NationStates Jolt Archive


The War We Could Have Won. ( Vietnam )

Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 19:13
NOTE: This article says what many Vietnam veterans have been saying for many years.


The War We Could Have Won (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/opinion/01morris.html?th&emc=th)
By STEPHEN J. MORRIS

Published: May 1, 2005
Washington

THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people. However, 30 years after the war's end, the reasons for its outcome remain a matter of dispute.

The most popular explanation among historians and journalists is that the defeat was a result of American policy makers' cold-war-driven misunderstanding of North Vietnam's leaders as dangerous Communists. In truth, they argue, we were fighting a nationalist movement with great popular support. In this view, "our side," South Vietnam, was a creation of foreigners and led by a corrupt urban elite with no popular roots. Hence it could never prevail, not even with a half-million American troops, making the war "unwinnable."

This simple explanation is repudiated by powerful historical evidence, both old and new. Its proponents mistakenly base their conclusions on the situation in Vietnam during the 1950's and early 1960's and ignore the changing course of the war (notably, the increasing success of President Richard Nixon's Vietnamization strategy) and the evolution of South Vietnamese society (in particular the introduction of agrarian reforms).

For all the claims of popular support for the Vietcong insurgency, far more South Vietnamese peasants fought on the side of Saigon than on the side of Hanoi. The Vietcong were basically defeated by the beginning of 1972, which is why the North Vietnamese launched a huge conventional offensive at the end of March that year. During the Easter Offensive of 1972 - at the time the biggest campaign of the war - the South Vietnamese Army was able to hold onto every one of the 44 provincial capitals except Quang Tri, which it regained a few months later. The South Vietnamese relied on American air support during that offensive.

If the United States had provided that level of support in 1975, when South Vietnam collapsed in the face of another North Vietnamese offensive, the outcome might have been at least the same as in 1972. But intense lobbying of Congress by the antiwar movement, especially in the context of the Watergate scandal, helped to drive cutbacks of American aid in 1974. Combined with the impact of the world oil crisis and inflation of 1973-74, the results were devastating for the south. As the triumphant North Vietnamese commander, Gen. Van Tien Dung, wrote later, President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam was forced to fight "a poor man's war."

Even Hanoi's main patron, the Soviet Union, was convinced that a North Vietnamese military victory was highly unlikely. Evidence from Soviet Communist Party archives suggests that, until 1974, Soviet military intelligence analysts and diplomats never believed that the North Vietnamese would be victorious on the battlefield. Only political and diplomatic efforts could succeed. Moscow thought that the South Vietnamese government was strong enough to defend itself with a continuation of American logistical support. The former Soviet chargé d'affaires in Hanoi during the 1970's told me in Moscow in late 1993 that if one looked at the balance of forces, one could not predict that the South would be defeated. Until 1975, Moscow was not only impressed by American military power and political will, it also clearly had no desire to go to war with the United States over Vietnam. But after 1975, Soviet fear of the United States dissipated.

During the war the Soviets despised their North Vietnamese "friends" (the term of confidential bureaucratic reference, rather than "comrades"). Indeed, Henry A. Kissinger's accounts of his dealings, as Nixon's national security adviser, with President Thieu are models of respect when compared with the bitter Soviet accounts of their difficulties with their counterparts.

In secret internal reports, Hanoi-based Soviet diplomats regularly complained about the deceitfulness of the North Vietnamese, who concealed strategic planning from their more powerful patron. In a 1972 report to Moscow, the Soviet ambassador even complained that although Marshal Pavel Batitsky, commander of the Soviet Air Defense Forces, had visited Hanoi earlier that year and completed a major military aid agreement, North Vietnamese leaders did not inform him of the imminent launch date of their Easter Offensive.

What is also clear from Soviet archival sources is that those who believed that North Vietnam had more than national unification on its mind were right: Its leaders were imbued with a sense of their ideological mission - not only to unify Vietnam under Communist Party rule, but also to support the victory of Communists in other nations. They saw themselves as the outpost of world revolution in Southeast Asia and desired to help Communists in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and elsewhere.

Soviet archives show that after the war ended in 1975, with American power in retreat, Hanoi used part of its captured American arsenal to support Communist revolutions around the world. In 1980 some of these weapons were shipped via Cuba to El Salvador. This dimension of Vietnamese behavior derived from a deep commitment to the messianic internationalism of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Vietnam today is not the North Vietnam of 1955, 1965 or 1975. Like post-Mao China it has retreated from totalitarianism to authoritarianism. It has reformed its economy and its foreign policy to become more integrated into the world. But those changes were not inevitable and would not necessarily have occurred had Mikhail Gorbachev not ascended to power in Moscow, and had the Soviet Union and its empire not collapsed. Nor would these changes necessarily have occurred had China not provided a new cultural model for Vietnam to follow, as it has for centuries.

Precisely because Vietnam has changed for the better, we need to recognize what a profoundly ideological and aggressive totalitarian regime we faced three, four and five decades ago. And out of respect for the evidence of history, we need to recognize what happened in the 1970's and why.

In 1974-75, the United States snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Hundreds of thousands of our Vietnamese allies were incarcerated, and more than a million driven into exile. The awesome image of the United States was diminished, and its enemies were thereby emboldened, drawing the United States into new conflicts by proxy in Afghanistan, Africa and Latin America. And the bitterness of so many American war veterans, who saw their sacrifices so casually demeaned and unnecessarily squandered, haunts American society and political life to this day.


Stephen J. Morris, a fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, is writing a book on the Vietnam War in the Nixon years
Lancamore
01-05-2005, 19:25
Well said.

Without the interference of politics, we would have won the war. From the start, we were not fighting with the intention of military victory. We wanted a diplomatic solution, like the one that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. Unfortunately, Johnson didn't know about JFK's secret deal with the Soviets regarding missiles in Turkey, so the precedent he was following was flawed.
North climate
01-05-2005, 19:28
The USA won. But the hippies took the victory.
Naturality
01-05-2005, 19:30
Wish I knew more facts on this war .. but I don't. I had a friend that was in the war (He was on one of the first boats into Cambodia, did 2 tours.. passed on in 2002 ).. some of the things he told me boiled my blood...about our govn't, the things that our govn't did to our own troops over there.. the intent overall, and the treatment of the Vietnam Vets that survived to come home or chose to come home.. lots stayed over there.. and I can't blame them.

I know some things .. but am not informed enough to speak about it really. Glad you made the topic tho. Will be reading :o)
Vittos Ordination
01-05-2005, 19:31
How about "The War We Didn't Need To Win"?
North climate
01-05-2005, 19:31
I´m from Finland and still I´m all for the american about the result of the Vietnam war.
Achmed47
01-05-2005, 19:32
vietnam was another war whare we used our same crap tactic of take ground, go back to base and upon our return its crawling with vietcong gurillas, in the vietnam war we forgot the second rule of war.
Ashmoria
01-05-2005, 19:33
ive always thought that losing a war we could have won, against people who were not in any way our enemies, showed a certain amount of good character on our part. it would be a shame to kill so many more people who werent our enemy just to show that we could.
North climate
01-05-2005, 19:34
How about "The War We Didn't Need To Win"?

It´s not about "winning".. It´s about pride and miscalculation.
Wisjersey
01-05-2005, 19:35
How about "The War that was too profitable to not be started"?
General of general
01-05-2005, 19:36
Communists! Communists! Everywhere!
Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 19:37
Well said.

Without the interference of politics, we would have won the war. From the start, we were not fighting with the intention of military victory. We wanted a diplomatic solution, like the one that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis. Unfortunately, Johnson didn't know about JFK's secret deal with the Soviets regarding missiles in Turkey, so the precedent he was following was flawed.
That's strange. It should have been obvious that the missles were removed from Turkey almost as soon as the Cuban missle crisis ended. :confused:
North climate
01-05-2005, 19:38
In the second world war we (Finland) had the same situation. But we kicked some ass anyhow.
Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 19:39
I´m from Finland and still I´m all for the american about the result of the Vietnam war.
I find that fascinating. Can you explain why? :)
Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 19:40
The USA won. But the hippies took the victory.
I don't find that amusing in the least. :(
Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 19:41
It´s not about "winning".. It´s about pride and miscalculation.
For those of us on the ground, it was all about winning.
North climate
01-05-2005, 19:43
I find that fascinating. Can you explain why? :)

It´s quite simple. USA dídn´t lose lives more than 58000 man as to over 3 million vietnamese. It is almost the same situation which was with Finland against russians in 2WW.
Free Soviets
01-05-2005, 19:43
How about "The War We Didn't Need To Win"?

or "the war we should have lost even earlier"
North climate
01-05-2005, 19:44
For those of us on the ground, it was all about winning.

No. Dignity (human weakness).
Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 19:45
No. Dignity (human weakness).
Before I misunderstand and begin to flame you, please explain. :)
New Foxxinnia
01-05-2005, 19:45
In the second world war we (Finland) had the same situation. But we kicked some ass anyhow.Finnish Ski Patrol = Awesome.
North climate
01-05-2005, 19:49
Before I misunderstand and begin to flame you, please explain. :)

No need to flame. It was America´s pride and the dipshit politicians that made that war. Fascist (did I spell it right?) minor was to blame. Grandeur of illusion.
North Island
01-05-2005, 19:52
I do not understand why America didnt go all out in that war in the very start of LBJ's term.
I understand why America didnt go all out in the start, JFK didnt want to be involved at all and was planing to take the American soldiers out. Like JFK said, "it's their war, they are the ones that are going to have to win it or loose it."
Then LBJ and the gang murder JFK and go to war, being as it's the bigest business in the United States. But they take 'baby steps', it was crazy.
With your military power at that time I can not understand why you just didnt send every plane you had and bombd them back to the stone age.
You would have won in a short time period and 58.000 Americans wouldnt be dead today. It you had been lucky maybe the Vietnam deathtoll would have been lower too.
McNamara is a scapegoat for LBJ.
North climate
01-05-2005, 19:52
Finnish Ski Patrol = Awesome.

It was the most high-skilled.
Wisjersey
01-05-2005, 19:53
Communists! Communists! Everywhere!

Where? Communism is dead. Thank goodness.
Lancamore
01-05-2005, 19:54
No need to flame. It was America´s pride and the dipshit politicians that made that war. Fascist (did I spell it right?) minor was to blame. Grandeur of illusion.
Maybe it was our opposition to totalitarian rule.

Oops, excuse me, I forgot that Soviet-style totalitarian communism is all right. Now that nobody is suffering under it, we can attack the US for opposing it back in the Cold War.
General of general
01-05-2005, 19:55
Where? Communism is dead. Thank goodness.

And hippies too! Hippies Hippies everywhere!
Swimmingpool
01-05-2005, 19:55
Why should America have won? To satisfy it's national ego? Sorry, I don't give a shit. There are more important things than nationalist ego masturbation.
Lancamore
01-05-2005, 20:01
Why should America have won? To satisfy it's national ego? Sorry, I don't give a shit. There are more important things than nationalist ego masturbation.
I refer you to my above post:

Maybe it was our opposition to totalitarian rule.

Oops, excuse me, I forgot that Soviet-style totalitarian communism is all right. Now that nobody is suffering under it, we can attack the US for opposing it back in the Cold War.
Naturality
01-05-2005, 20:01
Someone I know (not my friend I spoke of earlier) told me the Vietcon thrived undergound.. like rats... on one bowl of rice they could go on for days killing. Outside of any political interferance.. just battle.. the vietcon were just more adapted to the environment and were more disciplined-missioned fighters. They didn't have the technology of Americans but had the drive and stamina. And ofcourse home team problems effected the U.S. troops alot.


When I said a "bowl of rice" it wasnt literal.. I mean that it didnt take much at all for them to have the fuel to do it.

I was being stereo-typical there
North climate
01-05-2005, 20:08
Maybe it was our opposition to totalitarian rule.

Oops, excuse me, I forgot that Soviet-style totalitarian communism is all right. Now that nobody is suffering under it, we can attack the US for opposing it back in the Cold War.

Finland fought against communism and we prevailed.
Lancamore
01-05-2005, 20:11
Finland fought against communism and we prevailed.
*raises glass to Finland* Cheers!
General of general
01-05-2005, 20:11
Finland fought against communism and we prevailed.

Even through a time when America was allied with the USSR. I don't think any other nation could have done this.
Jello Biafra
01-05-2005, 20:27
While we could have won the war, it was an unjust war to begin with. This does not have anything to do with the people who faught the war. I respect their spirit of self-sacrifice, I know that it will be needed in case there is a just war for America to fight. It saddens me that they were used to unjustly.
Swimmingpool
01-05-2005, 20:27
I refer you to my above post:
I wasn't saying that communism is alright. America got involved in the Vietnam war in order to suck up to France. In my opinion it was a civil war that America should not have been involved in.
Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 20:30
It´s quite simple. USA dídn´t lose lives more than 58000 man as to over 3 million vietnamese. It is almost the same situation which was with Finland against russians in 2WW.
Yes. I have the utmost admiration for the Finnish ski infantry. They were vastly outnumbered and yet kicked Russian butt in the "Winter War" ( sometimes known as the Sino-Finnish War ).

[ Salutes the brave Finnish soldiers! ] I'll drink to that! :D
Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 20:32
Even through a time when America was allied with the USSR. I don't think any other nation could have done this.
As I recall, the USSR and America weren't yet allies when the Sino-Finnish War took place.
Old Dobbs Town
01-05-2005, 20:32
The only problem with armchair quarterbacking is the armchair tends to get in the way of the field of play...
Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 20:34
The only problem with armchair quarterbacking is the armchair tends to get in the way of the field of play...
Well, that's one of the few things of which I cannot ligitimately be accused. I just thought the article served to support what many of us Vietnam veterans have said all along: if we had been allowed to win, we could have.
Dakini
01-05-2005, 20:38
Hey, you know what? I'm glad the war ended when it did. If it hadn't odds are I wouldn't be around. My dad was drafted and set to ship out... and then the war ended. Good. My dad went on to complete his education and thus me and my sisters were born, instead of him dying in a combat role.

So yeah, really I don't care whether the thing could have been won or not.
Hammolopolis
01-05-2005, 20:38
According to the CIA we weren't going to win:
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050429185809990004

The 1967 memo also bluntly stated what some historians have viewed as a still-resonating central lesson of Vietnam.

The "compelling proposition" of such a loss would be that the United States "cannot crush a revolutionary movement which is sufficiently large, dedicated, competent and well-supported," the memo said.

"In a narrow sense," it added, "this means more simply that the structure of U.S. military power is ill-suited to cope with guerrilla warfare waged by a determined, resourceful and politically astute opponent."

Now I'm not making any arguments one way or the other, this just seems to be an interesting bit of information.
General of general
01-05-2005, 20:45
As I recall, the USSR and America weren't yet allies when the Sino-Finnish War took place.

Finland sided with germany.
The USSR attacked again in 1944. It was called "the continuation war". Finland then proceeded to fight the germans from 1944 to 45.
OceanDrive
01-05-2005, 20:54
...Finland sided with Germany....Interesting
General of general
01-05-2005, 21:01
Interesting

It was the only country on the losing side not to be occupied. They did however fight the germans in 1945.