sorts of Deja Vu questions.

They won Tet, hugely, because we thought in terms of, and focused on, casualty counts. They imposed the political lesson that even after years, billions of dollars and tens of thousands of dead, "we can still simultaneously operate all over your country."

The NVA would never have concentrated for a head on fight against a concentrated US invasion force. They would have dispersed all over the place and resorted to the sort of guerilla warfare that they employed against the Japanese and Phrench.

Until we said "**** it, this hole ain't worth it."