It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Vietnam is the result when the politicians tie up the hands of the military. That combined with political correctness up the kazoo makes more a very bad ending.
as posted byCTID56092
I see nothing to suggest the US learnt anything from Vietnam so can't really see a different result for you.
Originally posted by CTID56092
You lost! You were beaten. They won. Accept it and deal with it. No excuses.
Your military had few restrictions placed on them - no nukes, no bombing hanoi (didn't stop them) and no bombing neutral countries (didn't stop them). You invested everything you had, drafted your sons and still lost. You could never win that war as your top people made the fundamental mistake of under-estimating the enemy - frequently.
Originally posted by CTID56092
Fact - after 1,000 years of occupation the Vietnamese rose up and threw out the Chinese invaders. 1,000 years! Your military should have looked in a library before taking them on!
Originally posted by Seekerof
as posted byCTID56092
I see nothing to suggest the US learnt anything from Vietnam so can't really see a different result for you.
Study military doctrine? Ever heard of the Powell Doctrine: a direct result of the war/conflict in Vietnam? I could and can a name a number of others military restructure doctrines that resulted from Vietnam.
For one to claim and assert that one cannot see that the US has learned anything from Vietnam is either talking under the influence or seemingly not wanting to see that indeed there were changes and lessons learned....and later applied.
Remember the 1st Gulf War? It directly followed and adhered to the Powell Doctrine, to the letter. If you are applying what is transpiring in Iraq today to Vietnam of the 50s, 60s, and early 70s, quite frankly, two different ballgames and are not comparable, no matter how hard many novice or amateur armchair generals try to play or decipher them. Westpoint23 is correct, and as a military historian, despite the ever-present insurgency and guerilla doctrine adopted by Ho Chi Minh/North Vietnam from Maoist Doctrine [the People's War], if the US had not been restricted to specifically and mainly South Vietnam and had been allowed the ability to take out/invade North Vietnam, despite aid from China and the then USSR, the results would have been quite different. The concern that deterred US from invading North Vietnam was the possibility that China would do as they did in North Korea. Years after the war, China revealed that it would not have intervened as it did in North Korea, but then again, hindsight is 20/20, huh?
seekerof
[edit on 16-6-2005 by Seekerof]
Originally posted by deltaboy
Originally posted by CTID56092
Fact - after 1,000 years of occupation the Vietnamese rose up and threw out the Chinese invaders. 1,000 years! Your military should have looked in a library before taking them on!
yeah yer right we saw Japan who has never lost a war for thousands of years and finally lost to America which is still a young country.
Originally posted by CTID56092
But it wan't a body count war - it was a war about territory. The US political - military machine invented body count as a measure of 'success' to answer media pressure for tangible reults.
So they endured casualties at least 10 (possibly 20) times yours and still won!
They had 10 or 20 times your steel, resolve whatever. They endured unimaginable privations and still beat you.
US didn't judge success on bodycount? Have you ever studied the war? - the 'scores' were a key feature of the US daily TV news! Hence the shock of Tet, your data said you were winning when you clearly weren't.
It was still a flawed measure just more accurately reported. Aussies defined their success in terms of denying the enemy freedom to conduct operations - a correct measure - and were successful in their AO.
Correct assessment of the key issues and effective performance are not unrelated IMO
[
Originally posted by W4rl0rD
Technically, America didn't go to war with Vietnam. They didn't even declare war on Vietnam. And the NVA/VC didn't win, the Americans went there to protect South Vietnam from the communists, as part of their policy. In the end, a North Vietnamese T-54 crashed through the South Vietnamese presidential building and took control after the Americans were gone.
Kennedy once said, American boys shouldn't have to fight Asian boys' wars. America could not afford more casualties since they were on the other side of the world, while NVA/VC were directly fighting for their cause. And yes, I believe the NVA/VC were more ready to die.
The "scores"? The scores were more like... The Americans are taking X number of casualties *focuses on medic fixing up grunt*. There are X Americans dead etc etc. No wonder the American public were unhappy with the war.
For Tet, there was one problem, the generals said to attack with the date on the Lunar calender. There was a difference though, the VC in South Vietnam were using the new revised version, while the North used the old version. The attack were far from planned, and often, VC sapper units would capture a building only to know that their NVA reinforcements, who were supposed to come immediately, were still a day away. There was only 1 actual sucessful attack, on the city of Hue. After a few days of street fighting, the Americans managed to push the Vietnamese back.
The main US objective was to show its allies that they would assist a democracy against a communist country waging war against them. The US also delayed the North by a decade, which was what they set out to do. The US also achieved their objectives.
Originally posted by CTID56092
So they achieved their objectives, the US didn't - you lost.
Kennedy? The guy who originally committed US forces to 'Nam? Just plain wrong mate!
Tet was a military failure for the NVA, Hue was a serious attempt to take you and they lost. The Saigon ops though (surely 'media' ops) succeeded. massive effect for minimum effort.
Wrong. It was the other way round - body count figures exceeded NVA/VC dead
Originally posted by W4rl0rD
The main US objective was to show its allies that they would assist a democracy against a communist country waging war against them. The US also delayed the North by a decade, which was what they set out to do. The US also achieved their objectives.
Originally posted by CTID56092
So they achieved their objectives, the US didn't - you lost.