It really wasn’t a question of ‘staying longer’, it was a question of using bombing to cutoff the supply line for the enemy at Haiphong Harbor.
The Soviet ships could unload supplies freely there and fear of killing a Soviet is what is said to have dictated the refusal to bomb the enemy supply line at its head.
Its interesting that when Nixon opted for that in 1972, the Commies caved and the deal was finally cut. One that would not be kept by the Communists.
If it was been done earlier under different circumstances when the USA had more leverage-public opinion in favor, Vietnam may have ended differently.
Effective and meaningful bombing wasn’t used in Vietnam, it was more than is done to IS today in Syria and Iraq, but it was limited to targets in the south of North Vietnam, the Ho Chi Minh trail through Laos and so on.
You speak of leverage as if its magic, but as Solzhenistyn in his critique pointed out, all Communism is evil and to the extent China rattles its sabre today, it can be laid at the feet of Nixon and Kissinger.
China could end up being to the US in the 20th and 21st Centuries what Japan was to the US in the 19th and 20th, a trading partner building up its might until it waged war against the USA.
I think the elites are practicing ‘leverage’ in the ME today, pitting the Iranians on one side against the Saudis on the other.
We play the old Nixon-Kissinger approach with the Soviets with Iran, appease them while containing them in Yemen and Syria. And making sure big corporations can do business with the Iranians by lifting sanctions just like there was business with the Soviets back then.
What has this policy in the ME given us? Well how about ‘migrants’ in Europe and now the USA and the IS terrorism.
Your analysis of Vietnam in terms of a single choke point in Haiphong Harbor is very interesting. I thank you for that, and will do some of my own research before responding further.
On your distrust of leverage, I still disagree. Playing the balance of power game is the only practical way for Americans to protect our interests worldwide—if for no other reason than we have insufficient population to make a frontal assault on every evil in the world.
Unfortunately, the balance of power in the Mideast was lost when we took out Saddam. The destabilization and Islamic civil war which resulted is the direct cause of the refugees . . . along with, of course, Obama coddling Iran, carrying out the stupid Arab Spring policies, and globalists betraying Europe.
Leverage is not magic; it is basic engineering. It is a metaphor in business deals for knowing what power you have and using it wisely.