[RobbyS]

First of all, it was the details of the attack in the Tonkin that were wrong. There was an attack. Of course Johnson chose to take the attacks as a casus bellum, which he did not necessarily have to. The major difference is the unwillingness of Johnson to invade North Vietnam, which was free to poor in men and supplies into the rebellion in the South. And the reason he was not so willing was that behind Ho Chi Minh stood the Russians, who were free to re-supply the communist effort.The main reason for failure, however, was Johnson's inability to change course after the public relations disaster of the Tet offensive. He had consitently lied about the course of operations and the Tet offensive showed thathe had been far too optimistic. Even though his own meddling was to blame, he should have hung the sack on Westmoreland and brought in a new general with a different approach. Instead he practically abdicated. We needed a Lincoln or an FDR as president. Instead we got Johnson.

[okie01]

"Instead he practically abdicated. We needed a Lincoln or an FDR as president. Instead we got Johnson."

Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff and The Lies That Led To Viet Nam by H.R. McMaster.

A read well worth the time. If you've got a strong stomach...