Could America Have Won the Vietnam War?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Boshko

No, the country was never formally partitioned, it was just, in theory, under two temporary administrations pending national elections which the south refused to participate in.

I thought it was the north that refused to participate unless the south agreed to a communist regime or somethn like that, i dunno. I forget. This gives me an excuse to brush up on my pre-vietnam history.

Kman

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by Mihai
When they tried to gain the local population on their side (the only way to win a guerilla war) it was to late and the effort was subminate be corruption.

Yes, later in the war they had the "hearts and minds" campaign, some half*** effort to get South Vietnam to like them. Many people there thought that was stupid. In the words of one soldier, "We're here to kill goo*s" (sorry I didn't know if I could say the slur for Vietnamese, so I just inserted a star. We all know what letter that is...right?) Many soldiers there didn't give a crap who the enemy was.

[Mihai]

Originally posted by johncmcleod I don't understand why the US soldiers were so bad to some of the Vietnamese. Was there a reason?

The reason is called guerilla war. You go there to fight the evil communism, you are nice to the local people and in one sunny day a civilian blow up the coffeshop where you and your buddies go. After a few events like that (with scared two-sided peasants) you don't trust any local people and see around only enemies and start to treat them bad. It becames a vicious circle.
Unless you have smart commanders who know how to get out from this vicious circle, the situation can go only worst.
As I said, at first the americans didn't took in consideration other means than military ones.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
1: Allow the military to pick targets... not the pres.

The military did pick the targets. Every single target the military asked to bomb was bombed, except those within ten miles of the Sino-Vietnamese border.

2: STOP at the parallel line. That was a big mistake, and our egos got in the way of our better judgement.

It wasn't about egos, it was fear (justified, as it turns out) of Chinese intervention in the war. Whil many have berated the American government for believing that the Vietnamese would have called in the Chinese after having spent over a thousnad years kicking them out, China recently revealed that it would have intervened had the Americans invaded the North.

Pekka, the Americans did have the full support of the government. Majority popular sentiment against the war did occur until 1970, when the US invaded Cambodia. Most business leaders turned against the war in 1969, as it became a drain on the economy.

The only way the US could have won that war was to stay out of it from the begining. 60K American kids and 2 million Vietnamese died for what? To defend an illegal, murderous, and corrupt regime in the South, that was opposed by the vast majority of it's own people? The country should have been reunified in 1956, when the people of Vietnam voted overwhelmingly for reunification.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The military did pick the targets. Every single target the military asked to bomb was bombed, except those within ten miles of the Sino-Vietnamese border.

Quote:

2: STOP at the parallel line. That was a big mistake, and our egos got in the way of our better judgement.

It wasn't about egos, it was fear (justified, as it turns out) of Chinese intervention in the war. Whil many have berated the American government for believing that the Vietnamese would have called in the Chinese after having spent over a thousnad years kicking them out, China recently revealed that it would have intervened had the Americans invaded the North.

Pekka, the Americans did have the full support of the government. Majority popular sentiment against the war did occur until 1970, when the US invaded Cambodia. Most business leaders turned against the war in 1969, as it became a drain on the economy.

The only way the US could have won that war was to stay out of it from the begining. 60K American kids and 2 million Vietnamese died for what? To defend an illegal, murderous, and corrupt regime in the South, that was opposed by the vast majority of it's own people? The country should have been reunified in 1956, when the people of Vietnam voted overwhelmingly for reunification.

I must disagree. The point of the war in Vietnam was to resist Communism. In that vein, while the war was mishandled and South Vietnam lost, the overall battle against Communism has been successful. We must not be lulled into believing the communist danger is past, it lurks still and we may yet have to risk all for our freedom.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by cgannon64
THe classic example is where an American bomb destroyed a bridge, only to find the next day that Vietnamese peasents had built one out of sandbags.

No, the worst example was of a particular bridge (I forget the name) that was constructed by the Chinese. In typical Commie fashion, the bridge was built far stronger than the bridge needed to be for it's projected usage.

Along comes the war, and the US decided the bridge needs to be destroyed. So the US starts bombing the bridge. And it survives. The Vietnamese start using a ford about a mile up river, so that traffic doesn't get bombed, and they put AA emplacements all around this bridge. And the US keeps trying to bomb it, and planes keep getting shot down. It took the US two years to finally destroy that bridge that wasn't being used, at the cost of dozens of planes.

BTW, this was during the Nixon era, so don't blame the President picking the target. This was a total Pentagon snafu.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
We must not be lulled into believing the communist danger is past, it lurks still

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I don't know much about vietnam,

That's where you should have stopped.

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
but I don't understand why the US soldiers were so bad to some of the Vietnamese.

It is actually qutie simple. To the soldiers there, they weren't fighting a bunch of guys in uniform marching across the country. They weren't even fighting a bunch of guys in uniform hiding in the jungle. They were fighting guys in uniform, kids who threw grenades into cafes from a bicycle, women who told them a road was safe when it was mined, young Vietnamese children who offered to shine their shoes, then died their uniforms white and stole their ammunition. To the soldiers there, they weren't fighting an army, they were fighting EVERYONE. Like I quoted before, "We're here to kill goo*s." Most people had no idea who the enemy was, so they went around bombing villages and killing civilians. It was as if they were fighting an invisible enemy.

[Dom Pedro II]

Here in lies the problem of why we lost the Vietnam War: We were never trying to win.

While we were trying to slaughter Vietnamese, we didn't make any effort to attack them economically or hit them in their nerve centers. We allowed Soviet and Chinese ships to enter North Vietnamese harbors (who did we think was giving them the guns?), and we were very careful not to anger the Communist countries. Well, thats no way to pursue a war.

Bombing the North Vietnamese infrastructure, and more importantly, invading North Vietnam itself in an amphibious assault would have been more effective than what we did. 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. It is amazing how fast illiterate, ignorant peasants abandon the Communist ideal when their stomachs are full. And most importantly, we had to remember that Vietnam was for the Vietnamese. If we were going to prevent the Communists from taking over, we also had to let the people materialize their own government.

Unfortunately, we didn't do that. We fought Vietnam to make it look like we were doing something. In fact, we supported an oppressive regime, rigged their elections, and everything else under the sun to incite the people to violence. It is little wonder that they fought so hard against us. We weren't there as a police force, we were there as conquerors as far as they were concerned.

[chequita guevara]

You think the entire North Vietnamese economic infrastucture wasn't bombed? They are still recovering from the war. An area the size of the state of Massachusetts was turned into a desert.

Don't kid yourself, the US was trying to win. It was just in an unwinnable situation. An invasion of the North would have brought in the Chinese and possibly the Soviets.

The War in the South, on both the VC and ARVN sides was largely supplied by the US, as the South Vietnamese government was so corrupt that it sold much of its military hardware to the VC.

It's funny, you say let the Vietnamese materialize their own government, but that was what we were precisely trying to prevent. In the nationwide elections, the country voted for reunification. The South refused to abide by the elections. By 1963, the VC controlled so much of Vietnam that they were about to declare a provisional government. If the US had ever for a moment allowed the South Vietnamese government to stand on its own, it would have collapsed like the house of cards it was. That is why it collapsed when the North invaded in 1975. It never had more than 5% support.

[Dom Pedro II]

Yes, I said that we botched their elections, and there is no doubt that we were trying to hold up a regime that was horrible from the beginning. If I had personally been running the United States, I wouldn't have gone into Vietnam at all.

But the question was whether we could have won... I think we could have. My point is that we did not pursue the war with the same kind of initiative that we did with say the Second World War. We did not invade the North because it was very likely that Russia or China would become involved as I said, but at the same time, I think that was the only thing that would have brought results. By ousting Ho Chi Minh though, it might have been possible to bring in a more centralized leader who could have reconciled North and South without having a Communist dictatorship OR an American-propped regime either.

Of course, as America proved in 1964 when they helped over throw Goulart in Brazil, MY home country, they would rather have a pro-American dictator than a neutral Democracy.

[Kramerman]

No, the worst example was of a particular bridge (I forget the name) that was constructed by the Chinese. In typical Commie fashion, the bridge was built far stronger than the bridge needed to be for it's projected usage.

Oh yeah, we all know how well know the communists are for quality products... heh

[chequita 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.

[Kramerman]

In hind site, i must say, the war definately seems rediculous. But at the time, when there was a genuine fear of the "domino theory" of communist expansion, especially in south east asia, and the hysterical fear of communism at the time, then the war becomes understandable from an American perspective.
That doesnt negate the horrific toll the war had, especially on the vietnamese.

[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.