Vietnam (1 Viewer)

[jamny]

I have a personal question for you jamny. Have you ever served your country?

Unfortunately, no. My plan through high school was to continue to the Air Force Academy.I did get as far as getting a nomination from Geraldine Ferraro to attend but my poor vision, combined with my height (6'3"), made it impossible to get in.

Why was being 6'3'' a bad thing?

I don't know why it would be. The height limitation for USAF pilots is 77 inches.

I don't know what it is now, but in 1982 I was told I was at the limit and everything else would have to be perfect to get in.

 

[Christo]

The war was winnable, but we lost our will to fight.

What do you mean by winnable?

A South Vietnamese government that would be self sustaining.

We were never even close to this point.

Yeah. Getting the Iraqi government to the point it will be self sustaining is going to be a walk in the park compared to what we would have had to do in South Vietnam.

True, but that was never a war fighting problem in S. Vietnam.

We never had a "war fighting" problem in Iraq either.

 

[Chadstroma]

The war was winnable, but we lost our will to fight.

What do you mean by winnable?

A South Vietnamese government that would be self sustaining.

We were never even close to this point.

Yeah. Getting the Iraqi government to the point it will be self sustaining is going to be a walk in the park compared to what we would have had to do in South Vietnam.

True, but that was never a war fighting problem in S. Vietnam.

We never had a "war fighting" problem in Iraq either.

You are not understanding what I meant by that. I meant this was not a military goal or something the military could achieve. The problem wi the SV government was it' corruption and ineptitude. And I disagree, in that we have plenty of "war fighting" problems in both Iraq and Vietnam. In Iraq it has long been the vurnability of our troops through IED's. The lack of support among the populace- either out of fear or hate was also a war fighting problem which seems to have reversed itself in significant ways in the last year or so.

 

[Lester Burnham]

VMFA-531

Semper Fi

 

[Christo]

The war was winnable, but we lost our will to fight.

What do you mean by winnable?

A South Vietnamese government that would be self sustaining.

We were never even close to this point.

Yeah. Getting the Iraqi government to the point it will be self sustaining is going to be a walk in the park compared to what we would have had to do in South Vietnam.

True, but that was never a war fighting problem in S. Vietnam.

We never had a "war fighting" problem in Iraq either.

You are not understanding what I meant by that. I meant this was not a military goal or something the military could achieve. The problem wi the SV government was it' corruption and ineptitude. And I disagree, in that we have plenty of "war fighting" problems in both Iraq and Vietnam. In Iraq it has long been the vurnability of our troops through IED's. The lack of support among the populace- either out of fear or hate was also a war fighting problem which seems to have reversed itself in significant ways in the last year or so.

Sorry, but you seem to be the one not understanding the issue. Ozy said that by "winnable" he meant "a South Vietnamese government that would be self sustaining." You claim that that wasn't "a war fighting problem" holds true for Iraq as well. Self sustaining governments were not a military goal or something the military could achieve in Iraq or Vietnam.

 

[Chadstroma]

The war was winnable, but we lost our will to fight.

What do you mean by winnable?

A South Vietnamese government that would be self sustaining.

We were never even close to this point.

Yeah. Getting the Iraqi government to the point it will be self sustaining is going to be a walk in the park compared to what we would have had to do in South Vietnam.

True, but that was never a war fighting problem in S. Vietnam.

We never had a "war fighting" problem in Iraq either.

You are not understanding what I meant by that. I meant this was not a military goal or something the military could achieve. The problem wi the SV government was it' corruption and ineptitude. And I disagree, in that we have plenty of "war fighting" problems in both Iraq and Vietnam. In Iraq it has long been the vurnability of our troops through IED's. The lack of support among the populace- either out of fear or hate was also a war fighting problem which seems to have reversed itself in significant ways in the last year or so.

Sorry, but you seem to be the one not understanding the issue. Ozy said that by "winnable" he meant "a South Vietnamese government that would be self sustaining." You claim that that wasn't "a war fighting problem" holds true for Iraq as well. Self sustaining governments were not a military goal or something the military could achieve in Iraq or Vietnam.

While in a war part of the sustaining of the government is the military success of fighting that war, however, that is not the only factor in whether or not a country sustains itself or it's government. The SV government was not self sustained as a result of it's corruption, ineptitude and instability. Obviously this has impact on the military application. It did not matter how badly the VC or North was beaten when the SV government was always on the verge of imploding on itself. That is what I was pointing out.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

Who decided 'All Along the Watchtower' by Hendrix was the official theme song to Vietnam?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Who decided 'All Along the Watchtower' by Hendrix was the official theme song to Vietnam?

Oliver Stone, who is completely warped.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The lessons of the Vietnam War are:

1. The Tonkin Resolution - a fake, trumped up excuse of a lie for a war that makes the WMD runup before Iraq look small.
2. Incrementalism - go in with overwhelming force, defeat the army and then defeat the guerrilla war to follow. If you can't or won't do that, don't do it.
3. Have an exit strategy.
4. Be honest and transparent with the American people about what is really happening; give the people a clear idea of how long the war will last and the cost in lives and treasure.
5. Win.

 

[cstu]

The lessons of the Vietnam War are:

1. The Tonkin Resolution - a fake, trumped up excuse of a lie for a war that makes the WMD runup before Iraq look small.
2. Incrementalism - go in with overwhelming force, defeat the army and then defeat the guerrilla war to follow. If you can't or won't do that, don't do it.
3. Have an exit strategy.
4. Be honest and transparent with the American people about what is really happening; give the people a clear idea of how long the war will last and the cost in lives and treasure.
5. Win.

Regarding #2, if there's a guerrilla war then you're unlikely to win in the long run. Without vast support for the new government, the people will rise up again as soon as we leave.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The lessons of the Vietnam War are:

1. The Tonkin Resolution - a fake, trumped up excuse of a lie for a war that makes the WMD runup before Iraq look small.
2. Incrementalism - go in with overwhelming force, defeat the army and then defeat the guerrilla war to follow. If you can't or won't do that, don't do it.
3. Have an exit strategy.
4. Be honest and transparent with the American people about what is really happening; give the people a clear idea of how long the war will last and the cost in lives and treasure.
5. Win.

Regarding #2, if there's a guerrilla war then you're unlikely to win in the long run. Without vast support for the new government, the people will rise up again as soon as we leave.

That's a good point. Vietnam's terrain also made putting down a guerrilla war even more extremely difficult.

 

[fatness]

Getting back on topic, although I'm sure it'll diverge a lot, it seems that a clear victory was well in sight.

Revisionist history is so much fun.

 

[jon_mx]

The lessons of the Vietnam War are:

1. The Tonkin Resolution - a fake, trumped up excuse of a lie for a war that makes the WMD runup before Iraq look small.
2. Incrementalism - go in with overwhelming force, defeat the army and then defeat the guerrilla war to follow. If you can't or won't do that, don't do it.
3. Have an exit strategy.
4. Be honest and transparent with the American people about what is really happening; give the people a clear idea of how long the war will last and the cost in lives and treasure.
5. Win.

Regarding #2, if there's a guerrilla war then you're unlikely to win in the long run. Without vast support for the new government, the people will rise up again as soon as we leave.

That's a good point. Vietnam's terrain also made putting down a guerrilla war even more extremely difficult.

It was more their vast underground tunnel system which we did not have a good understanding of just how massive it was.

 

[D_House]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/laos-vietnam-war-us-bombing-uxo

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-15/women-lead-clean-up-effort-unexploded-bombs-laos/5591082

Poor Laos. Still cleaning up our mess.

 

[Bucky86]

The lessons of the Vietnam War are:

1. The Tonkin Resolution - a fake, trumped up excuse of a lie for a war that makes the WMD runup before Iraq look small.
2. Incrementalism - go in with overwhelming force, defeat the army and then defeat the guerrilla war to follow. If you can't or won't do that, don't do it.
3. Have an exit strategy.
4. Be honest and transparent with the American people about what is really happening; give the people a clear idea of how long the war will last and the cost in lives and treasure.
5. Win.

Regarding #2, if there's a guerrilla war then you're unlikely to win in the long run. Without vast support for the new government, the people will rise up again as soon as we leave.

That's a good point. Vietnam's terrain also made putting down a guerrilla war even more extremely difficult.

It was more their vast underground tunnel system which we did not have a good understanding of just how massive it was.

Yeah. The Vietnamese had been fighting guerrilla wars against invading armies for 1,000's of years. They were more than ready.

 

[Joe Summer]

Who decided 'All Along the Watchtower' by Hendrix was the official theme song to Vietnam?

For me it will always be
BTW, whatever happened to that entire cast??

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A thread I started a while ago about a conversation with a vet with an interesting viewpoint in Vietnam

Some interesting stuff in this thread:

Conversations with an officer on Gen Westmoreland's staff
I know a retired 2 star General and had the opportunity to talk with him for a few hours a couple of weekends ago. One thing that I did not know and found out during the conversation is that he was actually a Captain (and later Major) on general staff with Westmoreland. I asked away tons of questions with him and he went on telling me stories and giving me his insight.

His belief that Vietnam was winable and was on the way to winning. He seemed to point to two things as being the biggest mistake being no going into Cambodia etc earlier and in force. The biggest turning point was, as is widely known, Walter Cronkite's report that the war was lost. The interesting thing about this is that he was involved in briefing Cronkite while he was on his trip. He did say that it seemed that Cronkite had in his mind already as to what he was going to report. He also gave insight into the military side where the JCS Chairman (I am forgetting his name right now) came to visit. Again, he was involved in briefing the General. He said that while they all had their uniforms pressed and Army like that the Chairman was wearing outdated cotton greens that were ragged and unkept and the only thing that you could tell the difference between this General and some private was the 4 stars on his shirt. That was a point he made to show a deeper meaning into him as he said all the officers there commented on how he looked 'worn', 'tired' and 'defeated'. So when he went back they were not surprised that what he reported to the President was greatly different from what they saw in persepective and briefed him as.

I asked him point blank about the Tet Offensive. He said that it was a horrible mistake by Giap and honestly it was surprising to them. They knew something was up but obviously not what and they never considered that the enemy would come at them in a way that they would lose all their strengths in the guerilla warfare. The hope was that the people would rise up and over throw the government and that objective failed miserably and the cost was tremendous to the Viet Cong. He mentions seeing Westmoreland after he got back from visiting the Embassy and how Westmoreland's morale was extremely high- at that point not knowing how the media had painted the events of the day.

There was more obviously about Vietnam and we went on to other topics. It was an amazing conversation to have. I look forward to seeing him soon.

And:

It was cool. I have had conversations with him before but this time we chatted for hours... prob something like 3 or 4 hours. He worked on staff for the JCS and NATO command and ended his career comanding Indiana Guard Reserve. We talked about politics, military history, and his military experiances such as interactions with NATO militaries. He said the Belgians were always the biggest pains in the ### in the alliance. Lots of little stories about things. It was really cool. He wants me to go visit him in Indiana so we can go shooting on his property.

Well shake his hand and thank him for his service for me. I always enjoy talking with vets about their political views regarding the war, not so much WWII as that was a fairly straight forward affair but Vietnam always evokes emotions that just weren't there for WWII.Tet was certainly a turning point in the war and as you said it was a sweeping military victory but portrayed as a loss at home. It virtually wiped out the Viet Cong and set the NVA back at least a year but to hear the broadcasts back home you would have thought the North won the war and we were all running scared back home. I have a warm spot in my heart for all veterans but probably more so for Vietnam vets because of the lack of support they received from the American public, before, during and after the war.

And:

Speaking of obvious limits, my father-in-law served in Vietnam, and the "limitations" were more than just at the strategic level, but at the tactical level as well. During the middle of a battle he was tasked to get more artiliary ammunition as they were severly running low in the field. He found a huge supply at his base, but when he was loading it up he was asked who it was for. He stated it was for an American artilary unit, to which he was told he couldn't have that ammunition because it was slated for the South Vietnam army to use. There was no other artilary ammunition available at the base because the American were fighting and using all their supplies, where as the South Vietnam army was always running away in battle so their supplies never got used. But those running the war kept allocating supplies to the South Vietnam, so it was quite common that our troops went without adequate ammo because of how supples were being allocated. So my father-in-law, having had enough of this ridiculous supply allocation, told them he's taking the ammo, and they'll just have to do to him whatever they need to do to him, but he's not going back to his buddies who are in battle empty handed. He left with the ammo assuming he was going to prison for his action, but nothing ever happened to him.

 

[MC Gas Money]

Can't do much in hindsight but one thing is for certain.After fighting that hellacious war, our veterans should have received fortunes. Instead, many received psych problems, drug addictions to cope with what went on, suicide, and much much more.The veterans of Vietnam were abandoned by our government once the war was over.

It's absolutely disgusting that our troops weren't greeted with open arms. People may not have agreed with the war, but stories about them coming home and being spit on are horrible. I can't imagine how that must have felt.

I agree. Supporting the troops and supporting a war are two seperate things which many mistake for being synonymous. I dont support war but have no disdain for anyone who was ordered to fight it, despite atrocities and war crimes which every country in any war commits.

Ive had people with family in the service who get insulted when I denounce the wars of the last 15 years.

"You should support the troops hippie"!

I do support them. More than you. I want them to come home and live.

 

[Bucky86]

I disagree that the Tet offensive was a "loss" for the NVA.

In my opinion the North was smart enough to know that they couldn't win face to face ground war, but if they could be a large enough thorn they could wear down the U.S.

Prior to the Tet offensive Westmoreland was on a PR campaign talking about how the NVA were on the ropes and victory was in sight. The Tet offensive was a smart move in that it showed the world(mainly the U.S.) that the NVA were not actually on the ropes and were still very much capable. They held Saigon for three days and Hue for 25...I don't think they actually went into it, with the US's FAR superior fire power, looking to actually push the U.S. out immediately. This was a PR move and knew it would put the pressure back on the U.S. and it's citizens.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From Tim's Thread of a Thousand Questions:

Was the Vietnam War winnable for the United States?

Depends on how you look at it.

If we're talking Cold War, we did win it. We won it because we had greater resources and ground down the USSR and even Maoist China like a WalMart dropping prices and oversupplying the little hardware store on Main Street out of existence. That happened, post-Stalinist USSR and Maoist Russia are DEAD.

Another question is whether we did this the right way, if we had to expend tens of thousands of troops, so many 100billions/trillions into a 50 year War of Containment.

Would a little socialism used to our advantage in Vietnam, in Iran in 53, in Cuba in 55, really hurt us so much? A lot of these conflicts were borne out of corruption of new national governments and a basic inability to recover from the effects of colonialism in a way that would generate basic capitalist advantages that we took for granted for so long. Could there have been another way? I don't know.

Obviously the goal of the actual war was something looking like South Korea, mostly free, prosperous, an embarrassment to communist nations everywhere. In the end, we were driven out because we mismanaged the war militarily and politically, then we quit, then we lost.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I disagree that the Tet offensive was a "loss" for the NVA.

In my opinion the North was smart enough to know that they couldn't win face to face ground war, but if they could be a large enough thorn they could wear down the U.S.

Prior to the Tet offensive Westmoreland was on a PR campaign talking about how the NVA were on the ropes and victory was in sight. The Tet offensive was a smart move in that it showed the world(mainly the U.S.) that the NVA were not actually on the ropes and were still very much capable. They held Saigon for three days and Hue for 25...I don't think they actually went into it, with the US's FAR superior fire power, looking to actually push the U.S. out immediately. This was a PR move and knew it would put the pressure back on the U.S. and it's citizens.

I'm not really strong on Vietnam so I will just throw this out there: the problem with Tet was maybe like GW Bush's "Mission Accomplished." We were the USA, we had just destroyed the Iraq Army & the Republican Guard, Hussein was in a spider hole somewhere. But then lo and behold the war - a war, a different war - was raging. Americans were dying and they would go on dying for a while, and it appeared that 1. the full extent of what was going on had not been communicated, and 2. the war had been mismanaged. --- Tet happened in a similar way. We were supposed to have this thing wrapped up, getting sealed and finished with, and instead there was this whole other situation that people were not told about and that was far worse than people knew or expected. Iraq had its scandals but I don't think people can imagine the extent of the high level deceit that was going on during Vietnam or the human cost (compared to Iraq). It began with the Tonkin Resolution, and continued on, and then Tet happened and people just woke up and asked what the hell was going on over there.

 

[MC Gas Money]

Whatever reasons given for the war it was just about money and keeping the drugs coming in. Just like Afganistan. Just like wars for oil, another drug this country is addicted too. There has not been a true necessary war since WW2. Someone profits. Nothing gets done in the world unless someone profits.

The excuse of fighting tyrants is just a cover for whatever they want from that country. When was the last time the west fought a totalitarian country that didnt have a significantly valuable resource?

 

[Bucky86]

I disagree that the Tet offensive was a "loss" for the NVA.

In my opinion the North was smart enough to know that they couldn't win face to face ground war, but if they could be a large enough thorn they could wear down the U.S.

Prior to the Tet offensive Westmoreland was on a PR campaign talking about how the NVA were on the ropes and victory was in sight. The Tet offensive was a smart move in that it showed the world(mainly the U.S.) that the NVA were not actually on the ropes and were still very much capable. They held Saigon for three days and Hue for 25...I don't think they actually went into it, with the US's FAR superior fire power, looking to actually push the U.S. out immediately. This was a PR move and knew it would put the pressure back on the U.S. and it's citizens.

I'm not really strong on Vietnam so I will just throw this out there: the problem with Tet was maybe like GW Bush's "Mission Accomplished." We were the USA, we had just destroyed the Iraq Army & the Republican Guard, Hussein was in a spider hole somewhere. But then lo and behold the war - a war, a different war - was raging. Americans were dying and they would go on dying for a while, and it appeared that 1. the full extent of what was going on had not been communicated, and 2. the war had been mismanaged. --- Tet happened in a similar way. We were supposed to have this thing wrapped up, getting sealed and finished with, and instead there was this whole other situation that people were not told about and that was far worse than people knew or expected. Iraq had its scandals but I don't think people can imagine the extent of the high level deceit that was going on during Vietnam or the human cost (compared to Iraq). It began with the Tonkin Resolution, and continued on, and then Tet happened and people just woke up and asked what the hell was going on over there.

I think we're saying the same thing.

I'm sure after years of hearing made-up enemy body counts, we were surprised when they were able to launch a major offensive against us.

 

[fatness]

I'm not really strong on Vietnam so I will just throw this out there: the problem with Tet was maybe like GW Bush's "Mission Accomplished." We were the USA, we had just destroyed the Iraq Army & the Republican Guard, Hussein was in a spider hole somewhere. But then lo and behold the war - a war, a different war - was raging. Americans were dying and they would go on dying for a while, and it appeared that 1. the full extent of what was going on had not been communicated, and 2. the war had been mismanaged.

3. 2 Presidents concluded the war was unwinnable without occupying the country for decades.

4. 2 Presidents knew the US public would not tolerate that, and had never signed up for doing that.

5. Johnson didn't run for re-election because he didn't want to admit that to the public. Nixon pulled our troops out.

 

[Christo]

Whatever reasons given for the war it was just about money and keeping the drugs coming in. Just like Afganistan. Just like wars for oil, another drug this country is addicted too. There has not been a true necessary war since WW2. Someone profits. Nothing gets done in the world unless someone profits.

The excuse of fighting tyrants is just a cover for whatever they want from that country. When was the last time the west fought a totalitarian country that didnt have a significantly valuable resource?

 

[dickey moe]

Whatever reasons given for the war it was just about money and keeping the drugs coming in. Just like Afganistan. Just like wars for oil, another drug this country is addicted too. There has not been a true necessary war since WW2. Someone profits. Nothing gets done in the world unless someone profits.

The excuse of fighting tyrants is just a cover for whatever they want from that country. When was the last time the west fought a totalitarian country that didnt have a significantly valuable resource?

Like Afghanistan?

 

[MC Gas Money]

Whatever reasons given for the war it was just about money and keeping the drugs coming in. Just like Afganistan. Just like wars for oil, another drug this country is addicted too. There has not been a true necessary war since WW2. Someone profits. Nothing gets done in the world unless someone profits.

The excuse of fighting tyrants is just a cover for whatever they want from that country. When was the last time the west fought a totalitarian country that didnt have a significantly valuable resource?

Like Afghanistan?

Aghanistan has tons of poppy fields. The Taliban stopped the heroin production and they had to be removed.