Replies

our troops really did win in Vietnam from a military view. It was a political decision strictly to bring our troops out, it was a political decision also to cut off funding for the south vietnamese military in 75 which led to their defeat.

The north vietnamese began fighting us in 64, the fighting was very hard. For every one soldier of ours killed there were perhaps 20 of theirs killed. A lot of people feel that this was due to our superior equipment in fighting the war. This is only partially true. Even when down on the ground facing the enemy without air power to back our guys up our troops performed extraordinarilly well in that war. They performed just as well as any of our troops in any war we ever fought. The climax came in early 68 when they threw everything they had at us at once. The biggest single battle at khe sanh in the north in late 67-early 68 was an example. We lost a few hundred men over 100 days, they lost perhaps 10,000. Notably, at Khe Sanh the enemy had the best soviet equipment, they also had soviet migs with soviet pilots and they had soviet artillery also. In other words, it was america's best against the soviets' best. Our best prevailed big-time. After the tet of early 68 the north's soldiers literally left the south. The fighting died down. We had actually won from a purely military point of view. We could've sent our troops into the north and completed the victory if we had merely chosen to do so. It was a political decision to not do so. We stayed in the south for several years, until 73 with our troops doing very little fighting. The south vietnamese were trained and equiped to do the fighting instead of us. We left in 73 with the south in charge. They held their own in the fighting throughout 73 & 74 with no american involvement whatsoever. They only lost after their funding was pulled by the US congress and their troops were running out of bullets.

All of this I've stated is simple fact. It is in fact a myth that we lost the war from a military point of view. It was a political decision to lose.

Our news media worked overtime getting everyone to feel as though we lost, but the actual facts are different.

Thanks for your analysis. That's it in a nutshell, . . .

The biggest single battle at khe sanh in the north in late 67-early 68 was an example. We lost a few hundred men over 100 days, they lost perhaps 10,000. Notably, at Khe Sanh the enemy had the best soviet equipment, they also had soviet migs with soviet pilots and they had soviet artillery also.

. . . however, I don't remember any accounts or reports of the North's air power engaging our air power over Khe Sanh or anywhere else over the South. Also, you might get an argument, as to the largest battle, from the 'grunts,' both Army and Marines, who fought at the Battle for the Hue Citadel that took place at the same time as Khe Sanh.

You've given a pretty good bullet summation. It would make a good insert in the present day history books.

11 and 12 are pretty much as I remember it as well.

As early as '69 we were looking at what would be left behind for the south to use in defending themselves.

And it was damn little even then.

'73 was when we finally pulled the plug and reflected it by cutting forces in the pacific to a degree that must have cheered Hanoi a great deal. That's also when we dumped the original plan to go after POW and MIA.

"The north vietnamese began fighting us in 64.."

Good post, Red. Actually it's a little bit of a misnomer to say that we were fighting the North Vietnamese. We are really fighting the commies. With a true military genius planning their biggest campaigns (Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap) they defeated the French in '54 at Dien Bien Phu. In '56 the U.S. sent advisors there. As I recall, the first U.S. casualty was in '61 or so.

I enjoyed your post.

The Left very much needed us to lose in Viet Nam. Remember the Academy Awards and the person who celebrated the "liberation" of South Viet Nam?

Most Americans wanted us to stay and claim our victory. Getting Nixon out of office helped gain the political victory. Nixon was gutless, having decided from the beginning that "we couldn't win." Ford was also gutless. We already won and he did nothing as Commander in Chief. I am surprised the Republic survived those two goofs.

I am even more surprised that the military did not give up on the whole enterprise. Instead they worked to create a new concept of military might for America. Congratulations to all those vets who stayed in and fought to improve our striking power, which was already awesome. As I recall the "Jedi Knights" was the nickname for the new approach. The leader got punished (always the case, eh?) but the concept took over. The Persian Gulf War is a good example of Viet Nam fought the way it should have been fought. However, we also let an overwhelming victory turn into a stalemate. Thank you George Senior.

It is always worth repeating - thank you to all the wives and children of our fighting men. You make the greatest sacrifice of all.