- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Could any strategy have worked in Vietnam?
Posted on 7/7/18 at 8:24 am to Wolfhound45
Posted on 7/7/18 at 8:24 am to Wolfhound45
My take on this so far. You have to have a national interest at stake. Defending South Vietnam was not enough of a rationale. It has to be visceral and tangible for the American people. I agree with the comments about avoiding a limited/proxy war. If the South Vietnamese were willing to fight for their freedom, then we would provide them arms and munitions and air and naval gunfire support. But that is it. No ground troops.
That is what I have so far.
That is what I have so far.
Posted on 7/7/18 at 8:39 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
in-depth a look of the entire war.
Thats a tall order, and I liked the Burns doc for the most part.
Give Hue 1968 a read. The author is the guy that wrote Blackhawk Down, I knew there had been some nasty house to house stuff there but I had no idea The Front (NVA and VC) held the city for 25 days.
Not a flattering account of American leadership from Westy down to the battalion level for the Marines in the city and 1Cav trying to break in.
A great book that covers a pivotal time and answers your question. Had we moved North after Tet 1968 we absolutely had a chance to "win".
Posted on 7/7/18 at 8:45 am to Wolfhound45
Although I didn't agree with sending troops in the first place, the media fricked it up along with our unwillingness to go all out.
A war is a war. You either take it easy and lose your own troops or you stomp on the enemy's throat at the beginning.
A war is a war. You either take it easy and lose your own troops or you stomp on the enemy's throat at the beginning.
Posted on 7/7/18 at 8:49 am to BurningHeart
quote:
the media fricked it up
they were a big part. All three networks at the time made it a point to have daily "casualty" numbers in their broadcasts. We don't see that any more. Wonder why?
Posted on 7/7/18 at 9:45 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
I am finishing up “The Vietnam War” by Ken Burns. I have never done this in-depth a look of the entire war. But this series seems to show that everything we could have done wrong we did do wrong. Damn. Was there anything we could have done other than not getting involved at all?
I think our history, especially, and history, generally, shows it's a bad idea for a foreign power to get involved in another country's civil war.
This post was edited on 7/7/18 at 9:52 am
Posted on 7/7/18 at 9:58 am to Wolfhound45
You should only make war if you make total war. Any war that isn’t total war is detrimental to both sides, is inhumane, and a complete waste of time, resources, and money.
Go in with the mindset to kill every last man woman and child. No quarter given, no quarter taken.
You bring your total and complete might and absolutely crush your opponent as quickly and effieicently as you can, or you don’t go in at all.
Go in with the mindset to kill every last man woman and child. No quarter given, no quarter taken.
You bring your total and complete might and absolutely crush your opponent as quickly and effieicently as you can, or you don’t go in at all.
Posted on 7/7/18 at 10:08 am to Wolfhound45
Vietnam was the first war we really cared about civilian casualties. In WWII, we didn't give a frick. We killed civilians on purpose to break their will (see Dresden and of course Hiroshima/Nagasaki). No one cared back then, but in Vietnam people did, which is why we "lost."
Posted on 7/7/18 at 10:14 am to Wolfhound45
Should have stayed out of the war.
LBJ was the worst president ever. That entire war escalated simply because he did not want to be the first president to lose a war yet he himself declared it un-winable.
What kind of despicable human being drafts a half million 18 year olds and sends them to combat with no goal to win, no objective to accomplish.
He was HORRIBLE as a president.
LBJ was the worst president ever. That entire war escalated simply because he did not want to be the first president to lose a war yet he himself declared it un-winable.
What kind of despicable human being drafts a half million 18 year olds and sends them to combat with no goal to win, no objective to accomplish.
He was HORRIBLE as a president.
This post was edited on 7/7/18 at 10:15 am
Posted on 7/7/18 at 10:14 am to AUstar
quote:
No one cared back then, but in Vietnam people did
Civil wars are tricky, it's not the same as two nations going head-to-head, there's always an element of winning over the populace to your side.
Posted on 7/7/18 at 10:24 am to I B Freeman
It is a tragedy that Oswald didn't waste him instead of Kennedy, that man has cost this country untold grief. Hell he probably had Kennedy killed.
This post was edited on 7/7/18 at 10:25 am
Posted on 7/7/18 at 10:28 am to antibarner
quote:Watching the totality of events played out across the entire series has made me prone to tinfoil hattery. That is as far as I will go right now.
Kennedy
Posted on 7/7/18 at 10:30 am to Wolfhound45
If our strategy wasn’t to declare Vietnam attacked us in Gulf of Tonkin, it would have been a very different chain of events.
Posted on 7/7/18 at 11:55 am to Wolfhound45
Read Hue 1968, its not a casual read its about 600 pages but well written.
Its expansive, from the 14 year old girls that lead Front troops into the city to Westy and LBJ. It really hammers the disconnect from the leadership (military and civilian) to the situation on the ground.
Its expansive, from the 14 year old girls that lead Front troops into the city to Westy and LBJ. It really hammers the disconnect from the leadership (military and civilian) to the situation on the ground.
Posted on 7/7/18 at 12:02 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Should have stayed out of the war.
The whole "domino theory" didn't really play out.
Posted on 7/7/18 at 12:33 pm to Wolfhound45
Should have started in the north. Made the North Vietnamese Army protect its territory.
The Viet Cong was mainly in the south and in Cambodia. After taking North Vietnam it would have been much easier to defeat the Viet Cong.
Once the Noth Vietnamese army hooked up with the Viet Cong it was pretty much over in jungle warfare.
We studied the Vietnam War in one of my ROTC college classes. That is the conclusion the professor believed(24 years ago).
The Viet Cong was mainly in the south and in Cambodia. After taking North Vietnam it would have been much easier to defeat the Viet Cong.
Once the Noth Vietnamese army hooked up with the Viet Cong it was pretty much over in jungle warfare.
We studied the Vietnam War in one of my ROTC college classes. That is the conclusion the professor believed(24 years ago).
Posted on 7/7/18 at 12:46 pm to MizzouBS
quote:
The Viet Cong was mainly in the south and in Cambodia.
Well, that's where the entire war was except for U.S. bombing in North Vietnam.
This myth the VC were all Southern communists is a lot of bunk, too. Maybe there was a plurality, perhaps, although I doubt it, a slight majority of membership from the South, but a huge number and particularly the leadership were infiltrators sent down from the North via the Ho Chi Minh trail.
On the political side, a hardline Catholic regime in the South wasn't really smart. No question that Diem was our man in Saigon and was a virulent anti-Communist, but
he was corrupt to the core and did not understand his own folks. His successors were increasingly ineffective.
Posted on 7/7/18 at 12:51 pm to Wolfhound45
I've done quite a bit of reading on this and I just started ken Burns doc on this.
The politicians fricked our men over. Period. The fact that they liked about the gulf of tonken incident that Drew us in should tell you. People should be tried with murder imo for the one that got so many of our people killed.
Air power being let loose would have echnaged the course of the war. The fact we could o my come in one way and bomb allowed them to concentrate what limited anti air power they had in one shooting gallery. frick that you let them do as they are trained and let the south Viet army fight the ground we would win.
Pull out all the stops. Wipe out their ports. Crush the ho chi trail. Act like you want to WIN the fricking thing. The north would have collapsed. No way in hell they would have lasted.
Guerrilla fighting would have been inevitable but I still feel like over time there would have e been a victory.
Much of the norths resolve was due to the idea America was an in another imperial conquest just like so many they dealt with before. Having their people on the ground I think would have been much better for optics and perhaps many of the guerrilla fighters would not have existed. The south looked like them because they were them.
The politicians fricked our men over. Period. The fact that they liked about the gulf of tonken incident that Drew us in should tell you. People should be tried with murder imo for the one that got so many of our people killed.
Air power being let loose would have echnaged the course of the war. The fact we could o my come in one way and bomb allowed them to concentrate what limited anti air power they had in one shooting gallery. frick that you let them do as they are trained and let the south Viet army fight the ground we would win.
Pull out all the stops. Wipe out their ports. Crush the ho chi trail. Act like you want to WIN the fricking thing. The north would have collapsed. No way in hell they would have lasted.
Guerrilla fighting would have been inevitable but I still feel like over time there would have e been a victory.
Much of the norths resolve was due to the idea America was an in another imperial conquest just like so many they dealt with before. Having their people on the ground I think would have been much better for optics and perhaps many of the guerrilla fighters would not have existed. The south looked like them because they were them.
Posted on 7/7/18 at 12:53 pm to TX Tiger
quote:I normally think you are a buffoon. But after watching this series I am beginning to question some of my previous beliefs about the “rightness” of this war.
War Is A Racket
Posted on 7/7/18 at 12:56 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
But after watching this series I am beginning to question some of my previous beliefs about the “rightness” of this war.
The Burns series very cleverly focuses in on the Vietnam vets who later vehemently opposed the war - the Kerry comrades. I think this was on purpose to give more credibility/gravitas to the anti-war movement.
We're also ignoring the obvious flaw in many of these theories - the United States - by any objective measure won the Vietnam War. The North seized upon the opportunity provided by Nixon's resignation to undo that and the U.S. Congress, in a display of bipartisan cowardice the likes of which this nation has never seen and will likely never see again, threw that victory away with a not-so-subtle, "frick you" to a pleading Gerald Ford and all the wasted lives to that point.
So, there's all of that.
This post was edited on 7/7/18 at 12:57 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News