Posted on 10/27/2004 4:50:26 AM PDT by thepainster
Contrary to perception driven by the media, we WON the war--but lost the peace.
Our KIA: approximately 50,000. NVA KIA: By their own admission over 1,500,000.
The TET offensive brought the Viet Cong out into the open--where they were decimated. After Tet, the VC were not a powerful force. Some of them even stated they had been sacrificed by the Northeners (people forget that the South Vietnamese and the North Vietnamese had no love for each other and had a history of warfare against each other reaching back centuries) The war turned into NVA main force units against the S. Vietnamese and US and allies. Those NVA regulars were being ground up by the long trek through jungles as well as by military forces--and the North was being depleted of additional reserves by demographics.
At the time of our decision to cut our losses and run out on our S. Vietnamese allies, not a single city or province was in the hands of the NVA. In fact, until their final offensive after the withdrawal of US troops AND MILITARY AID (including bullets and arms) BECAUSE OF THE DEMS IN CONGRESS, the NVA held no territory and the S. Vietnamese government was viable.
Save us from any more such victories.
Winning=your proconsul parading through the enemie's capital unmolested, and the enemy people waiting supinely to receive orders from the victors.
Losing=Your troops and civilians fleeing, your supporters massacred, anyone who believed your word betrayed, and your enemies in power.
You have a very funny definition of "not losing".
Our goals in Vietnam did not include invading N.Vietnam and dragging their leaders through the streets. That was the desire of the Communist regime in the north.
The purpose of our support for the S. Vietnamese was that they should be left alone by the N. Vietnamese to develop their country in freedom. It was part of the containment strategy of defeating Communism by letting it slowly strangle itself economically. We certainly had no 'rice for blood' ambitions in S. Vietnam--or N. Vietnam for that matter.
We were close to that goal of freedom from terror at the end of the Tet offensive because the Viet Cong guerrillas were decimated beyond repair.
Some studies have shown that most weren't commies. The opposition to the commies were corrupt people who never could get popular support in large enough numbers to prevail at that time.
In anycase, they resisted all intruders.
Our purpose=stasis
The enemy's purpose=victory
Sun Tzu could easily have predicted the result.
You finally got something right. When faced by a real shooting war, the policy of containment has obvious defects. Notably, leaving the enemy homeland as a sanctuary.
You have a hard time in winning a final victory if you won't take all the necessary steps to end the enemy's will to fight. Nevertheless, many N. Vietnamese documents from during the war and after, testify that they were on the verge of defeat, but were buoyed by the improbable support they saw building for their cause on the American left.
Containment worked in Korea, but it was an era in which the people and the government of the US were united in resolve. There was no such unity of purpose in the Sixties and 70s after the MSM (fronted by Walter Cronkeit)decided S. Vietnam's freedom wasn't worth the price we were paying.
By the end of the war in Vietnam, however, the left was in league with the MSM and stampeded the country into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
About damn time, eh?
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=10374&mode=print
Wow! I was there too! My dad was a civvie working at Subic at the time. We drove up to Clark for the POW return and were there in the crowd when they deplaned.
I still get goosebumps thinking about it. I had been at Clark for almost 3 years. I was stationed with a small Navy group located on the air base.
Although I was never in Viet Nam, the war was very real to me. I had made friends with Air Force people who regulary flew SAR missions over the war Zone or went TDY to places like Thailand.
The bombing brought the POW's home, John F. Kerry did not. He is not to be honored for what he did.
We got there early and were right up against the barrier near the steps down from the plane. We had a great view, and I remember a very large crowd was there. You were lucky to be at Clark. It was a nicer base than Subic. I never went over to 'Nam either, but knew lots of sailors from the ships. I got a real nice tour of the Kitty Hawk once.
Yeah, Kerry had nothing to do with bringing our guys home. I was a young adult at the time and don't remember anyone, including my parents, even mentioning his name. AFAIR, Nixon got most of the credit.
Jeff, I expect you know all of this, but it is worth noting that the North Vietnamese did this only with massive ongoing Soviet military aid. So while the Soviets continued to arm their proxies, we cut and ran due to Dem perfidy, in not honoring our promises to support the South.
The result, of course, is that South Vietnam became a Socialist Paradise. Oh, wait a minute, that's not quite right. Mass brutalizations in re-education camps ensued, tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands dead, fleeing "boat people" for a decade, etc. And, arguably, the domino fell next door in Cambodia because of our total lack of presence and influence in the region, and 2 millions died there under Pol Pot.
The Left calls our involvement in Vietnam, "failure". They caused the failure, plain and simple. And the costs for the peoples of SEA were steep.
I pray that our current efforts are rebuilding the hope and trust in us...any of that owuld be dashed by a Kerry presidency. In either case, once Red China makes its move (and make no mistake, they are building towards it, probably using their proxy in N. Korea to start it), we will have a hard go of getting some of those nations to believe we have the willingness, commitment and staying power to not only confront them, but to put that genie back in the bottle.
That's another reason I write The Dragon's Fury Series.
Ohhhh, I like your thinking on Vietnam and Cuba..but let's include Iran and a few other places of evil, too.
Yes. If not for the treason of Walter Cronkite, and others who followed in his footsteps (like Rather, Fonda, and Kerry), we would have won.
I was in Quang Tri in 71 with 298th signal,about 9 or 10 at night you could hear those B-52 strikes,the first few nights I thought they were thunderstorms,lightning and all,I mean the sky light up.It sounded like thunder.Thunder 150 miles north(don`t know the exact distance)
Gen.Schwartzchof(sp) I believe said he could have defeated NV in 3 months,declair Hanoi a war zone,any Russian ships legimate targets.
Kerry is no honorable VN vet
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.