I think the general consensus is that we “lost” in Vietnam. This is due largely to the tactics the military were limited to by the politicians.
The point I was trying to make though was that we fought a limited war in Vietnam. We never “played to win”. That kind of strategy is usually not successful in war...or sports for that matter.
I understand your point that the North invaded the South after our withdrawal and it’s a valid one.
I’m just saying I don’t think history will view our efforts in South Vietnam as successful.
We never lost a major battle in Vietnam. The much vaunted "Tet Offensive" turned to a massive rout for northern forces. We crushed them in every conceivable way, we even invented brand spanking new ways to kill commies. This despite whiny college students and their idiotic stoner "peace" rallies, and the "peace" movement being coordinated and funded by the soviets.
Could we have crushed them in a more spectacular fashion? Sure I guess so but that still doesn't mean we lost in any realistic way.
Further we can see that the efforts were in every practical sense very successful. We went there to stop or slow the spread of communism, failing that, to at least bleed them and it worked.
Less than 20 years later the Soviet union collapsed.