re: Could any strategy have worked in Vietnam?

Certainly not the way we fought it.

Part of the problem was that no one particularly identified what the goals were over there or how we would achieve them.

Given that all activity post-Tet was NVA rather than VC, the plan at that point should have been to invade Hanoi and string up Ho Chi Minh and General Giap.

Instead, we played whack a mole with guerillas and spent a shite ton of time, money, and ordinance trying to disrupt the logistics of the enemy in a way that wouldn’t work.

Specifically with regard to logistics, we were using bombs intended to stop trucks from being able to pass against a country using people on foot, on bicycles, and pushing wheelbarrows. Might as well have been using EMPs against the Amish.


Could we have won? Yes, but the costs in lives, money, and prestige would have been high and politicians would have been afraid to do so. So they halfassed it instead and cost as much or more of all three fighting a war we couldn’t win.