McNamara documentary "The Fog of War"

[AbeFroman]

However you cannot deny the difference in the image between Gulf War 1, where there was a clear international support from most if not all corners, and the 2003 invasion where the perception to many was of an American led crusade.

I have already disproven this statement several times and I will not do so again here. But I cannot disprove your "perception" or "image" that has no basis in fact other than a "feeling" you get.

Whether that's factually correct is irrelevant.

This says it all to me. I'm not sure why you are posting in a forum on Military History and Tactics after a comment like that.

You have still failed to answer my question so I will ask it again: "Please list which "KEY" nations besides Germany, France, and Canada did not support the war."

This is almost sickening... how would changing the "image of Vietnam as an 'American war'" have stopped those North Vietnamese armored divisions?

Jack, thanks for backing me up. I really appreciate this comment. I am young, but as a student of history it disgusts me to see what people's "perceptions" have done to distort what Vietnam was about. As far as I can tell, when the last US service member left in 1973 the war was won. The insurgency was crushed. The North Vietnamese Army was crushed. It was not until they rebuilt and plowed into the South through a conventional attack that the South Vietnam fell. It is upsetting to see how facts can be so distorted, and ignored to serve a political cause. I hope that my generation will re-learn the Vietnam War from a factual standpoint without the bias of those who protested it.

[Corrupt]

I have already disproven this statement several times and I will not do so again here. But I cannot disprove your "perception" or "image" that has no basis in fact other than a "feeling" you get.

It's not my perception. I'm well aware of the list of nations that turned up. I'm saying that the perception for many was one of an American led crusade.

This says it all to me. I'm not sure why you are posting in a forum on Military History and Tactics after a comment like that.

See the above point. The (mis)perception that it was an "American War" had effects on peoples opinion, at home and abroad, both of the legitimacy of the intervention and of America itself. They may be wrong, but it still had a significant effect on American popularity and prestige worldwide.

You have still failed to answer my question so I will ask it again: "Please list which "KEY" nations besides Germany, France, and Canada did not support the war."

You're right they're only the third, fourth and sixth biggest budgets in NATO and a UN Security Council permenant member and major economic powers. Not like they have any sway internationally.

Jack, thanks for backing me up. I really appreciate this comment. I am young, but as a student of history it disgusts me to see what people's "perceptions" have done to distort what Vietnam was about.

Perceptions, even if they're wrong, are powerful things. That's my whole point.

This is almost sickening... how would changing the "image of Vietnam as an 'American war'" have stopped those North Vietnamese armored divisions?

It could well have resulted in less political pressure at home to pull troops out. The continued presence (or redeployment) of US troops could well have changed the outcome.

[DS73]

According to what I read, LBJ was afraid of drawing either China or the USSR into an active war with the USA....similar to the Chinese troops flowing down into North Korea during the early 50s Korean War. LBJ believed in a war of containment. Summers makes the case that if the USA had secured the battlefield (south vietnam), let the south vietnamese handle the nation building themselves and the USA had kept up unrelenting pressure on North Vietnam, just like bombing Hanoi in Dec. 1972.....the war might have had a different end result in 1975. Summers also notes and Clausowitz states that war results are not forever things...and everything changes. So even if south Vietnam had survived much longer than 1975, it may have succumb later to the north or another enemy. (that is what I got from it anyway)

Of course it would succumb. Americans had to let Vietnamese search and find the right leader who would keep their country intact while keeping military presence there, like they did accidentally in South Korea. I believe this political rigidness, just like sticking to Karsai in A-stan, was the most important US mistake in Vietnam.

[Jacknola]

Boys, boys, boys …. I would ordinarily let this line go, however painful. But given your ages and interest I feel the need to further commenbt..

Both of you have some seriously erroneous misconceptions about Vietnam… which you are now erroneously applying to Afghanistan. Unfortunately, your misconceptions are far to common to let go… because many public commentators are equally misled.

RE: Vietnam – “image of the US” had nothing to do with the loss of Vietnam to the communists. Image of the US has nothing to do with the situation in Afghanistan. “Image” has little or nothing to do with warfare – certainly France had a better “image”than Nazi Germany in 1940, but that “advantage” was worthless.

Likewise, “better leadership in Saigon” would not have prevented the communist victory in 1975, neither would more “hearts and minds.” RVN was more united, better lead, more organized,with a better army in 1975 than at any time in its history. But it was left with a completely untenable strategic situation by the Paris “peace” accords if and when the US decided to cease support.

All the “better leadership,” “image,” “hearts and minds,”economic power, “soft power,” etc. were not going to stop the NVA armored division led attack at a location of their choosing given their occupation of Southern Laos and Eastern Cambodia, and their well developed logistic network.

Fast forward to Afghanistan: we find a slightly different military situation given the “war” is moreakin to mafia terror… but the country is being reasonably led by the standards of Afghanistan, despite the manic-depressive problems of Karzai. The problem in Afghanistan is similar to Vietnam only in that the war isbeing prosecuted by and from Pakistan and unless that reality is confronted, it will continue. And if Pakistan decides to “take over” Afghanistan again after the withdrawal of the ISAF, they can, and they can hold it by terror, just as they did before.

The lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan is that military victory must come first. And one must understand what constitutes military victory and what constitutes the aim of warfare in the first place. The object of resorting to war is to cause the enemy to accede to your will. So until we put enough pressure on Pakistan to cause the leadership to quit this war they are conducting, it will go on to the last Pashtun.

Please, let’s hear no more of “image” or “change inleadership would produce a different result,” etc., about Vietnam and Afghanistan without a corresponding change in the strategic situation.

[DS73]

Likewise, “better leadership in Saigon” would not have prevented the communist victory in 1975, neither would more “hearts and minds.” RVN was more united, better lead, more organized,with a better army in 1975 than at any time in its history. But it was left with a completely untenable strategic situation by the Paris “peace” accords if and when the US decided to cease support.

All the “better leadership,” “image,” “hearts and minds,”economic power, “soft power,” etc. were not going to stop the NVA armored division led attack at a location of their choosing given their occupation of Southern Laos and Eastern Cambodia, and their well developed logistic network.

S. Vietnam had serious desertion problem (should I post numbers comparing with battle losses here?). Both army and police had serious command&control issues. It was common for regional commanders to make uncoordinated "last minute" decisions,
cruelty to not sufficiently friendly subordinates was the norm. Corruption was a major issue. Yes from 71 till 73 there were serious improvements, but let just admit that "better is not the same as good". It was not enough.

I agree with you that the americans had abandoned their allies and basically betrayed them in a winnable situation, and probably even having another Syngman Rhee in Saigon wouldn't be enough in 1975. But the americans had not only 1971-73 to make things work. There were 1964-1969 too. Can these years be called anything but "wasted years"?

I understand that you as a military, are focused on the military side, but army is not all that matters in a war.
S. Korean army mk 1953 had all and every problem above mentioned. (Beside thirst for local "initiative", which is important difference). But South Korea had one leader, trusted police and acting political management. S. Vietnam had neither of those.

[ferguson]

Long line of Viet Vets formed to piss on McNamera's grave.

Apologies not accepted.
He remained an active player long after he admits to seeing the futility of our policy.

Withdrawing our air support was the final nail in the Republic's coffin.

[AbeFroman]

Withdrawing our air support was the final nail in the Republic's coffin.

Agreed. At that point air support was all we needed. The Easter Offensive proved that. The North swarmed the border and were annihilated by our B-52s. They were helpless and most of their military and infrastructure was destroyed. That's why they had to come to the peace table.

[Seiyuuki]

which had significant ramifications on the opinion of America internationally.

The damage to American reputation and self esteem was done.

but it still had a significant effect on American popularity and prestige worldwide.

How, what, quantify it, specifics, etc...or all I'm hearing is a lot of feel-good hot air.

[Corrupt]

Public Opinion of America dropped significantly in many countries, particularly in Europe, under the Bush Administration, much of it linked to US foreign policy, especially Iraq, where it was perceived that the US had acted almost unilaterally. From 2000-2004 favourable opinions of the US dropped in Britain 83% to 58%. French opinion dropped from 62% to 37%. German opinion dropped from 78% to 38%. Those aren't negligable changes, considering how closely allied those nations are.

Condoleeza Rice quoted in the Financial Times June 03. "There was disappointment that a friend like Canada was not able to support the US. There was disappointment in the response of the German government too. There was a time when American power was seen as more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, I'll put it very bluntly, we just did not understand it."

I'm not exactly claiming unheard of revelations here.

[Seiyuuki]

Public Opinion of America dropped significantly in many countries, particularly in Europe, under the Bush Administration, much of it linked to US foreign policy, especially Iraq, where it was perceived that the US had acted almost unilaterally. From 2000-2004 favourable opinions of the US dropped in Britain 83% to 58%. French opinion dropped from 62% to 37%. German opinion dropped from 78% to 38%. Those aren't negligable changes, considering how closely allied those nations are.

Condoleeza Rice quoted in the Financial Times June 03. "There was disappointment that a friend like Canada was not able to support the US. There was disappointment in the response of the German government too. There was a time when American power was seen as more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, I'll put it very bluntly, we just did not understand it."

I'm not exactly claiming unheard of revelations here.

To quote Homer Simpson, "People can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14 percent of all people know that."

I and others are well aware of public opinion and their pointlessness in most cases. Again, I asked, how is any of that equate to quantifiable specifics, i.e., stoppage of diplomatic/trade relations, embargoes, etc...Between 2003 and now, nothing of real substances seem to have been negatively affected.

[Corrupt]

Again, I asked, how is any of that equate to quantifiable specifics, i.e., stoppage of diplomatic/trade relations, embargoes, etc...Between 2003 and now, nothing of real substances seem to have been negatively affected.

Nobody is stupid enough to embargo, or cease relations with the US. It would be economic suicide on an unprecedented scale. That doesn't change the fact that "Anti Americanism" was probably at an all time high from 2003/4 to 2008. I never claimed that the US was crippled by peaceful diplomatic retaliation, I said that the United State's international prestige, reputation and popularity was damaged, because it was.

[commanding]

Nobody is stupid enough to embargo, or cease relations with the US. It would be economic suicide on an unprecedented scale. That doesn't change the fact that "Anti Americanism" was probably at an all time high from 2003/4 to 2008. I never claimed that the US was crippled by peaceful diplomatic retaliation, I said that the United State's international prestige, reputation and popularity was damaged, because it was.

Corrupt,
I guess as a kind of agreement with your statement that no one was stupid enough to cease relations with the US, but also to point out that although "anti americanism" may be been at an all time high from 2004-2008, and the USA prestige, reputation and popularity was damaged.....there were still a lot of countries with their hands out for US aid dollars during that time. re this PDF file : http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/11s1298.pdf which covers 2005-2008 foreign aid dollars spent.
So, while many countries may have cursed the USA for our policies they were either sleeping in more security due to US military aid protecting them, or US aid spent for food in their belly or other resources.
I won't disagree that the USA suffered a damaged reputation in other countries in the era.

[Corrupt]

So, while many countries may have cursed the USA for our policies they were either sleeping in more security due to US military aid protecting them, or US aid spent for food in their belly or other resources.

People are hypcrites

You're right, it was far from all nations or all people, but I'd say it was probably the most significant change in opinion of the US there had been for a while.

[dacanadianbomb]

"They were helpless and most of their military and infrastructure was destroyed. That's why they had to come to the peace table."
And this when you need to continue destroying your enemy. Everytime an opponent who is in a weaker situation wants to come to the peace table it is to give them time to rebreath.
Vietnam, Sierra Leone etc.All they want is time to find another way to counter your tactical superiority.

[Jacknola]

Public Opinion of America droppedsignificantly in many countries, particularly in Europe, under the BushAdministration, much of it linked to US foreign policy, especially Iraq, whereit was perceived that the US had acted almost unilaterally. From 2000-2004favourable opinions of the US dropped in Britain 83% to 58%. French opiniondropped from 62% to 37%. German opinion dropped from 78% to 38%. Those aren'tnegligable changes, considering how closely allied those nations are.

I’m tempted to lead with “so what?” But I’ll save that till later…. but … sir, (a) you have a short memory about American “unpopularity.”

Do you have any memory of the riots and communist-instigated unrest, stoked by the left wing European press during the deployment of the Pershing missiles, “Ronald Reagan’ mad dog warmongering,”etc. just to name one moment among many? Yet 8 years later east Europe was free… and those who were doing the bidding of the communists for years had to grumble in their ideological hate. It will be interesting to see how Iraq is regarded 8 years from now.

Another thing ... about your “perception” of popularity … (b) So what? What has your “perception” of European mass popularity of American to do with anything … especially removing dangerous threats to peace such as Saddam Hussain… at a time when the President of France was on Saddam’s payroll? How would the US and the coalition of the willing face the threats to peace in the world better with more “popularity”... but with Saddam and Sons still in power in Iraq?

Most of the European leaders understood quite well what was at stake in Iraq … even Germany helped by basing the logistic network. Those people who believe America is an evil force in the world have always believed it. No one in their right mind morns the demise of Saddam and Sons. Regardless of American “popularity” within Europe, very few in EuropeTODAY fail recognize the threat of Islamic terrorism. THAT WAS NOT TRUE DURING THE COLD WAR …. when a great many left wing Europeans actively support the evil empire, and despised America.

But what really bothers me is the perception that deadly world conflict is won by ‘popularity.” It seems to be a failure by coffee shop, armchair pontificators to accept the reality of armed conflict ... desirting to substitute something akin to Ghandian moral authority. Well…Ghandi himself stated that his methods would never work except against an ethical and moral opponent. A brutal murderous dictator state would simply kill him and his supporters.

I recommend giving some thought about the people and causes the US has fought against the last 100 years. Nazis, Communists in SEAsia who later murdered 5 million people, not to mention Communists in Europe (edit: and China) who murdered 50 million of their own peoples, Japanese Imperialists, crazy mass-murderers such as Saddam, and Islamic terrorism that seeks to impose itself upon the world. Yet the US is “unpopular?”

Popularity will not stop the Islamists, nor will it check the imperial ambition of China, or remove mad men who would like to incinerate the world. That is a job for the only country that can…and your perception of “popularity” is meaningless when the shooting starts.

I suggest that the people who un-popularize the US are the ones who need to look in the mirror and ask… “what is it I support?” Thank God for the British, Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, and others (ROK) who have steadfastly stood with the armies of democracy through the decades.