re: OTD in 1975: Saigon falls

quote:

---

I think where the war turned sideways was our cease fire on Hanoi and is not following the North into Cambodia and Laos. We were crippling the North’s base of operations and it ended poorly for us when we quit doing that.

---

Yep, but those decisions were not the choice of the military commanders in theater or even most at the Pentagon (though Cambodia and Laos were a bit trickier, being sovereign nations). Politics played a huge role in the decisions at the top level by that point

I know, but that was a political war to the tenth degree and went on to show what happens when we allow politicians to dictate ground and air tactics.

In my opinion, this is how war should be waged from a US perspective. DC should declare war, filter down to the military leadership what they expect in terms of victory, what will be acceptable, and then allow the commanders to find a way to figure it out. Politicians need to be about as far away as anybody from the ground forces. It more often than not creates mass confusion and mass chaos to the military who is there to do a job and win the war.

You are correct in your assertion about Laos and Cambodia, that was obviously thin ice and the politicians did need to play a part in deciding if we would be going into those countries as well. But we were fighting the North Vietnamese and VC, we should have continued to take the fight to them and primarily on the Ho Chi Minh trail and in Hanoi.

I fully understand that the regime in South Vietnam was flawed and corrupt in many ways. I would like all students of that period of US history to always remember that the Republic of South Vietnam, at the time, was a very newly independent nation-state. It was in its "childhood stage" of development. So, isn't it understandable that this nascent nation-state would not be perfect? Don't all nation-states, even "adult" ones, sometimes struggle with issues such as corruption?

Of course, the answer is in the affirmative to both questions. UNLESS you say it isn't! If you say that a new country should be perfect and that "adult" countries no longer sometimes face issues such as corruption, then please make your case to support your arguments.

So, I try to be careful when I examine the Republic of South Vietnam so that I can place it appropriately in history.

I'm also careful when I examine North Vietnam when I examine THIS nation-state's place in history, and, I have reached the conclusion that this question is worth consideration: How culpably stupid was North Vietnam to wage that war, given the incredible destruction and loss of life they suffered, given the fact that today's Vietnam views China as more of a threat than it considers the USA to be a threat? In other words, what were North Vietnam's long-term gains by "winning" the war? What did they "win"?

I maintain that they won nothing, and, in fact, they LOST an irrecoverable measure of human population and national resources in waging that war. I maintain that their lives would be better today had they not waged that war. I maintain that the USA was always going to be a beneficial trading partner of the whole of Vietnam, even if Vietnam had remained separated. Of course this question needs its own thread, really.

Yes, in 1979, China and Communist Vietnam exchanged armed hostilities on the border area. China used North Vietnam as a proxy to fight the USA. In fighting the USA, North Vietnam was too stupid to realize that they were being slaughtered for China's national interests. The phrase "useful idiots" comes to mind.

I think we agree here. There are politics in virtually every military action we get in now because no actual nation will attack the US directly. It is almost alway surrogate warfare via terrorism or via attacks on our allies.

The issue I always see is exactly what your post addresses, shifting objectives and restrictions based on the politics of the day rather than a clear objective with known set restrictions that the military commanders can develop a successful strategy around. Otherwise, stay out of it.

quote:

---

So we declared victory and left? OK got it........

---

No, we signed a treaty that was very favorable to us and the South Vietnamese. That treaty also stated that if the North attacked the South again, we would be in the fight as well. We didn’t hold our end of the bargain up and, in my perspective, this is where we lost our integrity with our allies.

Careful, you're going to make him look like a moron again to the point he posts about how much he hates everyone.

quote:

---

sans watergate would nixon have?

---

He wouldn't have had to - the North Vietnamese thought he was a lunatic and didn't know what to expect. Best evidence is - they were rearming and patiently waiting for 1977 - when Nixon resigned, they almost immediately began to test Ford's resolve - if we had done almost anything, they may have been content to withdraw and wait further.

We just didn't buy enough time for South Vietnam and, perhaps, long-term the situation was "unwinnable" - but none of that changes the fact we, led by Nixon, won that war in 1973 and the Congress lost it in 1975. Shameful abandonment of an alleged ally (whatever you thought of that ally).