I think we just decided to leave. I think the U.S. tatics should have been changed earlier. A war of attrition against a country who had about million men able for military service each year. we never were able to kill that many in a year.
Did the US lose Viet Nam, or did they just leave?
Did the US really lose the Viet Nam war, or did they just give up from frustration, by most conventional measures such as body counts and amount of territory involuntarily lost to the enemy, the US was really prevailing in Viet Nam up until 1973, the US suffered 58,000 KIA vs. 1,000,000 for the North Viet Namese, and did not lose a single major battle, the ARVN suffered 250,000 KIA vs 1,000,000 for the North Viet Namese, at the end of US involvement in 1973, the South Viet Namese government was still holding the line sucessfully against the North Viet Namese, the Easter Offensive in 1972, could be counted as a stalemate, the US really "lost" the war in the home front, and not in the jungles of South Viet Nam, if they lost at all. And if they lost, then who lost the war, was it the media, the American people, its politicians, or the military? The Tet Offensive of 1968 I think was a textbook example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Victor Charlie was pretty much finished at that point, and an all out offensive against North Viet Nam itself would have brought the war to a sucessfull conclusion on terms that were far more favorable to South Viet Nam than 1973, if the Americans only had the will to win, which they have already lost at that point, even though at that point it could be said that victory was really within their grasp if they just had the will to see it through to its sucessfull conclusion. Even in 1973 South Viet Nam could still have held out even if the US just provided support from the air and the required military aid for South Viet Nam to maintain its military.
I think we just decided to leave. I think the U.S. tatics should have been changed earlier. A war of attrition against a country who had about million men able for military service each year. we never were able to kill that many in a year.
I think if the US had just continued to give the South Vet Namese support from the air the North Viet Namese would eventually be willing to concede a peace to the South Viet Namese on more favorable terms, which would have resulted in a stable South Viet Nam by the early 1980's, with its security guaranteed by the US.Originally Posted by BlackJack22
What is "leaving" a war you're waging, if not conceding defeat ?
Very complex question and answers. IMHO, when any country, the USA included, decides to "loose the dogs of war" on another country, the civilian leaders (president, VP, etc) should then get the fvk out of the way and let the military do what it does best, kill the enemy.
Had the Presidents, and defense secretaries etc stayed the fvk out of the way, in Vietnam and not tried to micromanage the war...the US could have easily defeated North Vietnam in 12 months. Now the Viet cong in the south was another issue, similar to the "insurgancy" in Iraq. As long as there is a civilian insurgancy and an outside power (in VN it was Russia, China, and in Iraq it has been Iran etc) that supply the insurgancy with weapons and technology...it is difficult to win those types of wars without being totally brutal (out of the eye of the free press and public opinion).
I suspect that some of these questions will be discussed and argued over for centuries.
I agree, if by that you mean the politicians shouldn't micro-manage the war.
I don't, if by that you mean that war - a political exercise in and by itself - should be exclusively run by the General Headquarters.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the US won every battle in Vietnam. Militarily, they left undefeated. The political objective of preventing a communist takeover in S Vietnam failed, and the domestic and international fallout was to cast the US in a very dim light.
However, how much of the political failure lay with the Vietnamese ? IMHO the communists gained power because the South was unable to combat them in the politcal arena, and so no amount of US military help was going to work.
But the war is not the sum of battles.
Of course that tactically and operationally US was winning, stragically facts were the South Vietnam fallen to the North. Finito.
It is very often case in history that you win battles and loose peace.
In a military contex the americans won - They killed more NV/VC than the NV/VC killed them. In the very large majority of the firefights and battles the americans were victorious. The NV/VC never (AFAIK) "won" any battles against the americans - even the Tet-offensive were pushed back and crushed by american forces.
However, in a strategic contex the americans lost. The goal of the american intervention in Vietnam was to prevent the communist North Vietnam to invade and conquer South Vietnam. After the americans pulled out this is exactely what happened.
One can say that the americans "won the battles, but lost the war".
What I mean is that Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon should not have sat in the white house and both selected targets for bombing, and said "no we can't bomb Hanoii because Kissininger is at the peace talks" etc. In world war II, Roosevelt and Truman, got the hell out of the way, said go get em, and the military had leaders who had a pair....General Curtis Lemay, Patton, Ike, etc, and the entire country, "the press" and all were ready to portray the enemy as sub human and blow them to kingdom come with every atomic bomb at our disposal, regardless of the repercussions.
It was "total war", survival. You can't always rely on technology to defeat an enemy who is commited to total war, if you are also not commited to total war.
You guys do know what today is?? The 29th of April. This day commerates the final fall of Saigon in 1975. I was there on the USS Hanco*k for Operation Frequent Wind. You can read about it in the popeye's sea stories thread.
As it has been pointed out the US lost no major battles. The US military performed well despite medeling politican & anti-war seniments in the US and World.
The North was bombed into submission in December 1972 by Operation Linebacker II. All sides signed the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973. US forces quickly widthdrew from S. Vietnam. Where upon over the next two years the North started to violate the peace agreement. By early 1975 the South was a shambles iot was ready to fall. The South asked ..actually begged for military help but the Ford administration under great political pressure refused .. Hence the South fell on this day in 1975.
The US military was not defeated. The the politics of the US were defeated by an enemey that chose to fight by any means necessary..and win the same way.
No matter how you twist it, 58k KIA, who knows how many physically or mentally wounded and huge amount of material lost without destroying the enemy in a war over unimportant backwards piece of jungle doesn't sound like victory or even neutral outcome but defeat. At some point in time you have to decide whether the goal is worth the true cost and in Vietnam IMO it took too long to make the right decision so the losses were unnecessarely high.
Of course in this case as with many others also it would have been better to clearly not get involved at all or take the gloves off and go all the way from the start. But that's easy to say now.
"It was a tie!"
What I find interesting is how two conflicts -Vietnam and Algeria- are viewed differently despite of having shared results. In very general terms, the French in Algeria were on the verge on winning that conflict militarily when the political and popular support in France simply fell out from under it, precipitating a withdrawal and eventual Algerian independence. This is still viewed by many as a French "loss", whereas almost the same thing happened with the US vis-a-vis Vietnam, and it is not viewed as a "loss", even though militarily both armies were quite succesful against the enemy in battle.
Is there something I'm missing here, or is a double-standard being applied?
I think the US lost the war since it didn't complete its objective, of course it wasn't known until the fall of Saigon in 1975, 2 years after the withdrawal.
Just like how the Germans lost the Battle of Britain despite suffering less casualties than the RAF, since they didn't complete their objective.
But of course if you count the Vietnam War as a battle of the Cold War, then the US lost a battle but won the Cold War in general...
THe Korean war is more of a tie
Posting Permissions
