Posted on 10/27/2004 4:50:26 AM PDT by thepainster
Help! I need to tap the unlimited knowledge of my fellow freepers. Last night I was in a political discussion with the CEO of a company I represent. We were discussing the Viet Nam war. My premise was that we never lost a major battle in Viet Nam and if not for the collapse of support for the war in the media and subsequently by the populace, we were very close to winning the war, and could have done so had in a short amount of time. I believe that the end of the war was closer than the public was lead to believe. This was based on interviews with former NV officials.
The CEO says we were not even close and that the only way we could have won the war, was with the use of atomic weapons. The majority of his view was based on a book by Robert MacNamara, and word of mouth from his friend who were a Navy pilot in the war.
The CEO is as history buff with a near photographic memory. Who is closer to the truth, him or me?
Take a good look at the Tet offensive. Virtually all of the South Vietnamese communist infrastructure was wiped out. In addition, the South Vietnamese in a lot of places got a brief but good look at what communism meant...the quick execution of everyone locally popular who might resist. Thousands of school teachers, priests, local politicians etc were murdered by the VC effort.
Before the war, it was to a great extent a civil war. A civil war in which the North was helping one side and the other side was more than happy to stay out of it and let the Americans fight for them. After the Tet offensive, it was no longer a civil war (no more communists in the south). It was an invasion by a hostile power, and it was one where the population strongly supported their government. One example is look at the South Vietnamese military. Before Tet, a significant percentage of ARVN conscripts 'draft dodged' and didn't show up. After Tet, the percentage of their military who were volunteers (not drafted) rose significantly.
The war was won. South Vietnam, on its own, stood for years after we left. Then it was overwhelmed by an invasion. It is worth noting that there wasn't much a Tet-like rise in 1975.
We were obliged by treaty to help them in the event of an invasion, and (D) congress blocked it.
The facts are true, but I disagree with the conclusion.
On the ground in Nam, there was a direct correlation to concerted campaigns of ours with the offensive VC/NVA operations. The enemy could do damage, but they could not seize and maintain the initiative for any period of time. You don't win a war that way.
We lost the war on the streets of America, not the jungles of Vietnam.
You might also check out Frank Snepp's "Decent Interval" which is an unvarnished account of the final months of Saigon by the last CIA agent to leave South Vietnam.
Apart from that, there's the undeniable truth that while the North Vietnamese were bring supplied by both the Chinese and the Russians, after 1973 the RSVN was increasingly losing arms and financial support from the U.S., due in part to the despicable lies told by John Kerry. Those lies inspired a Cut And Run mentality in America, and that's exactly what we did.
The worst comment I ever heard from a South Vietnamese guy who was from a former air traffic controller and spoke flawless English from his two years training in Texas. Sitting at a cafe in Vietnam a few years ago, we were talking about April 1975 and he said with a look of true sadness and confusion, "Why did America let us down?"
Not sure I agree with that Poobah.
In 1968 Zumwalt launched Operation Slingshot which was designed to squeeze and eradicate the NVA from Tay Ninh down to Ha Tien.
It was launched in three stages and in three locales beginning in the fall of 1968: Tay Ninh south through the Plain Of Reeds; Ha Tien and the canal regions north to the Mekong; and from the east (e.g. Sa Dec) west to the Cambodian border at Chau Doc (which began in March 1969, so Kerry was not involved).
By all accounts - at least the ones I've read - Operation Slingshot was eminently successful in reducing VC activity and supply lines throughout the Delta.
You are closer to the truth!
We were always handcuffed when we had offensive actions. Towards the end, with the start of the Peace Talks, we had 24 hours a day B-52 raids that were about to make them say "uncle", but Nixon halted the missions.
Remember...we won the war with the 4N ememy but lost it with the Domestic Enemy. Every Military Officer pledges to fight all enemies both 4N and Domestic. We never lost a war on 4N Soil. It was the Domestic Enemy that won the hearts, minds, and media of those at home. We need to always remember that the Domestic war is just as important, just as critical. Domestic Enemies are harder to fight because we never come to grips with fighting brothers and sisters at home and don't recognize the evil before it spreads into a deep mindset. I challange anyone who thinks we lost Vietnam on 4N soil. To believe so is surrender to the Domestic Enemy. The Domestic Enemy is alive and well in the US today, and don't believe for one minute that it is terrorists lurking in the shadows. No, it is the surrender at all cost mentality of NYTs, CBS, DNC, Hollywood Elitists, and anti-war pacifists that will inflict the greatest causualties. The casualties of a do nothing mentality that will sit idly by and watch people die by the millions (so long as one US solider is saved). More deaths have occured from pacifism in the last century then in all the wars since the beginning of recorded history. 25 million under Stalin while FDR referred to him as Uncle Joe, 2 million before the hawks brought down Hitler, 3 million deaths from the pullout in Vietnam along with yet uncounted others under Saddam to name a few. Russia believed during the cold war (same period of time as the Vietnam war) that the US would fall to the mindset of communism...they actively pursued that end goal...why do you think that VVAW activists like John Kerry and Jane Fonda met with them in secret and pushed the communist agenda. Why do you think the media (VVAW grown up) is still pursuing the socialist and communist agenda. This is not only bigger than the cold war, it is the extension of the cold war now being fought on Domestic Soil (still). A John Kerry Presidency is the dream of Communism. If elected they win...
If Nixon would have cranked up the B52s ( like he did to get the POWs back) when he first took office and still had support for the war and NOT WAVERED the war would have been over in months
Johnson could have done the same thing instead of that limited bombing he did ( which still got them to the peace table )
Vietnam war was lost in the OVAL OFFICE PERIOD
It was a failure of leadership
Leftwingers would have been a footnote in their affect on the warif we had decent wartime presidents
Temporarily. Basically, it knocked the VC from Stage III to Stage I of classic insurgency operations...and once Slingshot was over, they began rebuilding their organization.
The problem in Vietnam was that we never had an integrated strategy for victory--we simply threw a bunch of forces into the country, gave them restrictive rules of engagement, did very little in terms of political warfare (and none of our polwar efforts could be described as being part of a coherent polwar strategy), and then proceeded to blame the military for doing what we told them, in no small detail, to do.
They had the initiative for the entire war. We never made it clear that the continued sovereignty of North Vietnam was dependent on their good behavior. They may have lost the tactical initiative, but we never had the strategic initiative.
We lost the war on the streets of America, not the jungles of Vietnam.
No, we lost the war in the corridors and meeting rooms of Washington, long before we sent a single soldier to the jungle.
lots of info out there concerning this... try this link....http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/Generals/giap.htm.
Also, many years ago (around 1980), I ran across a small book reportedly written by General Giap. It didn't stay on the public bookshelves very long and quickly disappeared. Obviously full of propaganda, but interesting in several aspects. He mentioned the topic of 'body counts'. The US Military was estimating one figure....the US Press was claiming it was much LESS...and in reality (according to Giap), the numbers were far higher than even the US Military imagined. Also mentioned that war couild not have been 'won' without the great assistance of the US media in spreading the 'truth'.
The poundings by the B-52 in 1972 and '73 had the Communist North on its knees. In this era they finally returned the POWs. The U.S. withdrew from South Vietnam, but guaranteed its protection from the north.
In 1974, amidst Watergate a virulently leftist, Democrat Congress was elected. And by spring 1975 it had blocked funding that the Ford Administration needed to protect Vietnam as it was obligated to do. With no money, and in the face of a violent North Viet assault, South Viet forces folded.
Blame it on the traitorous Democrats in Congress in this era.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
War is the extension of politics by other means. A war carried out by the armed forces of the United States which the people (for whatever reason, good or bad) do not support cannot result in victory.
Gaining and keeping that support is the principal responsibility of the war leadership, especially the President-not as commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy but as the politician-in-chief.
That is why the symbolism of our representatives in Congress assembled declaring war in the name of the People of the United States is so powerful.
Lyndon Johnson feared that he did not have the support of the People of the United States in his Vietnam project-and he severely neglected to do the things that would win and then keep that support.
I remember vividly the appeals to support him because he was the commander-in-chief-as if he were the commander-in-chief of the People.
When Franklin Roosevelt needed popular support for a war which involved enormous sacrifice, he used (rightly) a huge and well-funded propaganda and censorship operation to bolster it.
Johnson and Nixon both failed to use the substantial political means at their disposal to secure and sustain support for the Vietnam war, because they both feared (correctly in my judgement) that the American people would not agree.
The question of whether or not MACV was capable, technically, of beating the enemy is a minor one.
The American people, in contrast to their armed forces, were never at war with the enemy, through a conscious choice of the political leadership in this country.
A war that our People do not fight cannot be won.
Ah, we do agree then.
In short, we floundered about and wasted about the first 3-4 years. But we won Tet decisively and Vietnamization was largely successful. The last several battles/campaigns essentially consisted of letting the NVA run into South Vietnamese and US units, to 'fix the enemy,' and bombing them into oblivion.
Due to domestic politics (ours), to include Nixon's little B&E, we rushed the turn over of the war to South VN and our departure, but it was still a viable approach, if we had continued to support them as promised and taken essential steps to halt continued NVA aggression.
I think the most telling line(s) in the referenced book, was to the effect that - the Soviet Union and China didn't abandon their ally (NV), we did (abandon ours). They stepped up their support as we began to ignore our ally and break our promises to support. Unsupported - diplomatically, logisticly, or via air power, South VN could not withstand a NV fully supported by China and the Soviets.
Give me a break!
You really think that the "great unwashed" watch "War Stories", looking for political insight?
So, if President Bush isn't re-elected, you think that it will be due to Oliver North's poor choice of programming?
No one person will be to blame if President Bush fails to be re-elected.
But let me ask you this: do you have any IDEA of the sheer number of WWII stories that have been aired on American TV since 1945?
Why do we need more?
Meanwhile, two big LIBERAL LIES get to stand uncorrected:
1. Vietnam was a lost cause.
2. Support for the Contras was an illegal and immoral act.
For Ollie North to add a few more words to the nearly infinite verbiage devoted to WWII, while letting those two LIBERAL LIES stand uncorrected, during a time when one of the WAR CRIMINALS of both those events is RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT...
... well, you fill in the blanks. What does it mean to you?
Did it occur to you that the FOX network may have a vote in Ollie's subject matter and timing?I'm not talking about Ollie running an anti-Kerry hit-piece. I'm talking about him taking a rational and sober look at the whole subject of Vietnam --- in a way that only he, with his great talent, is capable of doing.
If you are suggesting that Fox News is somehow preventing him from running any stories related to Vietnam or Nicaragua, I say that his highly, highly unlikely.
Don't look for complicated answers to a simple question:
Ollie, what are you afraid of?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.