 |
| |
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
Defeat was not inevitable at first. IMHO, we lost for two reasons:
First, we had nothing to fight for. Yes, I know we were fighting against communist expansion, but we had nothing to fight FOR.
The leadership is Saigon started out with Diem and his brother Ngo, who was the head of the secret police. Ngo especially was cut from the same cloth as Saddam Hussein; he was a murdering monster.
Once the Diem brothers were overthrown, there was a series of military dictators. In addition to the usual dictator oppresssion, these guys were into both corruption and drug smuggling. The last was President Ky and his Vice President, Thieu.
When the US finally wised up and realized it needed a democracy, these guys ran (switching roles, with Thieu running for President and Ky for VP). Election fraud was so rampant that all of their opponents quit, and they ended up unopposed.  If two guys need to be driven out to the woods and shot for losing the war, it's these two. 
Second, we tried to win a guerilla war using draftees. Not a good idea. When someone shoots at you from a village, you have to have the discipline not to level the village. But our draftees where not motivated, and often overreacted, which resulted in us losing the hearts and minds of the people. Sure the commies were bad, but we were worse!
We could not have won with a military invasion of the North. First, that would have just doubled the size of the guerilla war. Second, the Chinese would have probably come in a la the Korean War. (While it is true, they got the snot beat out of them when they themselves attempted to invade North Vietnam, if we had invaded, they'd have been coming in as allies.)
And third, the Vietnamese were closer allies to the Russians than to the Chinese. So the Soviets could have done something nuts, like snatching West Berlin or Gitmo. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
"conservative idiots"- Che
Che, I have noticed that many on the left, and some on the right, will denigrate a person who holds a different opinion. Kind of an 'I think less of you because you think blah'. Well, I don't think less of you because you think blah Che. Just want you to know that.  That's right. I don't think you're an idiot because of your politics or pov, I figgure you got dropped on your head as a baby. 
We could not have won with a military invasion of the North. First, that would have just doubled the size of the guerilla war.-Zkrib
Good point. However it would have cut their routes of supply.
Zkrib, South Vietnam was a mess and corrupt as hell. Not worth fighting for imo. I don't think we were fighting for that regime, but against the spread of communism, a worthy goal imo and one I've spent some time at personally. 
Whoha, what an excellent link!
From Whoha's link:
Bui Tin was particularly appalled at the political humiliation of his long-time mentor, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, the hero of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. But what turned him totally and irrevocably against the communist regime was the colonial attitude of his country's leaders toward Laos and Cambodia, which Vietnam's army invaded in 1979. Bui Tin fled Vietnam in 1990 and became a powerful critic ofthe communist regime from the safety of the U.S.
and
" We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was." And on strategy: "If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.... it was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort involving tens of thousands of ..."
Politicians!
and
"Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable"
Should have gone north imo, screw the Chinese we would have kicked them back into China. The NVA did it with a fraction of our power.
"Stopping support from the North was easier and Johnson should have authorised many of the measures Nixon eventually took. Mining the ports and bombing any targets of any value in the North would, IMO, have forced North Vietnam to back off in the late '60's.
"It could have been won but the decisions that might have created the necessary conditions weren't taken so the conflict was lost."
Cerberus IV 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
Imagine you're playing civ.
You load up a transport with units, and send it to the other side of the world to conquer a small, weak civ. Unfortunately, this force meets unexpected resistance, and will need reinforcements in order to win. Building these reinforcements disrupts your build plan, significantly slowing your wonder and spaceship part production. And then you need to send more reinforcements.
You could easily win if you diverted your production to total war - that is what the small, weak civ is doing. But doing so will mean you lose the space and wonder race.
That's Vietnam. |
In a way, yes. But it was criminal for Johnson to conduct the war the way he did, getting Americans and others killed by the hundreds of thousand without any plan for victory. As I said, Johnson and McNamara intentionally denied Westmorland the troops necessary to go on the offensive.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2005 22:09
|