Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is It Possible, Could America Have Won the Vietnam War In '1968?
Article by: Gene Kuentzler '1999 ^ | 3/17/02 | Gene Kuentzler

Posted on 03/17/2002 2:25:49 PM PST by Mom_Grandmother

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-215 next last
To: RISU
YOU CANNOT "WIN" ANOTHER COUNTRY'S CIVIL WAR.

---------------------

It was never a civil war. That idea was a myth devised by the left. The North had always been a separate country. When the North won, they killed of many of their dupe supporters in the South as they were of no further use.

181 posted on 03/17/2002 8:40:25 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: tet68
We had more important wars to fight,like,the war on poverty and "The Great Society".

------------------------

Somewhere in my studies of the Viet Nam war I ran across a statement by Johnson saying the call of the bugle had too often summoned the resources that should be dedicated to achievement of social equality. He was determined not to have that happen in his administration and to his great society. Thus, war anywhere else was to be second in importance to the war on poverty.

Johnson was a complicated man. He was complicated not in the sense of posessing diversity and depth of knowledge, but in the sense of constantly changing winds of conflicting grandiose superficiality that dominated his personality. He was somewhat of a populist nut who espired to greatness. When nuttiness and grandiose ambition combine, the results are catastrophic. We are still paying the cost of the Johnson period.

182 posted on 03/17/2002 9:35:25 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
After WWII the French created the Republic of Cochin China made up of all these areas under the aegis of a French union.

---------------------

This was a French fantasy that may have been declared, but was never a significant reality.

183 posted on 03/17/2002 9:41:44 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: RLK
This was a French fantasy that may have been declared, but was never a significant reality.

Correct. But aligned against this fantasy was the Viet Minh whose wide support (much from non-communists) was not a fantasy.

184 posted on 03/18/2002 3:42:55 AM PST by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
Bump for a further read, although I am not sure why. "America" lost more than a War. She lost her way. Many of "us" did all we could within our power to "win" the war, even with both hands tied behind our backs. I don't know what is to be gained by rehashing all this stuff and rarely take part ... so I will bump this for a further read and hope I don't get so exercised to make fool of myself again, as I have been know to do in the past. America didn't win in Viet Nam, but that was then and this is now.
185 posted on 03/18/2002 3:59:03 AM PST by ImpBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thorn11cav
"Broken hearts killed more than the enemies bullets."

That, my brother, is the saddest legacy of Viet Nam. Thank you so much for telling it like is was and is.

186 posted on 03/18/2002 4:08:14 AM PST by ImpBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Thorn11cav
My friend, your statement about "more VN vets committing suicide than dying in combat" is not accurate. See:STOLEN VALOR for figures.
187 posted on 03/18/2002 5:57:28 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Time was on their side because we lacked the will and they knew it. Read Minh's writings. He laid it all out. He never doubted that America could win the war in Viet Nam, but he also never doubted that we wouldn't make the necessary commitment to do so.

According to Minh himself absolute victory in Viet Nam was never more than 3 months away from America, but there was no way we would commit the leel of ground forces, and more importantly will power, necessary to accomplish the goal. He felt we had better soldiers, better equipment, and better strategies and tactics available to us; but we lacked the desire to fight the war to the best of our abilities.

Finally remember that Congress double crossed South Viet Nam, part of the peace settlement in Viet Nam was the continued equiping and training of ARVN and their other forces. Congress stopped doing that the minute Nixon wasn't president. Nixon felt the South could have weather the final offensive if they had the equipment they'd been promised. Maybe he was right maybe not, but certainly that equipment would have helped. We made them a promise and then we broke it.

That's how little will we had, not even enough to deliver equipment, that's why we lost in Viet Nam. The single most important ingredient in war is will. The force that has more will win. We didn't face anything in Viet Nam we hadn't faced against the Japanese, and we had better equipment to fight it with, but we just didn't feel like doing it. Our soldiers that were there did, but soldiers can only be as effective as their government will let them; and our government wanted no effectiveness by our soldiers.

188 posted on 03/18/2002 6:03:47 AM PST by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

Comment #189 Removed by Moderator

To: RISU
The problem with trying to apply that statement to Viet Nam is the only way it applies is to pretend there was no Cold War. The simple fact of the matter is that inbetween the end of WWII and the end of the Berlin Wall there were no true civil/ revolutionary wars. They were proxy wars Russia (and sometimes China) funded, trained, equiped, adviced, "adviced" (there's a difference) and did everything the could to help one side; and we did all the same stuff with the other. That's why every revolution that happened on the planet during that time was either BY communists or AGAINST communists.

Viet Nam, Angola, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile... the list goes on and on. All proxy wars, never a true civil or revelutionary war. Thanks to nukes we and Russia were afraid to go toe to toe with each, so we didn't. Notice how since the Berlin Wall came down the number of revolutions going on has dropped drastically. And they're much quicker too. Because they're actually revolutions now. Nobody is being funded and equiped by a super power, without that almost infinite bucket of money and stuff it's harder to fight a prolonged stalemate.

190 posted on 03/18/2002 6:24:19 AM PST by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
If we had mined Haiphong harbor in '68 they would have been toast! As it was, we waited till they had ample supplies in country before we actually DID mine it!
191 posted on 03/18/2002 6:28:23 AM PST by Vinnie_Vidi_Vici
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
You stated "no plans to use nukes in Vietnam." Incorrect. The Mu Gia Pass in N.VN was in fact a proposed target of SADM. The low yield nuke was to be hand-carried by SOG Team to base of Mu Gia Pass. Object? Collapse moutain range on road to Laos. Thus cutting off key supply roads for NVA.

In fact invasion plans of NVA were drawn up. Thousands of Marines were pulled off the line in 1967 and carried out 2 dozen amphibious landings in S. VN. Khe Sanh was re-occupied as a jumping off point for proposed invasion of the North. Also as a blocking force to protect Thua Thien Province from large scale invasion.

The last US COMBAT DIVISION withdrew from Vietnam in late 1971. The last COMBAT Battalion 2 years later. Saigon fell in 1975. Blame me for losing a fight if in fact I am in the arena. However, by 1975, the vast majority of VN Vets had returned home. Most completing college, entering the job market in their chosen field, and settling down. I had done all three, as had my cousins, and most of my friends. Our goal in Vietnam had been to "contain Communism" and not defeat it. The other "Domino" countries were affored many years to establish their anti-Communist Governments. This has been attested to many times by former Prime Minister Kew of Singapore.

The Brits were actually the first to re-arm the French-in the South, after WW2. The Nationalist Chinese were sent into the North to accept the Japanese surrender, and the Brits in the South.

The North Vietnamese Communists invaded Cambodia ostensibly to defeat the Khmer Rouge. However, they were in fact Stalinist hegemonists. Bent upon expanding their "empire." They withdrew as the USSR was going bankrupt. No longer able to fund their activities. The Viets actually attacked Thai units many times. Even shelling Thailand proper. Pol Pot died a few years ago of "old age." The Communist Vietnamese built "re-education camps" in which up to ONE MILLION died in, or fleeing from such. They continue to occupy Laos via "puppets." One school of thought leads many to believe that Tet '68 was launched by the North Viets as a means of deliberately exterminating the Viet Cong. The fact few if any former Viet Cong were/are in the post-1975 government attest to this belief.

RE:Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979? It was more of an attempt by the Red Chinese to test Soviet resolve. The "Paper-Polar Bear" theory.They had signed a mutual-defense Pact with the Viets. The Chinese did not like being flanked. Recall they had fought the Soviets in the 60s (Sino-Soviet War) and did not trust the Russians. Roughly 25K men died on each side during the Sino-Vietnamese War. The Chinese announced early on they had NO intention of taking Hanoi. History tells us the Soviets made no effort to repell the invading Chinese. Mission accomplished-on the part of the Chinese. They withdrew after a short time.

Only last Spring, the Communists had to lauch a DIVISION sized op in the Central Highlands to quell a "Christian uprising." Several years ago, not far from Hanoi, a group of dissident farmers shot it out with the Communists over taxes being levied on rice. The Vietnam War is NOT over...

192 posted on 03/18/2002 6:30:23 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

Comment #193 Removed by Moderator

To: Thorn11cav
Around 10K Vietnam vets have committed suicide. Highest rate occured within 5 years of discharge.

About 5% of VN vets receive compensation for PTSD.

BG Burkett is "one of us." Not sure what motivated him, as you put it, other than facts. Have I missed something about him and Glenna Whitley? I will say his text is going on 4 years of age. If not 5, in that manuscripts normally completed long before printing. He therefore, would not be privy to newest studies on herbicide exposure.

Some interesting stuff at hatfieldgroup.com Seems Aloui Valley most contaminated spot in Vietnam. About 65klics W. of Hue. Formerly Ashau SF Camp.

194 posted on 03/18/2002 6:41:32 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Thorn11cav
Individual rotation as opposed to unit rotation, caused many, many needless losses in VN. The unitiated, that watched BAND of BROTHERS on HBO last fall will even understand that. When I got to VN, I was seprated not only from my family/friends, but from the guys I trained with, served with (briefly) stateside and dropped into the middle of strangers. They mistrusted me-I them. My last name for at least three months was "head." The prefix? Not pleasant. Such was the experience of most who served in VN. I freely admit to being a piss-poor soldier for the first three months. After 7 months? Don't mess with me. Later I came home, replaced no doubt by an equally incompetant (initially) soldier. I just hope he made it...
195 posted on 03/18/2002 6:51:42 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Thorn11cav
Yeah, the rotational systme was definitely messed up. Not sure exactly how to fix it, you don't want to leave people in combat indefinitely. Even in WWII we rotated people to non-combat areas, harder to do in Viet Nam because of how the North fought (not impossible though). Also rotation was unit wide in WWII instead of person based, that would have been much better. I just finished reading Band of Brothers and Ambrose spends some time talking about combat time and soldier burn out, and the problem with rotating in replacements (apparently nobody has ever liked FNG's). Interesting to read and contemplate Viet Nam.

Really, when you get down to it, the American high command made every mistake you can possibly make while prosecuting a war, and it still took North Viet Nam 10 years to win, 3 of which American presence was almost exclusively air power. The more you look at those numbers the more obvious it becomes that we could have won if we really wanted to. Makes me sick that we put men like you on the line with no intention of letting you do your job.

196 posted on 03/18/2002 6:54:15 AM PST by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

Comment #197 Removed by Moderator

To: Thorn11cav
Many, many deficiencies documented where DVA concerned. Have you utilized a Vet Rep from VFW? Amer. Legion? They seem to have helped a couple of friends of mine. If you filed a cliam for this medical problem and it was properly diagnosed ny private physician, you should be eligible for comp from that date forward. Perhaps a letter to your Congressman? Anyway, do NOT give up. I have a friend who lost a kidney, severe hand-damage and loss of vision in one eye. He FINALLY got some help from DVA.

Odd thing is, less than 20% of eligible vets actually use the VA system. What if twice that number of vets showed up tomorrow, seeking medical care?

198 posted on 03/18/2002 7:10:06 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

Comment #199 Removed by Moderator

To: PJ-Comix
Howdy

Sorry to say I find your assertion the the USA "could not" have won the war in Vietnam, in a word, silly.

Of course we could have won, we could have paved the place if we mobilized the nation. If we had simply occupied the Ia Drang that alone would have delivered us the central highlands, and according to Vietnamese military doctrine going back centuries, all of Vietnam. Of course that would have required mobilization, which in turn would have hampered LBJ's plans to socialize the USA.

Couldn't have won my arse, were it not for the emergence of a heavily propagandized "anti war" movement nurtured by the same collectivist totalitarian leftovers from the American Communist Party that we call "liberals" today our utter demolition of the NVA in the Tet offensive would have resulted in a negotiated peace.

It is also true that the craven dishonesty and monumental (and monumentally unjustified) ego of LBJ in his pursuit of self aggrandizement and his idiotic leftist politics were to blame for providing fetile soil for the totalitarian nazis of the American left to pursue their anti freedom agenda. LBJ is arguably the worst president in American history, on one hand hamstringing the military to allow his leftist "great society" programs, on the other, lying to the American public and creating an opening for the "anti war" cretins who continue to inflict their hateful damage upon American liberty to this day.

American GI's after Tet noted that the NVA were often captured whacked on heroin, evincing total demoralization which spoke volumes about the same sense of total defeat voiced by Giap from the top.

Then Cronkhite steps in and hands the North Vietmanese their new, and ultimately victorious strategy, convince the USA to do itself in using the twisted minds of collectivist totalitarian nazis right here at home.

We did not seek war in Vietnam, we never seek war. We fought to stem the tide of global communism and arguably the conflict in Vietnam was the beginning of the end of that vile movement. Sadly the Hanoi jane fondas of the world did facilitate our withdrawl from Vietnam, and while we did eventually emerge victorious from the cold war, over a million people died at the hands of communist mass murderers after we left, and that is the fruit of the successful domestic propaganda camapaign which the American left has been desperately seeking to avoid accepting responsibilty for ever since.

More than a million innocent civilians did not have to die in southeast Asia, but for LBJ's spectacular lack of character, integrity, and judgement, and the twisted politics of colectivist totalitarians that blight domestic politics to this day. Finally, the countless millions held in communist slavery ever since have the fondas of the world to thank for their bondage.

One who claims that we "couldn't" have won presumed knowledge impossible to own. Might be reaching far beyond credulity to avoid the truth.

We did win the struggle against global communism, we just didn't care to keep a million Vietnamese necks off their murder's blades.

200 posted on 03/18/2002 8:20:38 AM PST by MoscowMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-215 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson