 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
we didn't actually lose the vietnam war. We just didn't win. |
You are correct, if you limit your view of the conflict to the military. But, war is an instrument of political policy (clausewitz: "war is politics by other means."), and especially in a people's war, the politics become much more important than the actual fighting. The goal of Vietnam was the people of Vietnam, and in that sense, we lost. The Viet Cong managed to set up a governmental structure in the villages even while the villages were being menaced by the US military, and these structures were self-standing, in that they did not fall when VC troops vacated them. The same could not be said of the south vietnamese government, which did fall when US support was withdrawn.
Further, there was a disjuncture between the two sides as to what the forces in the conflict actually were. The US entered the conflict believing that they were fighting work communism, which is in a sense correct. However, the conflict in Vietnam was really just a continuation of the fight for self-determination in European colonies. A fight which the colonials never lost. Even in cases like Algeria, when France won most of the battles, de Gaulle realized that the will of the people could not be changed by military force, and withdrew. In this context, it was foolish of the US to join in the losing side of the conflict.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral
|
|
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Politicians didn't let military do their job. |
That is one argument. Another is that the politicians recognized something that the military didn't (a situation that also arose in Korea).
Specifically, the WWII concept of total war was no longer a strategic option, as nuclear conflict was the end result, and that nuclear conflict is not politics (in the sense that the extermination of the human race cannot be held within the framework of interhuman relations). Also, responding to the suggestion that we should have occupied the North, that wouldn't have accomplished anything, other than perhaps forcing the Chinese to intervene as they did in Korea. The idea that occupying the north would succede is based upon the notion that we were, in some sense, fighting a conventional conflict, wherein cutting the enemies communications would paralyse them. But the north started out as an entirely guerrilla force, and would have reverted to it had the US taken Hanoi. There are no real communications that can be cut in a guerilla war, and a victory by manuevre is meaningless. Which leaves us with the victory through attrition, which is the fight that the US did fight in Vietnam and lost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
Further, there was a disjuncture between the two sides as to what the forces in the conflict actually were. The US entered the conflict believing that they were fighting work communism, which is in a sense correct. However, the conflict in Vietnam was really just a continuation of the fight for self-determination in European colonies. A fight which the colonials never lost. Even in cases like Algeria, when France won most of the battles, de Gaulle realized that the will of the people could not be changed by military force, and withdrew. In this context, it was foolish of the US to join in the losing side of the conflict. |
Excellent point.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-04-2005 07:22
I love the janefonda haters... they're hilarious
Attachment: 
|
