Replies

There wasn't an end game. This war did not have , at the beginning, a "Noble Purpose". LBJ was only interested in preventing Saigon from falling to the communists before he could win the '68 election, and a second term. That's it! There is no other geopolitical strategy to apply to the start of this war. Lyndon didn't care about Vietnam, he didn't care about US servicemen. H*ll, he thought they "belonged" to him. Lyndon was a "Kingfish", in the Southern political sense. He owned the sheriff, the courthouse and the jails. You don't think, as President, LBJ didn't think he owned the Army too? Vietnam is not complex at the beginning. It is about political power in the USA, and not a World struggle.

Your analysis was definitely correct as it related to the _1964_ election.

I think it gets muddier (;-)) after that.

The bizarre strategy of "escalate until they negotiate" violated thousands of years of established warfare strategy which said that victory could best be achieved by annihilating your enemy.

At that time we were the dominant world power and the threat (and if necessary, the reality) of a nuke or two on Hanoi would have ended the meatgrinder quickly.

LBJ lacked the vision to see victory. He was a miserable excuse for a commander in chief.

Your analysis was definitely correct as it related to the _1964_ election.

Respectfully, I disagree. My analysis is directly related to the 1968 US presidential Election and NOT the 1964 election. LBJ knew he had '64 in the bag. His polls told him. The RINO's told him.

LBJ was worried about what had happened to Harry Truman would happen to him and he would not get a second term, just as Truman was denied one by Korea. If Saigon was lost before '68, Johnson feared, and rightly so, that he would loose to a Republican, "Ike" type. Remember, it is almost the same amount of time from Korea to Vietnam, that it is from the invasion of Kuwait till now.

Lyndon Johnson had Korea, the 1952 election, Saigon and the 1968 election, very much on his mind when he sent US troops into Vietnam in 1965.

threat (and if necessary, the reality) of a nuke or two on Hanoi would have ended the meatgrinder quickly.

I don't think so. Look at map of S.E. Asia, its proximity to Red China and at the same time, the peninsula of Korea. The mistaken strategy of Vietnam is that no one can understand why it wouldn't "behave" like Korea. Geography is the answer, as any good soldier knows. A peninsula can be defended. The waters mined and patrolled, the defenders supplied. But Vietnam lies against the Chinese Mainland, and is therefore, un-defendable. Laos and Cambodia are sieves and cannot be successfully controlled as can the waters around Korea.

When it comes to the comparison of Korea and Vietnam, militarily, it is apples and oranges. But both, unfortunately have been consecrated with American blood by Democrats that do not understand warfare.

"The bizarre strategy of "escalate until they negotiate" violated thousands of years of established warfare strategy which said that victory could best be achieved by annihilating your enemy."

Absolutely true.

This nonsense was the ugly progeny of the 'containment' strategy. The flaw of course is that 'balance-of-power' , "containment" and other high-level strategy concepts are *different* from the concepts you entertain when dealing with a state of war. Once in a war, you need to state your objectives and use maximimum will and power to reach them. And the goal in a war, is not to kill the enemies soldiers, but to destroy his will to oppose your objectives.

LBJ lacked the vision to see victory. He was a miserable excuse for a commander in chief.

He was a life-long politician. Look into his WWII "service". He was also a miserable human being. Add Strange McN. as well.