Originally posted by CTID56092
On Vietnam it's true you won the battles but as mostly you captured empty jungle they were hollow victories - as the enemy were guerillas they were
very unlikely to engage in formal battles in the first place. You had the opportunity to use correct CT tactics and some in your military saw the true
picture (Phillip Vann etc) but were shouted down by those who wanted a massive increase in the size of the army, R&D budgets etc etc as they saw
Vietnam as an opportunity to get what they wanted. Hence 000's of troops attacking empty jungle. Again it was the grunts who suffered (predominantly
african-american / hispanic, poorly-educated, half-trained guys led by inadequates like Caley) while your generals got promoted & sat in air-con
As you say neither UK or US has a sterling reputation but AFAIK we didn't bankrupt you, force you to give up your empire so we could develop our own
in its place. If you were honest about this it'd be better but the US has imposed its own version of history and apparently our empire was 100% evil
and yours is 100% benign - neither of these statements can be true!
On Vietnam- what you 'propose' was not the case. The guerillas you refer to were VC stooges (good killers sometimes) held in place by the NVA.
In the end, yes it went that way. By 1970 any enthusiasm was gone from the troops. The NVA hadn't beat us, we had. It wasn't the peaceniks either
as many proclaim, it was us- in the field we just wanted to survive and rotate home. I come from a small place- in 1965/66 I attended six funerals of
people I had gone to school with. By '68 I had lost count of the number from the letters I received.
The minorities you cite, again not the case until after '68. Always the poor or non-college kids though. Deferments became a game.
Tet '68 was not empty jungles.
Even though Calley was '68, it (Pinkville) was not the norm. The NVA were a powerful, committed and fully equipped/trained army as the Chinese found
The NVA never beat the US in a major battle including Hue. However, the NVA can truly claim to have never lost a war!
By '69 the troops changed- their attitudes started down. Way down.
The Vann you cite I am unaware of- the one I remember:
Lt. Col. John Paul Vann, one of America's leading practitioners in Vietnam, put it, "Guerilla warfare requires the utmost discrimination in
killing. Every time we killed an innocent person we lost ground in our battle to win the people."
By '70 we were losing a lot of ground. There were many, many people that thought the same way. The ones that made the headlines are (sadly) the
In '73 we left. The war was 'at a lull.'
We shamefully did not live up to the terms of the peace agreement. Even though the NVA did not either, it gives us no excuse.
Now to history of evil and benign
We (US) have not been beneficial to others. The American Indians, Philippines, Vietnam, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama- the list goes on and on.
We are no better than the British as empire builders. We just (luckily so far) didn't have the public backing. The Brits raped every country they
went into as we have likewise done. The Brits claimed it was for 'empire,' we claim democracy.
The bankruptcy that hit Britain has come across 'the pond.' We know it and are doing the same thing- wringing our hands.
The true sinister culprit in all this is a cabal of bankers- London/New York.
Both nations have a lot of fine people in them, the leaders almost always seem lacking. Maybe we get what we deserve after all.
The first national bank in the US was formed by the British to pay the Revolutionary War debt!
- - -
As to Pershing, I'll remember that 'Kansas tactics.' Like I said, he was not one of my favorites.