In-Depth Discussion: Was the war in Vietnam winnable?

[Accord]

Could the United States have achieved victory in the Vietnam War? What were some of the possible courses of action that might have produced a clear military victory? If these alternatives were practical, why were they not chosen? What factors acted to limit the American freedom of action in Vietnam? How was it that a relatively small third world country was able to hold off and eventually defeat one of the mightiest nations in the history of mankind? What tactics or strategies might have been employed to change that? Was the “search and destroy” tactic, with its emphasis on “body count”, an effective tactic? If not, what practical alternatives were there?

What about the nature of the American military – how did that affect the results of the war? The American military’s primary focus during almost the entire Cold War was to prepare to fight a large scale conventional war in Central and Western Europe against the Communist Hordes of the Warsaw Pact, and the entire military was structured with that purpose in mind. The prevailing attitude was that if we were capable of defeating the Soviet hordes, well then anything else would be a piece of cake. This attitude permeated everything from doctrine and tactics to weapons design to unit organizations. How did this affect the combat ability of US forces in Vietnam?

In the end, of course, American forces were withdrawn from Vietnam in the early 1970s, and within a few years North Vietnamese forces had overrun the South, and created a unified Vietnam under communist rule – the very event we had fought so bitterly for two decades to prevent. And somehow, the world continued, Armageddon didn’t occur, and Communism did not engulf all of East Asia. Instead, Vietnam did its best to take its place in the world community and build a prosperous and relatively open nation state. So what does this say about our efforts in Vietnam? Were they necessary? Could this have been accomplished without two extra decades of bloodshed and loss, either by an American victory, or by simply allowing and acknowledging the original communist government in the 1950s?

[Petz]

Yes we could have won.... but hind-sight is 20-20.

if politics stayed out of War then we'd have no War.... but if they stayed out of military dicisions we'd have won because we'd have done what we needed to do..

Air support for the Marines would have been a huge course... we still had bi-planes back then.... (damn near anyhow) we were using Other Service support for our operations.

top brass chose to NOT support it... political reason is my guess.

politics.

no borders... ho chi min trail left the country... we were not allowed in laos or cambodia... if we were we'd have stopped their suppoly route.

they did not defeat us... hippies at home pushed the politicos to pull us out... they defeated the south after we left.

not giving up.

search and destroy was an army tactic that was moronic..... it only pushed more middle/neutral people over to the viet cong... the Marine Corps ink blot method was better... take an area, secure it... and when you get reenforced expand your blot.


we were not trained to defend/attack a guerilla militia... the NVA was easy pickings. they fought using the 3rd gen of warfare while we were still in the 2nd gen (mass assault from the reds)

the war was over the michilin rubber plantations and the greed mongers who wanted the cheap rubber.

we also paid 78% of the frenches war spending there...

[Pete0331]

Regardless of whatever you learned in school, we did win the Viet Nam war.
We beat the NVA/VC in every military engagement we came across.

[jetdawgg]

[Petz]

pete... did I possibly say otherwise? I know you're addressing the OP but I'm just curious.

dawgg... I think jane fonda had a few abortions from her trip to viet nam......

[Wyoming]

We were winning when I left.


Mark my words, the same **** will happen in Iraq and Afganistan, etc.



Good pixs Dawg.

[Pete0331]

I prefer the blanket term "douchebags."
The last picture is definitely a hippie.

For those young Devildogs, the pictures are of McNamara (Sec Def), Walter Cronkite (A one time reporter), and Jane Fonda (Traitor to American servicemen and impressionable liberal pawn) respectively.

[Petz]

yeah... the next day after the last American left they over-took the capitol....

god bless the politicians!!!! hippies make the world a happier place!

make peace not war.... that way the militaries in 3rd world countries can murder the innocent and take over the country and it's natural resources and hold us hostage economically.

[Brent2651]

Regardless of whatever you learned in school, we did win the Viet Nam war.
We beat the NVA/VC in every military engagement we came across.

Yeah, but the commies got the country anyway.

We may have won the battles, but I promise you they think they kicked our butts and ran us out.

It's cliche'd to death, but we should have allowed our Generals to fight the war instead of the politicians. As I recall my history, Chesty himself wanted to come in as an advisor (I think he had already retired in '55), but they kept denying him that privilege. Could have been a whole different war in many ways.

But yes, we were more than capable of pounding Ho Chi Mihn into humble submission.

Sorry for my limited view. I was after all, only a young-un' in those days.

[BR34]

Regardless of whatever you learned in school, we did win the Viet Nam war.
We beat the NVA/VC in every military engagement we came across.

True, but we didn't achieve the objectives we set out to ahieve.

[DocGreek]

.......ACCORD...I'm really enjoying this thread you started!! Up to this point in the posts here, only BigAl and I are Viet Nam Vets!! Win a WAR?? DUH!!!....NOBODY, NO COUNTRY, NO CULTURE EVER WINS!!! It's the degree of LOSS suffered by each side that determines the public's conception of WHO WON!!! We know that ALL governments, and media LIE. SOOOOOO.....what right do WE, the public have in declaring VICTORY??? The North Vietnamese Govt., and the media there, told the Vietnamese public that THEY won. What did our Govt, and media tell US???.....HA! HA! HA! HA!....AND...we believed it!!!.........DOC

[Troutzilla]

.......ACCORD...I'm really enjoying this thread you started!! Up to this point in the posts here, only BigAl and I are Viet Nam Vets!! Win a WAR?? DUH!!!....NOBODY, NO COUNTRY, NO CULTURE EVER WINS!!! It's the degree of LOSS suffered by each side that determines the public's conception of WHO WON!!! We know that ALL governments, and media LIE. SOOOOOO.....what right do WE, the public have in declaring VICTORY??? The North Vietnamese Govt., and the media there, told the Vietnamese public that THEY won. What did our Govt, and media tell US???.....HA! HA! HA! HA!....AND...we believed it!!!.........DOC

Bullschnikies Doc !!!! ...You and me and Big Al and any other Vietnam Vet who responds to this thread KNOW that we kicked some friggin arse in the rice paddies,villes,hills and mountains of that tunnel infested hell-hole of a country, We put a serve arse-whoppin' on those little bastages and they know it...I ,for one ,never belived we did anything less than that and to have the media and the likes try to make me believe otherwise is truly and utterly ridiculous !!

Semper Fi
Mike

[CH53MetalMan]

Someone correct me here, if I'm wrong. But wasn't or only objective in Vietnam to enforce some Parris peace treaty, that enabled the French to extract their troops.

I don't remember anything about us being in a direct WAR with North Vietnam. Our objective was for keeping Viet Nam as two seperate countries. True, we did bomb North Vietnam back to the peace talks so we could extract ourselves, but that was later under Nixon.

Now if the question is whether we could have tipped over North Vietnam? Sure we could have. But, would it have been worth it? The communists would have been reinforced by China & Russia even after the North fell into our hands.

It wasn't worth it.

[Pete0331]

Someone correct me here, if I'm wrong. But wasn't or only objective in Vietnam to enforce some Parris peace treaty, that enabled the French to extract their troops.

I don't remember anything about us being in a direct WAR with North Vietnam. Our objective was for keeping Viet Nam as two seperate countries. True, we did bomb North Vietnam back to the peace talks so we could extract ourselves, but that was later under Nixon.

Now if the question is whether we could have tipped over North Vietnam? Sure we could have. But, would it have been worth it? The communists would have been reinforced by China & Russia even after the North fell into our hands.

It wasn't worth it.

I'll let someone else elaborate on this further, but we were at war with North Vietnam.

Vietnam was in a similar situation to Korea.
Communist North, Democratic/Republican South.
North wanted to push down and reunify Vietnam as a communist state.
Being during the cold war, we didn't want that to happen.
Denying the enemy territory and all that.
We didn't push up into North VN with major ground forces because of what happened in Korea.
We didn't want China and Russia moving in with ground forces either.
We did bomb the crap out Norther VN however.
The South was pro-US for the most part.
The Viet Cong were communist rebels from the South.
There was also a segment of Viet Cong who were not Communist but opposed the US backed government, who they saw as corrupt.
NVA did send major formations of troops into the south, we didn't return the favor.

The object of the war was to maintain the sovereignty of South Vietnam.
First we went in with advisors to allow the Vietnamese to take care of most of the problem themselves.
The North stepped up its insurgency into the South and there was that pesky Gulf of Tonkin incident that forced us to step up our efforts in the area. (BTW the Turner Joy, one of the ships there during the incident at Tonkin is moored here in my home town.)

Americans, aided by the Australians, New Zealanders, ARVN, SVMC, and some others beat the enemy in every engagement.
Whole battalions of NVA were arc-lighted out of existence.

Because of a sharp drawdown after the Korean War in the number of service members there were not enough members in the armed forces to both complete the mission in VN and continue to project an aggressive posture in Europe to the Soviet Union.
So there was a draft.
Americans didn't like the draft because unlike WW2 and Korea, Vietnam was not going to be a short war.
And also unlike WW2 the North VN was not perceived as a direct threat to the US.
Counter culture revolution with those douchebag hippies and whatnot.
Walter Cronkite said after the Tet Offensive of 1968 that the US could not win in Vietnam.
Even though we had won all engagements to that point.
Another nail in the coffin was the 1969 massacre at My Lai.
After that the media was able to effectively portray the military as massacring horde fighting a war we could not win.
In 1973 there were the Paris Peace Accords.
Part of the agreement was that we would withdraw, but North and South would negotiate to a peaceful agreement.
We withdrew, the North invaded into the south with more tanks then Hitler used in his invasion of Russia.
As part of the Accords we could have reentered VN because the North violated their agreement.
We did nothing.
A few years later Communism spread further to the rest of the area.
Khmer Rouge communists, who control the government in neighboring Cambodia, commence a genocide in 1975 killing aprox. 2 million people.

That is a very basic history of it.

[SgtThrasher]

We didn't lose a battle in Vietnam,the ownership of that belongs to the politicians and hippies!