Vietnam: We Could Have Won?

[ShieldOFaith]

YES!!! 100% YES!!!

We could have rolled the N.V. like drunks if we really wanted to. However, we lacked the WILL to do so. Sad.

What say you fellow historians?

 

[ShieldOFaith]

Come on Otto, tell us why you voted no.

 

[SolomonVII]

There is the military battle, which was being won by the US hands down....

...but there was also the nationalist struggle against French colonialism and the unwitting Americans who entered the battlefield on the side of the colonialists.

The question then is, what would be gained by even winning the war? For as long as Americans were in control, they would be resented anyways, and the people would always be working against anything that America would have wanted, just out of spite.

Hindsight is always 20/20 of course, but as much as American involvement was centred on the Cold War fight against communism, America eventually did win the war. Viet Nam is now very much into the free market camp, and communism collapsed as all systems eventually will anyways.

 

[TScott]

If we could have we would have.

It's easy to say we could have just gone in with all our might all at once and rolled over them, but that would be ignoring history, and since this is posted on the history boards we shouldn't do that. When we started in Viet Nam, there was no justification for American troops to actually do any fighting. In order for us to have American troops engaged in combat we needed congressional approval. It wasn't until we had already been involved in Viet Nam either directly or indirectly for 19 years that LBJ was able to get Congressional approval to send American combat troops into Viet Nam with the Tonkin Resolution. Even at that point congress was not willing to fund the effort with enough troops to overwhelm the insurgency.

To say that we could have won just isn't accurate-we are a republic and our republic didn't have the resolve or even the desire to defeat the insurgents in Viet Nam. If they would have had the resolve, we obviously had the might, but as we learned it takes both the power and the national will to defeat a motivated enemy.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

If we could have we would have.

It's easy to say we could have just gone in with all our might all at once and rolled over them, but that would be ignoring history, and since this is posted on the history boards we shouldn't do that. When we started in Viet Nam, there was no justification for American troops to actually do any fighting. In order for us to have American troops engaged in combat we needed congressional approval. It wasn't until we had already been involved in Viet Nam either directly or indirectly for 19 years that LBJ was able to get Congressional approval to send American combat troops into Viet Nam with the Tonkin Resolution. Even at that point congress was not willing to fund the effort with enough troops to overwhelm the insurgency.

To say that we could have won just isn't accurate-we are a republic and our republic didn't have the resolve or even the desire to defeat the insurgents in Viet Nam. If they would have had the resolve, we obviously had the might, but as we learned it takes both the power and the national will to defeat a motivated enemy.

Good post.

 

[justanobserver]

I'll have to give my answer some thought and come back to post it.

I never went In Country (too young by a year or so) but I was in the Marines by end of it - the end was in Apr 75. not Jan 73...) but that war did impact my life and my family's.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

I'll have to give my answer some thought and come back to post it.

I never went In Country (too young by a year or so) but I was in the Marines by end of it - the end was in Apr 75. not Jan 73...) but that war did impact my life and my family's.

I'll be waiting. It's good to hear from vets.

 

[USincognito]

No but...

If we'd stayed the course in '73 it would have been 10-15 more years of meat grinding.

If we'd approached the political situation and confronted the nationalist aspects of the Viet Minh/Cong and North VietNamese in '63, propped up more competant and less corrupt RVN political leadership and not implimented the hamlet system we could have had a different outcome.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

No but...

If we'd stayed the course in '73 it would have been 10-15 more years of meat grinding.

If we'd approached the political situation and confronted the nationalist aspects of the Viet Minh/Cong and North VietNamese in '63, propped up more competant and less corrupt RVN political leadership and not implimented the hamlet system we could have had a different outcome.

Another good post.

 

[justanobserver]

I am thinking in jumbled thoughts from a grunt's perspective.

yes, we could have won that war, militarily. but in winning is where we would have lost.

to explain: I dont have the referance of who said it except the name of a book where it was quoted in.

there is a comment made after a firefight in Nam - "we had to destroy the village to save it".

I really think that comment really said it ll about the war as well as an answer to could we have won it.

The book is called Dispatches by Michael Herr 910 bucks on walmart . com) . I use to have a copy but lost it. am gonna order another one.

But anyhoos, even if we had unrestricted combat capabilities, free fire zones anywhee incountry, all the suport posible, we would still not have won the war - pacified the people, yes, but not won.

there's a difference.

one thing that we were fighting was generations of peasant soldiers that never knew peacetime or how to stop fighting. chinese, japanese, french, americans, mountain tribes vs costal, etc.

in the book Dispatches (going from memory only - havent read it in 10 yrs) theres a quote from some senior officer how to solve the problem in Viet Nam - this officer said:

"put all the friendlies on ships and then move the ships out to sea. then bomb the country flat, then sink the ships".

horrible to think of but more truth in that comment that anything - IF - you wanted to pacify the country. we would have never won the hearts and minds. should we havebeen there? maybe, nmaybe not.

but we should have fought it like a war instead of being handicapping the troops day the day to day with meaningless changes issued by the politicians who never had boots on the ground.

saw a slogan once and I liked it - "Vietnam - bad war, not bad soldiers"

 

[stephenc]

I suppose Nixon's cosying up to Mao rendered the "domino principle" obsolete, and thus in a sense "won" the war anyway.

Clever diplomacy, no doubt.

I just feel sorry for every soul who had to pass through this horrible fiasco.

 

[TScott]

yes, we could have won that war, militarily. but in winning is where we would have lost.

In a way, I suppose that is really what happened.

During the fall of Saigon the US had a contingent of military and government personanel in Hanoi finalizing the Paris Peace accords that officially ended the US role in the Viet Nam war. An American General and General Giap, the commander in Chief of Viet Nam's armed forces were watching the televised images from Siagon. The American General Commented to Giap that his forces never once defeated US forces on the field of battle, to which Giap replied, (paraphrase) "True, but now, that is irrelavant."

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

We couldn't (thankfully).

 

[ShieldOFaith]

This is real quick, I have a lot more to say on the subject, but not enough time.

1. ) First and foremost; don't ever go into a war without counting the cost!!! (Thinking it all the way through.)

2. ) We should have known that the commies were weak and pathetic. Spineless vermin who would never in a million years retaliate if we went nuclear. Some may have known this, others were just plain scared. Sad.

3. ) If you go into the fight: FIGHT!!! DON'T HALF STEP!!!

=================================================

This is what I would have done. I don't go into Nam in the first place.

If for some reason beyond my power I had to fight this war, I win hands down within 6 months. There is no way on this earth that I lose this war. It would be impossible. It would be 100% impossible to lose this war if fought correctly.

The first thing I would have done is go up top with B-52's and rained death from above. I would have blown every single bridge, every single power plant, every single manufacturing plant. I wipe out there ports! All of them. I sink all there ships. I let my soldiers fight and I lock the media out of the war. I blow up burn and destroy so much of N. Nam that they vomit tears out of their until they get on their hands and knees and beg for mercy.

And for all you who say "China"! I would not be afraid of China. I just let the world know that I ABSOLUTELY GO NUCLEAR if anyone gets in my way. I let one off the coast of Nam just to make my point. That 100% guarantees the Chinese back off.

Basically I use good old fashioned WWII tactics that just punish with shear violence and destruction so much that the enemy falls to the floor begging for their lives. That is the only way to fight a war!!!

Either you don't fight! <=== this is preferable. Or you fight and smash your enemies face in soooooooooooo bad, he cries and gives up.

Fin.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

This is real quick, I have a lot more to say on the subject, but not enough time.

1. ) First and foremost; don't ever go into a war without counting the cost!!! (Thinking it all the way through.)

2. ) We should have known that the commies were weak and pathetic. Spineless vermin who would never in a million years retaliate if we went nuclear. Some may have known this, others were just plain scared. Sad.

3. ) If you go into the fight: FIGHT!!! DON'T HALF STEP!!!

=================================================

This is what I would have done. I don't go into Nam in the first place.

If for some reason beyond my power I had to fight this war, I win hands down within 6 months. There is no way on this earth that I lose this war. It would be impossible. It would be 100% impossible to lose this war if fought correctly.

The first thing I would have done is go up top with B-52's and rained death from above. I would have blown every single bridge, every single power plant, every single manufacturing plant. I wipe out there ports! All of them. I sink all there ships. I let my soldiers fight and I lock the media out of the war. I blow up burn and destroy so much of N. Nam that they vomit tears out of their until they get on their hands and knees and beg for mercy.

And for all you who say "China"! I would not be afraid of China. I just let the world know that I ABSOLUTELY GO NUCLEAR if anyone gets in my way. I let one off the coast of Nam just to make my point. That 100% guarantees the Chinese back off.

Basically I use good old fashioned WWII tactics that just punish with shear violence and destruction so much that the enemy falls to the floor begging for their lives. That is the only way to fight a war!!!

Either you don't fight! <=== this is preferable. Or you fight and smash your enemies face in soooooooooooo bad, he cries and gives up.

Fin.

Indeed. That is exactly the way that Christ taught. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy, do unto others...what he really meant was kill them all.

It is people like you that inspired Mahatma Gandhi to say 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.'

And please, don't make excuses. Any sane person can see that the Jesus of the Bible would have loathed patriotism, capitalism and every fascist value you think he stood for.

Hence why most Humanists are better 'Christians' than any Christian in the world could ever be.

 

[USincognito]

And for all you who say "China"! I would not be afraid of China. I just let the world know that I ABSOLUTELY GO NUCLEAR if anyone gets in my way. I let one off the coast of Nam just to make my point. That 100% guarantees the Chinese back off.

Gen. MacArthur, Pres. Truman would like a word with you...

 

[stephenc]

Hence why most Humanists are better 'Christians' than any Christian in the world could ever be

A bit sweeping, perhaps. But then I suppose you know everything "that can ever be".

Bye, just popping down to my local branch of the "Humanists" for a bowl of soup and a warm bed for the night.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

A bit sweeping, perhaps. But then I suppose you know everything "that can ever be".

Bye, just popping down to my local branch of the "Humanists" for a bowl of soup and a warm bed for the night.

Yes, I apologise...that was far more generalised than I meant it to be. I'm afraid I got a bit worked up in the face of the glorification of violence and murder.

 

[stephenc]

Don't worry about it. There have always been interesting interpretations of Christianity around.

 

[TScott]

This is real quick, I have a lot more to say on the subject, but not enough time.

1. ) First and foremost; don't ever go into a war without counting the cost!!! (Thinking it all the way through.)

2. ) We should have known that the commies were weak and pathetic. Spineless vermin who would never in a million years retaliate if we went nuclear. Some may have known this, others were just plain scared. Sad.

3. ) If you go into the fight: FIGHT!!! DON'T HALF STEP!!!

=================================================

This is what I would have done. I don't go into Nam in the first place.

If for some reason beyond my power I had to fight this war, I win hands down within 6 months. There is no way on this earth that I lose this war. It would be impossible. It would be 100% impossible to lose this war if fought correctly.

The first thing I would have done is go up top with B-52's and rained death from above. I would have blown every single bridge, every single power plant, every single manufacturing plant. I wipe out there ports! All of them. I sink all there ships. I let my soldiers fight and I lock the media out of the war. I blow up burn and destroy so much of N. Nam that they vomit tears out of their until they get on their hands and knees and beg for mercy.

And for all you who say "China"! I would not be afraid of China. I just let the world know that I ABSOLUTELY GO NUCLEAR if anyone gets in my way. I let one off the coast of Nam just to make my point. That 100% guarantees the Chinese back off.

Basically I use good old fashioned WWII tactics that just punish with shear violence and destruction so much that the enemy falls to the floor begging for their lives. That is the only way to fight a war!!!

Either you don't fight! <=== this is preferable. Or you fight and smash your enemies face in soooooooooooo bad, he cries and gives up.

Fin.

Fin indeed.

Where is your historical context here?

You said "If for some reason beyond my power I had to fight this war, I win hands down within 6 months." Who is you? Are you assuming you are the USA? If so you would be impeached before you even started. We have rules for waging war; look up "US Constitution".

Goldwater said essentially everything you have said here during his1964 bid for the White House and suffered one of the most lopsided defeats in American history. His hawkish stance on Viet Nam was the chief reason for it.

No. Most people didn't buy into the whole commie thing by '64. We all knew it was a red hearing and that communism in it's Marxist Lenninist form of collectivism was doomed to fail on it's own.

North Viet Nam never did anything to us, and were certainly no threat to us.

You simply would not have been able to fight that war any differently because you wouldn't have been allowed to.