NationStates Jolt Archive

Was the Failure of Vietnam a matter of a loss of Faith in the Military's ability to wage a "unconventional" war.

I have been taught that the American Failure in Vietnam was not a failure due to poor strategy, but rather due to the actions of Congress. According to some of my sources The Vietnam war was progressing although harshly, was on a course of American victory.

Anyone know exactly as to the conditions of the war, and how the war was being conducted on a Strategic level. What was the ultimate goal of American Forces? To push Communist FOrces back North, or to dissolve all Vietnamnese Communist control. As well as a Political level, whom supported the war, who didnt within the American government?

I've been told, that the NLF (Viet Cong) were easily defeated by American Forces and by the near end of the War the NLF had been defeated, and were almost non-exsistant.

Was the NLF a lax threat near the end of the war? Were they poorly trained, and too far in between in number to pose a plausible threat? Were they the offspring of American OSS trained Viet Mihn to push French Colonial Forces out of Indochina?

I've been told that American forces never lost, or failed to complete a tatical military objective during the War, and never lost a battle.

I've read that the Coalition did loose several battles, and did fail on some levels of military excursion, like Operation Rolling Thunder, or the Battle of Ong Thanh. What was the military Action record of the U.S and South Vietanmnese forces, and of the Vietnamnese forces (both NLF and North Vietnamnese). Could the SOuth Vietnamnese/Australian/South Korean Military have effected American effectivness?

Who in congress ordered the halt of funding for the Vietnam War? Who in congress protested American involvment in Vietnam?

I've been told that the war could have been won had more funding been put into action, and if Military Action was allowed to increase in Cambodia, and had more Emphasis been placed on pushing American forces to the North.

Could this have helped Allied Forces?

I've read and I've been taught that Russian, North korean and Chinese soldiers had been involved in ground fighting. I'm sure that there were Chinese, and Russian advisors, and Pilots from Russia and China.

Were the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans activley involved in basic ground fighting?


So please, I am caught between alternating facts, and I've been told many different things on similar questions. I need more input.

Was the Failure of Vietnam a matter of a loss of Faith in the Military's ability to wage a "unconventional" war.

I have been taught that the American Failure in Vietnam was not a failure due to poor strategy, but rather due to the actions of Congress. According to some of my sources The Vietnam war was progressing although harshly, was on a course of American victory.

Anyone know exactly as to the conditions of the war, and how the war was being conducted on a Strategic level. What was the ultimate goal of American Forces? To push Communist FOrces back North, or to dissolve all Vietnamnese Communist control. As well as a Political level, whom supported the war, who didnt within the American government?

I've been told, that the NLF (Viet Cong) were easily defeated by American Forces and by the near end of the War the NLF had been defeated, and were almost non-exsistant.

Was the NLF a lax threat near the end of the war? Were they poorly trained, and too far in between in number to pose a plausible threat? Were they the offspring of American OSS trained Viet Mihn to push French Colonial Forces out of Indochina?

I've been told that American forces never lost, or failed to complete a tatical military objective during the War, and never lost a battle.

I've read that the Coalition did loose several battles, and did fail on some levels of military excursion, like Operation Rolling Thunder, or the Battle of Ong Thanh. What was the military Action record of the U.S and South Vietanmnese forces, and of the Vietnamnese forces (both NLF and North Vietnamnese). Could the SOuth Vietnamnese/Australian/South Korean Military have effected American effectivness?

Who in congress ordered the halt of funding for the Vietnam War? Who in congress protested American involvment in Vietnam?

I've been told that the war could have been won had more funding been put into action, and if Military Action was allowed to increase in Cambodia, and had more Emphasis been placed on pushing American forces to the North.

Could this have helped Allied Forces?

I've read and I've been taught that Russian, North korean and Chinese soldiers had been involved in ground fighting. I'm sure that there were Chinese, and Russian advisors, and Pilots from Russia and China.

Were the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans activley involved in basic ground fighting?


So please, I am caught between alternating facts, and I've been told many different things on similar questions. I need more input.
Your odd misuse of Capitalization makes you Sound like the Declaration of Independence (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html).

You lost, accept it.

What if we were taught that do to winning every major battle and completely obliterating enemy forces (compared to allied casualties) that we actually WON, but "the deal went sour" and we were forced to leave because it wasn't worth fighting?

Some of your post is worth a decent discussion, but certain parts make it simultaneously suspect of a moderate trollcraft.
Perhaps a little elucidation is in order as to who was involved with groundfighting?

we lost the war because it was unwinnable.

the vietnamese would never have given up. they were fighting for their country and their culture and they had been doing so for a very long time.

we lost the war because we had no business being in a war in vietnam. the north vietnamese were not our enemy. they had never done anything to us.

we lost the war because we werent really fighting the war in vietnam. we were fighting the larger war against the soviet union that we didnt dare really go to war with.

we lost the war because the public came to realize that the goals of the war werent worth the horrendous loss of life.

besides, as someone here will tell you...

we WON the war (with honor!) because when we left, the north promised to be good and the south was in control of its government. we didnt lose it, the SOUTH lost.

A government can't stand if the vast majority of the people don't support it. That was the problem of Nam. That is the problem of Bushnam.

In both we can take any piece of land we want to take. But we can't hold it because the people don't support the effort. I'm not talking of a simple majority. I'm talking of at least 95%. Even a small group willing to fight is too many.

Notice the result in Nam. They are better off today than they have been since the French showed up. They have the government they want--not the government the US wanted them to have. I think there is a lesson there for Bushnam. Let them have the type of government that the vast majority will support and you have peace. Maybe not the type of peace that the West would want but a peace appropriate for the people.