posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 09:06 PM
Militarily, you could say it was a win, if you looked at it as a continuous scrimmage. That isn't what war is about, though. Its supposed to be a
policy enforcement or a means to an end when diplomacy fails, depending on what nation's viewpoint from which you are looking.
Obviously it was a dismal policy failure as far as attempting to support the South Vietnamese government and lead it toward a free democracy. I think
there is a lesson there that America just can't grasp, and that is not every country can or wants to be a democracy.
There is one other objective that was the cause for the continuous conflict, and that objective was in fact met. It engaged the Soviet government in
a war by proxy and was a way to drain the Communist government of resources, an economic sort of battle that our free-market economy could sustain for
a longer period of time, and at the same time slow the expansion of the Soviet Empire in that region. So in that respect, the conflict was a sort of
battle victory in a larger war, the Cold War.
The U.N. played a bigger part in that conflict than most realize as well, and IAW an agreement, we weren't supposed to obtain a total "victory".
There was more to it than perceived incompetence of a micromanaging executive administration trying to play general and fouling things up. While I
have no doubt that Johnson was an incompetent foul-up, alot of that was merely for public consumption so as not to allow the American public to
realize just how little the government we think is in charge actually controls this nation.