Vietnam: YES, WE WON!

[03_SHOOTER]

Vietnam: Americas War to Stem Communist Expansion

Following World War II, the Soviet Union, under Josef Stalin, and the government of China under Mao Tse-tung expanded their avowed policies of Communist expansionism throughout Southeast Asia. This policy eventually culminated itself in the invasion of South Korea in June of 1950 as well as increased support for the Communist led Vietminh forces in Vietnam, in a two pronged assault designed to firmly establish Communism in the region.

Ho Chi Minh, who had studied Communism as the Lenin Institute in Moscow from 1921 until 1935, and then continued his education in China, returned to Vietnam in May of 1941, to attend the 8th Plenum of the Indochinese Communist Party. One of the major results of this conference was the formation of the League for the Independence of Vietnam, more commonly known as the Vietminh.

Led by Ho Chi Minh, the Vietminh took great advantage of the fractured government of post WWII Vietnam to spread the teachings of Communism throughout Indochina. Many of the people of Vietnam, weary of the yoke of Colonial French rule, readily accepted these teachings. Many Vietnamese, however, chose not to accept Communist indoctrination, preferring instead to maintain their alliance with the French Government, and as a result of these divisions, two separate governments were formed. The Communist led Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DVR) issued its Declaration of Independence on September 2, 1945, while the pro-French people formed the Associated State of Vietnam (ASV) under the leadership of Bao Dai on March 8, 1949.

In an official recognition by the United States of the agreement between France and the ASV, the U.S. Secretary of State, Dean Acheson issued a statement on February 7, 1950, recognizing the ASV. In response to this, the Soviet and Chinese governments issued their own statements of recognition of the DSV, setting the stage for increased conflict in the region. As a result of an overtly Communist government emerging in the region, Mr. Acheson, on May 8, 1950, issued the “Extension of Military and Economic Aid” to the ASV. In this statement it was made quite clear the “The United States Government, convinced that neither national independence nor democratic evolution exist in any area dominated by Soviet imperialism, considers the situation to be such as to warrant its according economic aid and military equipment to the Associated States of Indochina and to France…,” openly avowing America’s policy of opposing Communism in Southeast Asia.

On January 28, 1951, President Harry S. Truman along with his cabinet, met with Prime Minister Pleven of France and his cabinet at the White House to discuss the current situation in Southeast Asia. The minutes of that meeting reveal that the French government had “adopted a policy of complete emancipation of the three Indochinese countries” and that they “had been transferring power to local Indochinese authorities as fast as they could.” Prime Minister Pleven also stated that these efforts were being thwarted by “the Communist-directed revolutionary movement” inspired by the governments of Russia and China. President Truman informed Mr. Pleven “that there was no present possibility of our recognizing the Peking regime…in China” and that “we will continue to use every means at our command to keep the Peking regime from being seated in the UN as a representative of China. To do so would add only one more vote to the Russian Bloc.”

By the middle of 1954, the French had lost their war against the Communist Vietminh and on July 20 of that year the “Agreement of the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam” was signed. Although the Geneva Accords theoretically ended the war between the French and the Vietminh, there was to be no peace in the region due to the continual violation of the Accords by the Vietminh. In his address to the American Friends of Vietnam on June 1, 1956, Walter S. Robertson, the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, pointed out that even after the free elections in March of 1955 had overwhelmingly elected President Ngo Dinh Diem, the Communists continued to blatantly violate Sections 17, 19, and 24 of the Geneva Accords. These violations included allowing Chinese Communist military personnel to work on military projects in the north and the expansion of its military to no less than 20 Divisions, an increase of more than 200% since the Accords were signed. In response to this, the United States, in an effort to maintain some form of parity in the region, promised “to support a friendly non-Communist government in Vietnam and to help it diminish and eventually eradicate Communist subversion and influence.”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in an address at Gettysburg College on April 4, 1959, stated that “Because of the proximity of Communist military formations in the north, Free Vietnam must maintain substantial numbers in cleaning out Communist guerillas, those remaining continue to be a disruptive influence in the nation’s life.” He further stated that, should South Vietnam fall to the Communists, more than 12 million people would lose their freedom and “the freedom of 150 million would be seriously endangered.” He then closed by saying that the United States had reached “the inescapable conclusion that our own national interests demand some help from us in sustaining in Vietnam” the moral, economic and “military strength necessary to its continued existence in freedom.”

By the end of 1961, the situation in Vietnam had deteriorated to the point that the introduction of forces under the “Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty” (SEATO) was being seriously considered. In a report to President John F. Kennedy on November 11, 1961, Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, recommended, in order to prevent “the fall of South Vietnam to Communism,” the introduction of “United States and other SEATO forces may be necessary… .” Following that meeting, McNamara sent a memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff requesting recommendations “concerning a command structure for RVN under which a senior military commander would assume responsibilities for all activities, including intelligence ops, related to the counter-insurgency effort” which was to become known as the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG).

In a memorandum from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Taylor and Secretary of Defense, McNamara to President Kennedy on October 2, 1963, it was noted that due to recent progress in the military campaigns and despite the continued political turmoil in Vietnam, it would be possible to start the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. This memorandum recommended that the first 1000 troops would be withdrawn by the end of 1963 and that “a program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965” allowing for the withdrawal of “the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.” This memorandum led to the issuance of National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263, which was signed by President Kennedy on October 11, 1963. It should be noted that in late 1963, there were only 16,300 U.S. military troops operating in advisory or support roles in Vietnam and that U.S. casualties only numbered 82 killed in action. These personnel had in fact only received permission to “return fire only if fired upon first” from President Kennedy in February of 1962.

(Continued below)

[03_SHOOTER]

(Continued from above)

With the ascendance of Lyndon Baines Johnson to the Presidency following the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963, President Johnson signed NSAM #273 on November 26, 1963. This memorandum, in theory, maintained the Kennedy position stated in NSAM #263. Unfortunately the reality of NSAM #273 was to accelerate our involvement in Vietnam, not due to any malice on the part of the Johnson administration, but rather as a result of the overthrow and assassination of President Diem on November 2, 1963, as well as the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August of 1964. The assassination of Diem resulted in two years of instability to the government of South Vietnam, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident exposed a paradigm shift in the Communist-backed Vietminh battle plans by engaging U.S. troops directly. This shift caused U.S. troop concentrations to be increased for actual combat operations rather than the supply and advise mission that we had been carrying out for almost a decade.

There are many people who will claim that the acceleration in the war in Vietnam was undertaken by the Johnson administration in order to increase the “Military Industrial Complex” that President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address to the nation. Still others will attempt to use this as proof that Johnson was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. These people neglect however to account for the fact that after the Gulf of Tonkin incident President Johnson sought only to force the Communist Vietminh to comply with the Geneva Accords of 1954 and 1962 (which neither the U.S. nor the government of South Vietnam had signed), and remove their troops from Cambodia and Laos. In an address to Congress on August 4, 1964, President Johnson pointed out these truths as well as requesting “a resolution expressing the support of the Congress for all necessary action to protect our Armed Forces and to assist nations covered by the SEATO Treaty.” Further McGeorge Bundy, the Special Assistant for National Security to both Kennedy and Johnson, sent a memo to President Johnson on February 7, 1965, indicating that the United States’ response to Vietminh aggression should be only in response to specific outrages by the Vietminh. He also stated that it is necessary to make it clear “both to Hanoi and to the world, that our reprisals will be reduced or stopped when outrages in the South are reduced or stopped… .” One of the major outrages that the Vietminh engaged in, and which was conveniently overlooked by the anti-war factions, were the murders of countless civilians because they refused to embrace Communism. In his book entitled “No More Vietnams”, former President Richard M. Nixon stated that “From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 South Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and school teachers.”

Some of the most controversial objections of the entire Vietnam War were claims that blacks were drafted and sent into battle at higher rates than white troops, or that their casualties in Vietnam were unusually high. The facts as provide by the Center for Electronic Records, National Archives, Combat Area Casualty File (CAFC) are as follows; from 1959 until 1973 when we left Vietnam, 2,637,915 U.S. troops served in Vietnam. Of these troops 153,303 were wounded and 58,152 died, and, of the dead, 7,262 (12.5%) were black, while 42,490, or 73.5% were white. It has also been claimed that draftees were sent into battle as cannon fodder at higher rates than volunteers. The fact of the matter is that 63% of the troops that died in Vietnam were volunteers and only 37% were draftees.

In order to contrast these figures properly we must look at previous American wars. During the four years of the Civil War, of the 2.5 – 2.7 million Union troops that served, over 360,000 died, and, of the 750,000 to 1.25 million Confederate troops, over 250,000 died. In the Battle of Gettysburg alone, of the 160,000 troops involved, over 51,000 were casualties and this in only three days from July 1-3, 1863. During World War I, the United States sent 4,355,000 troops “over there”, and from April 6, 1917, when we declared War to November 11, 1918 when the war officially ended, we suffered 126,000 killed, over 234,000 wounded, and 4,536 missing.

The pure mathematics of these figures show that during the Civil war the total killed were some 618,000, or 5.8% of troops serving in the war, or an average of 154,500 per year. During WWI, this figure dropped to 2.9% or 31,500 per year. When this is contrasted with the figures from Vietnam of only 58,000 deaths from 1959 until 1973, 2.2% or 4,153 per year, it is easy to see that these were the lowest combat fatality figures in U.S. history to that date.

The simple facts of the matter are quite clear to any that choose to look for them. The United States government had avowed constantly since 1949 to take whatever measures were necessary to slow or, if possible, to stop Communist expansionism in Southeast Asia and throughout the world. During every administration from Harry S. Truman to Richard M. Nixon the President continually consulted with Congress, as well as all other applicable agencies and departments to find a way to stop Communism. While these facts are important, the most critical fact is simply that the United States military in conjunction with those of SEATO, won every major battle and campaign during our 26 year commitment in Vietnam. In a speech before a Vietnam Veterans group on July 5, 1986 in Washington D.C., General William Westmoreland stated that the countries of the “Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the US commitment to Vietnam.”

Finally, one must concede the fact that it was through the efforts of the United States, in conjunction with our NATO and UN allies, beginning in the early days of Vietnam, which led to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union and the end of Communist expansion throughout the world. Simply stated, not only did we accomplish our 24 year mission to stem the spread of Communism throughout SE Asia, and throughout the world, and contrary to the common myths and defeatist rhetoric, we did win the War in Vietnam.

[Javelin66]

Interesting definition of victory, especially considering the fact that the US left Vietnam to the North, which runs counter to the stated objectives of the US, as expressed by Robert MacNamara:

"First, and most important, is the simple fact that South Vietnam, a member of the free world family, is striving to preserve its independence from communist attack. The Vietnamese have asked our help. We have given it. We shall continue to give it.
"The ultimate goal of the United States in Southeast Asia, as in the rest of the world, is to help maintain free and independent nations which can develop politically, economically, and socially and which can be responsible members of the world community. In this region and elsewhere many peoples share our sense of the value of such freedom and independence. They have taken the risks and made the sacrifices linked to the commitment to membership in the family of the free world. They have done this in the belief that we would back up our pledges to help defend them. It is not right or even expedient--nor is it in our nature--to abandon them when the going is difficult.

"The U.S. role in South Vietnam, then, is first, to answer the call of the South Vietnamese, a member nation of our free-world family, to help them save their country for themselves; second, to help prevent the strategic danger which would exist if communism absorbed Southeast Asia's people and resources; and third, to prove in the Vietnamese test case that the free-world can cope with communist 'wars of liberation' as we have coped successfully with communist aggression at other levels."

Or, more succinctly by the Department of State:

U.S. Policy on Viet-Nam: White House Statement, October 2, 1963, Department of State Bulletin, October 21, 1963, p. 623:

"1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam."

Westmoreland, by the way, is generally pointed out by contemporary military historians as one of the root causes for the failure in Vietnam:

General William Westmoreland, who died earlier this week, was an honorable man and a noble soldier. But unfortunately for the United States and the late Republic of Vietnam, he was not a great soldier. Students of the Vietnam War, including many who served in the conflict, have blamed America's defeat primarily on Lyndon Johnson and his secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara. While they do bear much of the responsibility for the defeat, Gen. Westmoreland is also culpable. During his time as Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (COMUSMACV), he implemented an operational approach to the war that was destined to fail.

Mackubin Thomas Owens, an NRO contributing editor, is professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, RI. He led a Marine rifle platoon in Vietnam in 1968-69.July 22, 2005

[03_SHOOTER]

I was hoping that since the piece I posted is actually an original piece of my OWN work (which I have been asked by several people to expand into a book), that an Officer and Gentleman such as yourself would be able to bring his OWN equally well researched analysis to the table rather than having to resort to doing a C&P job of someone else's highly flawed analysis, and I must confess that I am deeply disappointed.

With all due respect to Mr. Owens, his analysis of the result of the Vietnam war is dubious to say the least. The War ended in 1973 when the N. Vietnamese capitulated and signed the Paris Peace Accords, and both sides withdrew their troops in compliance with those accords. S. Vietnam fell to the N. Vietnamese in April of 1975, over 2 years after all of our combat forces had left, when a Democrat led Congress, in completely violating our Treaty with S. Vietnam, passed legislation, by more than the 2/3's majority needed to override a veto, which specifically prohibited the President from providing any further military or financial aid to the government of S. Vietnam past August of 1973. Hardly the "peaceful reunification" mandated in the Peace Accords. The fact that our Congress rammed the Case-Church Amendment down the Presidents throat gave the N. Vietnamese no reason to abide by the terms of the Paris Peace Accords, which they promptly began violating as soon as the August '73 deadline passed, just as they had previously violated the original Geneva Accords of 1954.

Now, having said all of that, perhaps you can explain to us exactly how we "lost" a war that had been over for 2 years? To put it another way, if you and I play someone else in a game of doubles tennis, and we win, but 2 years later you play a singles match against one of our former opponents and you lose, exactly how does that translate into a loss on my part? By saying that we lost the Vietnam War, you are saying that we "lost" a War that had been over for 2 years, and a War that we weren't even fighting in! The fact still remains that when our combat forces left S. Vietnam in 1973, it was still a free country, under the control of their own elected government. What happened after that, which we do bear some responsibility for, is not however germane to the fact that we did defeat the combined might of Soviet Russia and Communist China, in their own back yard, and left with our mission accomplished.

Our military won the war, the Socialist/Communist Democrat Party lost the peace.

[Javelin66]

Your piece (nice choice of words, by the way), is simply a regurgitation of facts from secondary sources, and is very light on analysis. The analysis you do provide is simplistic, and your final statement is not supported by the preceding text.

Finally, one must concede the fact that it was through the efforts of the United States, in conjunction with our NATO and UN allies, beginning in the early days of Vietnam, which led to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union and the end of Communist expansion throughout the world. Simply stated, not only did we accomplish our 24 year mission to stem the spread of Communism throughout SE Asia, and throughout the world, and contrary to the common myths and defeatist rhetoric, we did win the War in Vietnam.

One must not concede this at all. What you assert here falls far short of a fact, especially in view of what you have written, because you have not demonstrated how Vietnam contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. By the way, in addition to your failure to cite references throughout the text, you have some subject-verb agreement and other syntax issues going on there, all of which detracts from your attempt at scholarship.

I feel compelled to point out that we are not talking about a tennis match, but rather achieving national goals and objectives. The US had stated goals (maintain an independent Republic of Vietnam safe from aggression). It failed to meet those objectives. The enemy, on the other hand, had the stated objective of reunifying Vietnam under communist rule. It achieved those objectives. In fact, Vietnam, despite the fall of the Soviet Union, is still a communist nation.

The United States signed a peace accord that not only promised the withdrawal of all troops from the country, but acknowledged the reunification of North and South Vietnam. The accord, by the way, was signed by the US, both Vietnams, and the Provisional Government of the Republic of South Vietnam- the communist shadow government in exile!

[03_SHOOTER]

Your continual obfuscation, and steadfast refusal to address direct questions only serves to further validate my position.

Your piece (nice choice of words, by the way), is simply a regurgitation of facts from secondary sources, and is very light on analysis. The analysis you do provide is simplistic, and your final statement is not supported by the preceding text.

My Essay in not simply a "regurgitation of facts" it is a concise presentation of the facts of our involvement in Vietnam, from the very beginning, in order to present the larger picture of the conflict in the entire region. The analysis that I do provide is based solely on those facts, and not on uninformed opinion or unsubstantiated, revisionist and/or defeatist rhetoric.

One must not concede this at all.

I suppose I could have written "Any honest person will concede", but I wrote it for people who are both at least slightly familiar with history, and only interested in the truth, and not those who are only interested in repeating the defeatist rhetoric I mentioned before.

What you assert here falls far short of a fact, especially in view of what you have written, because you have not demonstrated how Vietnam contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.

I suppose for someone who isn't familiar with history, it may appear that way, but for those of us who have actually done the research, it's as obvious as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face.

By the way, in addition to your failure to cite references throughout the text, you have some subject-verb agreement and other syntax issues going on there, all of which detracts from your attempt at scholarship.

That's odd, because my Professor felt quite differently, which is why I received an "A" on it. Perhaps when you have your PhD and have been teaching at the Collegiate level for nearly 30 years I might be interested in your opinion of my "subject-verb agreement", but until then I'll take my Professors analysis over yours.

I feel compelled to point out that we are not talking about a tennis match, but rather achieving national goals and objectives. The US had stated goals (maintain an independent Republic of Vietnam safe from aggression). It failed to meet those objectives. The enemy, on the other hand, had the stated objective of reunifying Vietnam under communist rule. It achieved those objectives. In fact, Vietnam, despite the fall of the Soviet Union, is still a communist nation.

Our stated goal was to stem the spread of Communism throughout SE Asia, not just in Vietnam, as had been established as far back as 1951 by President Truman, and again in 1959 by President Eisenhower and when we left Vietnam in 1973 that goal had been achieved. I don't really expect you to concede that point Comrade, because that would require you to actually engage in critical thought and analysis instead of repeating the propaganda that you were taught by your Socialist teachers.

To further demonstrate the flaws in your logic: Because Germany was able to remilitarize and invade most of Western Europe beginning in 1939, in clear violation of the Versailles Treaty, after we had years before removed our military forces from Europe, just as N. Vietnam did when they again invaded S. Vietnam beginning in 1975, in clear violation of the Geneva and Paris Peace Accords, years after we had removed our military forces from Vietnam, one can only conclude that you believe that we "lost" WWI.

Now, address the question directly, if you dare. How did we "lose" in Vietnam, after we had already won by compelling the N. Vietnamese to capitulate to the demands that they fall back and respect the original 1954 Geneva Accords, and the War had been over for 2 years? Perhaps a better question would be; why do you find the reality of our victory, and the resultant peace and freedom in S. Vietnam, short lived as it might have been, so repugnant that you continually deny it?

The United States signed a peace accord that not only promised the withdrawal of all troops from the country, but acknowledged the reunification of North and South Vietnam. The accord, by the way, was signed by the US, both Vietnams, and the Provisional Government of the Republic of South Vietnam- the communist shadow government in exile!

That doesn't even come close to an intellectually honest analysis. The Peace Accords not only called for the withdrawl of military forces, it also called the PEACEFUL reunification of Vietnam and a POLITICAL settlement between the parties where the people of both nations would decide for themselves "the political future of South Viet-Nam through genuinely free and democratic general elections under international supervision." North Vietnam violated the agreement, just as they had the original Geneva Accords of 1954, following the adoption of the Case-Church Amendment when they realized that we would no longer be providing any further military or financial aid to S. Vietnam, and that the UN would also not provide any assistance to S. Vietnam. There were no "genuinely free and democratic general elections", nor was there any "international supervision", N. Vietnam simply invaded the moment they realized that their Communist agents inside our own Congress had managed to deny the President the means of fulfilling our Treaty obligations to S. Vietnam.

We WON the War, the Communist Democrats in Congress lost the peace.

[Javelin66]

Now, address the question directly, if you dare. How did we "lose" in Vietnam, after we had already won by compelling the N. Vietnamese to capitulate to the demands that they fall back and respect the original 1954 Geneva Accords, and the War had been over for 2 years? Perhaps a better question would be; why do you find the reality of our victory, and the resultant peace and freedom in S. Vietnam, short lived as it might have been, so repugnant that you continually deny it?

That doesn't even come close to an intellectually honest analysis. The Peace Accords not only called for the withdrawal of military forces, it also called the PEACEFUL reunification of Vietnam and a POLITICAL settlement between the parties where the people of both nations would decide for themselves "the political future of South Viet-Nam through genuinely free and democratic general elections under international supervision." North Vietnam violated the agreement, just as they had the original Geneva Accords of 1954, following the adoption of the Case-Church Amendment when they realized that we would no longer be providing any further military or financial aid to S. Vietnam, and that the UN would also not provide any assistance to S. Vietnam. There were no "genuinely free and democratic general elections", nor was there any "international supervision", N. Vietnam simply invaded the moment they realized that their Communist agents inside our own Congress had managed to deny the President the means of fulfilling our Treaty obligations to S. Vietnam.

We WON the War, the Communist Democrats in Congress lost the peace.

Your Mom must be super proud of your grades.

We lost because we did not achieve our national goals while the enemy did achieve theirs. We did not achieve our goals because the enemy sapped our national will through a variety of informational strategies, all the while sapping our strength on the battlefield by simply refusing to lose. We eventually got tired and left without a decisive victory, they are by definition the winners because they get their way.

We, on the other hand, tried to get the enemy into set piece, force or terrain oriented battles, ignoring the true key terrain (the population), until far too late. Our numerous battlefield victories were meaningless, epitomized by the Tet Offensive, which was a tactical and operational victory for the US but a strategic victory for the North.

This is the approach we tried unsuccessfully in Iraq and Afghanistan until very recently, until sound COIN tactics supported by a Whole of Government approach was instituted by Petraeus and Crocker.

You are applying a Jominian approach to conflict, which was ridiculed in its day and is useful today only as an easy way to describe failed strategy. You are in good company though. Westmoreland's answer to the problems in Vietnam was one word: "Firepower".

Read Clausewitz, Mao, Guevara, and even Uncle Cho. They will all tell you that the battlefield is an extension of politics, just as the USMC Small Wars Manual will. Contemporaries such as Petraeus and Nagl reinforce this. It comes down to the simple maxim that guerillas win if they do not lose. Conventional armies lose if they do not win.

Let's test your concept by applying it to some of the situations we face today. Based on your approval of the withdrawal from Vietnam, you must be in complete support of President Obama’s plan to withdraw from Iraq, with one stipulation: GOI, the US, AQI, and the OMS (Office of the Martyr Sadr) must all sign a treaty agreeing to the reunification of the country as long as the US does not interfere. We would have to end it with some iconic images that make it distinctive from Vietnam- maybe a ‘Last Convoy Out’, dodging IEDs and Katyushas all the way down to Kuwait. President Obama could put on a set of ACUs and IBA and climb out of the lead MRAP when it pulls into Camp Beuhring waving an American Flag. Not sure what we should put on the banner, though.

Now that I see your logic, the possibilities are endless: War on Drugs? No problem. Just as long as the Cartels promise not to manufacture or distribute drugs, we will stop trying to interdict. Street crime? Easy. Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, MS13, come on in and sign this. Remember, there is a two year waiting period before you can do anything bad (well, anything real bad).

[03_SHOOTER]

Your Mom must be super proud of your grades.

And Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Uncle Ho, and Castro must be proud of you, because you sound just like a good Party member bucking for promotion into the Politburo. I suppose you've got your Che flag hanging on the wall in your quarters right next to your little display box for your Hero of the Soviet Union medal.

You have consistently failed to directly address any of the questions posed to you, and instead have repeatedly resorted to rather flimsy attempts at sophistry, prevarication, obfuscation, and equivocation which is the hallmark of the properly indoctrinated Communist, because you know that you cannot answer them directly without proving the patent fallacy of your stance. Good job Javelin, you have managed in this one thread to confirm what I've suspected all along.

The fact remains that we did accomplished our mission, and that in the years between 1959 and 1973 we defeated the NVA and VC, as well as the Soviet Union and Chinese. In doing so, we effectively proved to the Soviets and Chinese that regardless of their plans, "that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty", which is why they wisely elected to never again directly face us militarily. The price we exacted from them in those 15 years effectively bankrupted them both, and directly led to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, and the conversion from blatant Communism, to the market based capitalist economy that we see in China today.

What happened in 1975 with the fall of S. Vietnam was the direct result on nothing less than the fifth column of Communist traitors (read DNC) in our own Congress, that had been elected by Lenin's brain-dead "useful idiots" (another prime example of the need to abolish universal suffrage) who had also been properly indoctrinated by the Apparatchik in our own Instutooshuns of Pulik Ejukashun, but it bears no relevance on the fact that we DID win the War in Vietnam in 1973.

[wukong]

The fact remains that we did accomplished our mission, and that in the years between 1959 and 1973 we defeated the NVA and VC, as well as the Soviet Union and Chinese. In doing so, we effectively proved to the Soviets and Chinese that regardless of their plans, "that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty", which is why they wisely elected to never again directly face us militarily. The price we exacted from them in those 15 years effectively bankrupted them both, and directly led to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, and the conversion from blatant Communism, to the market based capitalist economy that we see in China today.

I was there from October 1972 until March of 1974 and the reality of my parallel universe was vastly different from that you describe.

Beginning on 27 January at midnight, Greenwich Mean Time — in Saigon time, 08:00 on 28 January — there would be an in-place ceasefire. North and South Vietnamese forces were to hold their locations. They were permitted to resupply military material to the extent necessary to replace items consumed in the course of the truce.

My mission on that day was to fly in a broken forklift (flat tires, did not run) from Nakon Phanom AB so it could be "replaced" with an operative unit (The exact language was, "get it there before 8 AM"). The defeated NVA and VC started rocketing and shelling Ton Son Nhut AB just after sunrise and continued the "sporadic" fire until around 9 AM. We held during the period of victory celebration and landed at about 9:30 AM. Our forklift was observed by the Military Commission. Our failure on this mission is more than symbolic of the entire US effort over the preceding 12 years.

After 27 January a crop of flags different from a yellow banner with three red horizontal stripes started cropping up everywhere. I also had the "pleasure" of evacuating (word chosen carefully) the last US Army military advisers from Tay Ninh. This local (google it) was practically surrounded with defeated NVA and VC soldiers.

After 27 Jan we began periodic flights between Saigon and Hanoi to transport the military commissions (Poles, Canadians, Indians as well as the North and South Vietnamese members). You could easily recognize the defeated North Vietnamese by the jaunt in their steps and smiles on their faces as well as the sullen demeanor of our South Vietnamese allies.

As we continued our victory march from South Vietnam, our allies began to show their true gratitude for our defeat and vanquish of their NVA and VC foe by the lack of support they gave us in resupplying them with munitions, spares and other articles of war. On one of my last missions from Saigon to Qin Nhon we immediately uploaded 5 pallets of milk in 8 oz cartons (30,000 lbs) from a B-707 freighter and upon arrival the South Vietnamese refused to supply a driver for a nearby forklift to off load. We combat offloaded the 5 pallets and left the milk in the afternoon sun. (I am tempted to say surly bastards, but maybe they felt they no longer needed assistance).

I will readily admit that I can not match either your vast military experience and scholarship to challenge your assertions as to the difficulties of the Soviet Empire. However I will demur when it comes to China. China's problems in the 70's were a direct result of internal afflictions of the Great Leap Forward and the subsequent Cultural Revolution. The economic or military impact of our Southeast Asian misadventure being no more than a footnote.

[Woody]

Won in 73 and lost it in 75 .Giving up and going home before its all over dosen't constitue victory in anyones book .
Maybe if anyone belived or even seemed to care that north could be trusted to keep to the agrrement your argument might hold water.It seems to me they just wanted out of the war but maybe thats hindsight .
The idea that it lead to eventual victory in the cold war is plausible certainly lead to radical changes in the US military which led it to be what it is today world beating .Then again would the changes had happened if it was a victory as you say it was?Would you still have a conscript force instead of a regular and reserve force as you have now?

[03_SHOOTER]

I was there from October 1972 until March of 1974 and the reality of my parallel universe was vastly different from that you describe.

Ah, so you were there after the Easter Offensive where the NVA got the crap kicked out of them, after the Battle of An Loc where the NVA threw over 35,000 men at just over 6,000 defenders, and got their asses kicked in the process, after all but a handful of our combat forces (mostly in the South) had been rotated out of the country under "Vietnamization", but you were there during the Linebacker II operations, so you should know damned well that the NVA sued for peace.

I suppose for someone who sees defeat around every corner, the prospect of victory is simply too much to bear. That's fine, continue to live in your defeatist world, with your colorful drinks adorned with pretty umbrella's, that seems to be where you are the happiest.

[HairyEyeball]

Originally Posted by wukong
I was there from October 1972 until March of 1974 and the reality of my parallel universe was vastly different from that you describe.

By October 1972, I had been a PFC (Proud 'Free' Civilian) for 5 months, so my perspective may be somewhat different: In 1967, 68 and 69, we broke the back of the VC 'irregulars', and the uprising they anticipated with the 1968 Tet offensive never happened - but it did cause them to expend the full compliment of munitions smuggled in, in a massive defeat (except in their allies, the media). Their greatest 'success' was in breaching - never 'capturing' - the American embassy in Saigon: Without the outright fraud and misrepresentation by the intreped correspondants, most of whose 'stories from the front' were written on - or under - their well-indented Saigon barstools, the American public might have known that this thundering defeat marked the end of the VC as an effective fighting force, indeed, its practical annihilation.

The banners you saw raised may have been 'real' enough - there is something to be said for welcoming invading armies, rather than resisting them - but the incontrovertable fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the fighting up to 1972 was done by the Americans - the average Vietnamese unit was poorly led, poorly motivated, and roughly as useful as teats on a bull. Once there was no 'spine' left in the combat troops in the field, given that there was much to begin with, with the exception of the odd 'specialized' unit - a Ranger unit here, a Marine battalion there - it was almost inevitable that a stronger nation would invade. Given the group of castrati passing for a government in D.C. at the time, the fact that we as a nation did little more than wring our hands at the plight of the allies we abandoned is not surprising.

Whatever spin one chooses to put on it, by 1972, when we picked up our marbles (but left our planes, tanks, guns, infrastructure, etc., etc.) and went home, that war - or, as it turned out, that phase of the war - was over, and we had won. Had the necessity to return for 'Round Two' been acted on, this debate would be strictly theoretical.

[03_SHOOTER]

but it did cause them to expend the full compliment of munitions smuggled in, in a massive defeat (except in their allies, the media).

Without the outright fraud and misrepresentation by the intreped correspondants, most of whose 'stories from the front' were written on - or under - their well-indented Saigon barstools, the American public might have known that this thundering defeat marked the end of the VC as an effective fighting force, indeed, its practical annihilation.

Agreed. I certainly doesn't help when we have "the most trusted newsman in America" irresponsibly positing, on February 27, 1968, that "For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate." In my mind, it was this singular highly erroneous report by none other than Walter Crankcase, and many similar subsequent reports by other equally disingenuous and intellectually dishonest reporters, that led to the demoralization of the American public toward our efforts in Vietnam, that provided the "aid and comfort" to the Communists to continue their efforts for another 5 long years, costing the of tens of thousands more Americans, and hundreds of thousands more casualties, and the eventual fall of S. Vietnam to the Communists, costing the lives of MILLIONS more innocent freedom loving people. Why these traitors were never charged for their treason can only be explained by the double edged sword of our own First Amendment.

The vast majority of the brain-dead American sheeple steadfastly believe anything and everything that comes out of their aptly named "idiot box" in their living rooms, never bothering to research the veracity of the claims made by the heavily indoctrinated and highly quaffed talking heads strategically placed therein, taking for granted that whatever they say 'must' be true, thereby making whatever dishonest drivel spews forth from those same said talking heads their "reality", as has been demonstrated clearly by the less than factually based "opinions" presented by some here who cannot seem to accept the historical fact of our victory.

The fact is that the Communist plan was to take total control of ALL of Asia, and Australia, as was clearly laid out in the minutes of the meeting of the 8th Plenum of the Indochinese Communist Party in 1941. It was only by our 23 year political commitment in the region, and our 15 year long War in Vietnam that stopped them dead in their tracks, and prevented them from attaining their goals. Our clearly stated goal in the region was to stem the spread of Communism, and prevent them from controlling the entire Eastern Hemisphere, thereby isolating all of North, Central, and South America, as well as Western Europe. While S. Vietnam, Cambodia (for a short time) and Laos did eventually become Communist countries, the rest of Asia remained free, ergo, the Communists failed to attain their goals, and we undoubtedly (except for those who still erroneously choose to put their faith in the talking heads) achieved ours.

India, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, New Guinea, S. Korea, Japan and Australia never fell to Communism, the trade routes in the Pacific stayed open, trade around the world has been allowed to continue unfettered and unabated by the Communists, we were never isolated, and Communism has fallen. Simply put, we won.

[HairyEyeball]

Random thought: We 'won' the Cold War. We also won the "War To End All Wars" in 1918. The Germans began another war of conquest in 1939 - does that mean we didn't 'actually win' World War One? The Communists are regaining power in Russia, and may take complete control of the country and surrounding nations. Does that mean we didn't actually 'win' the Cold War? Only if one defines 'winning' as completely eradicating one's enemy, and his philosophy, from the face of the earth.

In that context, we 'won' the 'First Vietnam War' in 1972. We chose not to participate in the 'second'.

[wukong]

I suppose you will take us next the suggestion that it was the military might of the Royal Thai empire and the steadfast US commitment to allies that stove off a push by those commie bastards a march down to Singapore.

The attempt by the US to foist an unpopular Roman Catholic oligarchy upon a majority Buddhist population was doomed to failure from the start. Ngo Diem was as unpopular in either half of Viet Nam as Bush in Greenwich Village. The military capacity of the US to go anywhere in Viet Nam, Laos or Cambodia does not equate to the ability to control the little yellow people everywhere.

What people like you fail to understand is that ethnic, religious, and social differences developed over thousands of years trump any late comer political ideology developed in less than a life span.

Communism has failed in China and Viet Nam not because they want to be capitalist, but because it isn't Confucian.

[HairyEyeball]

How astute of you to notice!

Therein lies the conundrum: The philosophy of putting 'our strong man' in charge worked in Greece, so our State Department assumed it was 'the perfect strategy'. Unfortunately, 'our' strongman in Vietnam had to be a Catholic in a Buddhist nation - which, in the minds of the masses equated us with the French colonialists - because by their very nature, no Buddhist would 'take the job', and even if he did, Buddhists wouldn't fight.

Given that we did the right thing, the wrong way, for the right reasons, this is meat for a seperate topic. This one concerns - insofar as it has developed - the meaning and nature of 'winning', and whether the subsequent defeat of an abandoned ally in a subsequent conflict constitutes a 'loss'.

[wukong]

How astute of you to notice!

Therein lies the conundrum: The philosophy of putting 'our strong man' in charge worked in Greece, so our State Department assumed it was 'the perfect strategy'. Unfortunately, 'our' strongman in Vietnam had to be a Catholic in a Buddhist nation - which, in the minds of the masses equated us with the French colonialists - because by their very nature, no Buddhist would 'take the job', and even if he did, Buddhists wouldn't fight.

Just wondering, was all those little fellow in black pajamas and straw hat that you chased around Presbyterians or Lutherans?

Given that we did the right thing, the wrong way, for the right reasons, this is meat for a separate topic. This one concerns - insofar as it has developed - the meaning and nature of 'winning', and whether the subsequent defeat of an abandoned ally in a subsequent conflict constitutes a 'loss'.

Tito is a perfect example from 1946 on that Moscow centered international communism was non-existent. A mediocre janitor from the 13th century Republic of Venice would probably have a better understanding of the exercise of world power than the entire diplomatic establishment of the US from late 40's onward. The Vietnamese have proven from deed that they only wished to be left alone without interference from the French, US, China and Russia.

FWIW, I recently Google Earth'ed the airport at Hanoi and a C-17 was standing tall on the ramp.

[HairyEyeball]

Don't recall asking any which flavor of last rites they'd prefer, primarily because by the time the opportunity presented itself, they were beyond expressing any preference. For the 'truly committed' (or indoctrinated), the question would be as meaningless as inquiring of a devout muslim whether he prefers Smithfield ham to Virginia ham.

Should one interpret 'world communism' as a single, monolithic entity, a strict universal adherence to the principles of Marx and Engels as written regardless of ethnic, geographic, or other inconvenient reality - which our State Department chose to - then much of their effort was 'logical', at least in that context. Should one, however, interpret 'local' communism through the lens of 'socialism', the allied economic philosophy, the differences are readily apparent.

While the majority of Vietnamese may well have preferred to be 'left alone', especially given the history of conflict in the region, they also expressed a preference by 'voting with their feet' to leave the communist-controlled for the 'non-communist' south when the short-lived opportunity was offered. American involvement, especially from the Kennedy Era on, was hardly a unilateral decision by the United States; rather a reaction to a treaty commitment: NATO, having proven such a 'success', spawned SEATO - a 'similar' alliance that ignored the dissimilarities of its membership to that of the 'parent' organization. Given the respect of the USSR for any treaty which interfered with its aims of the moment, the eral value of propaganda, and the concept of 'face' as understood in Asia, as well as the perceived 'need' to halt the spread of communism, we were 'obligated' to honor any and all commitments under the treaty, whether or not it was inimical to our 'best interests'.

Where the 'problem' lies today is that few today understand the world as it was a half-century ago, and many of those only comprehend within the framework of their prejudices.

[03_SHOOTER]

Random thought: We 'won' the Cold War. We also won the "War To End All Wars" in 1918. The Germans began another war of conquest in 1939 - does that mean we didn't 'actually win' World War One?

I brought up that very point about WWI earlier in the discussion, and it was promptly ignored. Seems that it is too much of a refutation of the theory that we lost Vietnam for the naysayers to touch, so they conveniently bypass it and drive on like properly indoctrinated Socialists as if the point were never made.

The Communists are regaining power in Russia, and may take complete control of the country and surrounding nations. Does that mean we didn't actually 'win' the Cold War? Only if one defines 'winning' as completely eradicating one's enemy, and his philosophy, from the face of the earth.

Another excellent point. Perhaps it would have been better if we had simply turned N. Vietnam and the former Soviet Union into vast, glowing, irradiated wastelands in order to ensure that there was no question as to who "won".

In that context, we 'won' the 'First Vietnam War' in 1972. We chose not to participate in the 'second'.

Prezactly.

[wukong]

Whatever spin one chooses to put on it, by 1972, when we picked up our marbles (but left our planes, tanks, guns, infrastructure, etc., etc.) and went home, that war - or, as it turned out, that phase of the war - was over, and we had won. Had the necessity to return for 'Round Two' been acted on, this debate would be strictly theoretical.

I know I'm a bit slow at times, but humor me and tell me just what objective that was accomplished by US Military forces that justifies the 50,000 names on the memorial in Washington. Using your logic Xerxes won as he at least burned Athens which was one of his objectives.

A army does not lose a war, a nation does. I have no shame for my service in Southeast Asia. I did exactly what the American people asked me to do and would do it again. Viet Nam could not be "won" in a WWII paradigm as the Viet Minh would have strangled us as they did the French. Besides, the American people would not have tolerated the overt act of being a colonial master. A Korean paradigm was certainly doable as we could have easily sealed off the 17th parallel from the South China Sea to Thailand. Without the logistic lifeline of the Ho Chi Minh Trail the Viet Minh forces in the South would have been effectively neutered. However, anything that resembled Korea was unacceptable in US politics.

An Armed Force is not an entity within itself but the political tool of its master. In China it is not a "peoples" army but an arm of the Chinese Communist Party. Tienanmen Square 1989 is an easily understood example. Our army is a peoples army. It may be commanded by the President, but it is a creature of Congress. It may march on the orders of the President but it ultimately responds to Congress. The voting patterns of the American people ultimately control what our army does. I'm fairly satisfied with the way the "sheeple" have handled their army at this time.

As for 'Round Two', in 75 it was actually Round Three. We "kicked their ass" in Tet 68, again in the Easter offensive of 72. The stupid little Hobbits just didn't seem to realize that they were done in. Oh well some one just raised the flag with the big star in the center on the Presidential Palace in Saigon obviously by mistake, we had won so what did it matter where it really counts!!!!!!! We didn't lose the war, let's see; it was them news media characters. Yes, they be the ones that lost the war. If not for those traitors, we could now have 150,000 dead heroes and gloriously continue to kick Vietnamese ass.

[HairyEyeball]

Once again, what you see depends on where you stand. What we, including the over 58,000 plus names on The Wall 'accomplished' was the stated objective and treaty obligation of keeping a communist government from power south of the 17th parallel. When the treaty was signed, that was 'accomplished'. The fact that our enemies used our freedom against us to react against the blatant violation of that treaty cannot, at least by logical individuals, be construed as a negation of the circumstances under which it was signed.

Where I see a clear and distinct 'failure' is in the abandonment of those POWs and MIAs who may well have been alive and in captivity subsequent to the treaty: Without a reasonably full accounting of them, more than the 'mere' disregard of the treaty, we had ample justification for 'round two' - but the same fifth column that influenced our decision not to honor our commitment to that treaty had already dismissed them as not worth our effort.

[wukong]

Once again, what you see depends on where you stand. What we, including the over 58,000 plus names on The Wall 'accomplished' was the stated objective and treaty obligation of keeping a communist government from power south of the 17th parallel. When the treaty was signed, that was 'accomplished'. The fact that our enemies used our freedom against us to react against the blatant violation of that treaty cannot, at least by logical individuals, be construed as a negation of the circumstances under which it was signed.

Either I am way overly cynical or you are a bit naive. Even all of us 2Lts. with a map at NKP did not for a minute believe that the North Vietnamese (NV) had any intention of complying with the Paris Accords. If you believe that either Kissinger or Nixon had a iota of faith that the NV would respect the Accords you should share with us what you are smoking. Thieu knew the game was up, resigned, and left with his loot. It was a Neville Chamberlain moment if one ever existed.

The effect of the Paris Accords was to reset the jukebox back to 1955 and play, "Let pretend the US was never here."

Where I see a clear and distinct 'failure' is in the abandonment of those POWs and MIAs who may well have been alive and in captivity subsequent to the treaty: Without a reasonably full accounting of them, more than the 'mere' disregard of the treaty, we had ample justification for 'round two' - but the same fifth column that influenced our decision not to honor our commitment to that treaty had already dismissed them as not worth our effort.

Not the "same fifth column" but President Nixon. In order to have an accounting you have to have intergovernmental communications. The US did not recognize the government of NV and refused to do so even after de facto unification. In 1975 the Vietnamese government with an embassy in Washington ceased to exist. Our treaty obligation to that government ceased when it went up in smoke. Yet, we refused to deal with the folks that now owned the functioning government. We started getting an accounting when we the winners came "hat in hand" to the losers of the War in Viet Nam and recognized their illegitimate government.

[HairyEyeball]

I rather doubt anyone believed that North Vietnam (and its allies) would abide by the treaty without a modicum of 'coercion' - such as if they chose to 'strike up the band' again, we'd be more than happy to invite ourselves back to the dance, preferably in a more 'strategic', less 'tactical' manner.

And while Nixon 'did' what he did, in the manner he did it, he was not acting in a vacuum: I make no claim to understand the reasoning behind any of his decisions, nor to be aware of the pressures put on him, nor by whom, nor do I have knowledge of any 'deals' that might have been cut. I doubt any of us is naive enough to believe there was more to the decision than has been disclosed, nor that at least some of it went to the grave with him. I do recall that he was the President who recognized mainland China as being governed by the communist Chinese, and was responsible for their recognition as such in the 42nd Street Aimless Debate and Chowder Society (and that he was apparently a deeply troubled man).

I am also aware that one of the strongest voices raised against any 'search and rescue' operation after the 'peace' accords were signed belonged to none other than John McCain, and that it came back to bite him in his recent unsuccessful run for the office Nixon once held.

[03_SHOOTER]

The effect of the Paris Accords was to reset the jukebox back to 1955 and play, "Let pretend the US was never here."

Sure, except for the million plus enemy military was killed. But I'm sure that in a third world backwater like Vietnam, nobody would notice a million fewer mouths to feed.

[Javelin66]

The fact that our enemies used our freedom against us to react against the blatant violation of that treaty cannot, at least by logical individuals, be construed as a negation of the circumstances under which it was signed.


I guess no one told them they lost.

The WWI example does not support your argument. The German Empire, along with the other belligerents on the losing side were forced to sign treaties that called for them to make reparations, cede territory, and limit military force in the future (among other things like declaring their national leader a war criminal and accepting national 'guilt' for starting the war). In other words, the treaties embodied the stated objectives of the winning side. Not to mention the fact that the German Empire ceased to exist.

Now, aside from the fact that the treaties themselves set the conditions that would later cause WWII, they also set the stage for our current conflict. The treaty of Sevres, which dealt with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, included the basis for the British Mandates for Iraq and Palestine.

The treaties that gave us our ‘peace with honor’ did nothing of the sort, and as HE points out, we knew at the time that the enemy would not comply unless compelled, and we did not have the national will to compel them. Troop withdrawal, unmet objectives, an unenforceable peace treaty, and no national will to fight all add up to a defeat.

[03_SHOOTER]

I guess no one told them they lost.

No, they knew they lost, by they're like the short guy who picks a fight with the biggest guy in the bar to prove how tough he is, and it doesn't matter how many time he gets knocked down, how many teeth he loses, or how many stitches it's going to take to sew him back together again, he's still going to get drag himself back up, until the big guy simply grows weary and allows his "humanity" to kick in and walks away from the bleeding heaving mass that's laying on the floor. The problem comes in that later on, the short guy runs around telling everyone how he beat the big guy up (forgetting to mention that all he did was to beat the big guy's fist to a pulp with his face). Oh, wait a minute, that's what all of the people who claim that we "lost" in Vietnam are doing.

The WWI example does not support your argument. The German Empire, along with the other belligerents on the losing side were forced to sign treaties that called for them to make reparations, cede territory, and limit military force in the future (among other things like declaring their national leader a war criminal and accepting national 'guilt' for starting the war). In other words, the treaties embodied the stated objectives of the winning side. Not to mention the fact that the German Empire ceased to exist.

Now, aside from the fact that the treaties themselves set the conditions that would later cause WWII, they also set the stage for our current conflict. The treaty of Sevres, which dealt with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, included the basis for the British Mandates for Iraq and Palestine.

The treaties that gave us our ‘peace with honor’ did nothing of the sort, and as HE points out, we knew at the time that the enemy would not comply unless compelled, and we did not have the national will to compel them. Troop withdrawal, unmet objectives, an unenforceable peace treaty, and no national will to fight all add up to a defeat.

The biggest problem with your entire train of thought on this is two fold; 1) you're thinking tactically rather than strategically, and 2) you're assuming a traditional war definition of victory in that tactical sense, but everyone knows that Vietnam was anything but a traditional war, and it was never intended to be. Just like in Korea less than a decade before, our involvement in Vietnam was never envisioned to include the military overthrow of the political leadership of the aggressor nation, which we could have done in both cases, at the cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions more US deaths, and trillions of dollars in occupying them like we did during and following WWII, the (strategic) mission was simply to stem the spread of Communism throughout Asia, at as small a cost as we could possily expend, which we accomplished.

As I clearly showed earlier, what we consider to be two wars, that in Korea and Vietnam, to the Communists (as laid out in the 1941 8th Plenum) was simply part of the same operation, essentially a pincer movement to encompass most of Asia (if anyone isn't following this, please consult a map), with the goal of converting all of that region of Communism, and then spreading outward to seize the rest of Asia and Australia. The Soviets plan was to coordinate their efforts by seizing all of Europe, at which time the Communists would control everything from the North Pole to the South Pole, and from Western Europe to the Kamchatka Peninsula, thereby isolating the Americas, at which time they could either strike direct by moving into Central America and moving southward, taking Central and South America, thereby effectively isolating us at which point they could strike at the US from all sides, or simply wait us out until we capitulated. By committing ourselves to the War in Vietnam (and elsewhere), we proved to the Communists that we not only knew of their plans, but that we would fight them on any and every front to ensure that their plans were not accomplished. By bleeding them nearly dry in our 15 year commitment in Vietnam, we demonstrated that resolve fully, which is precisely what led to the eventual fall of Communist expansionism around the world, and the ultimate fall of the Soviet Union.

No, your entire argument simply revolves around the fact that we not only beat the crap out of the little guy, but that we didn't also kill him, and then kick down the door to his house, move in, and make his wife and kids go out and work in the slave mines to support us while we administered the daily beatings.

[HairyEyeball]

So by the currently recognized 'standards', despite rolling through the best military forces Camel Boy had to offer in Iraq in mere days, the fact that there is still some form of combat with armed opposition in the country is also 'proof' that we 'lost' that war, too?

While 'victory' appears to have become a matter of opinion subject to cherry-picked facts (and factoids), there was a time when accomplishing one's stated objectives - no matter how ill-advised and shortsighted those 'objectives' may have been - was, indeed, 'victory'. Unfortunately, the world is not static - circumstances and conditions have a nasty way of changing, the world as it is is not the world as it was. This does not alter history - unless, as in an Orwellian world, one merely rewrites it to suit.

[wukong]

So by the currently recognized 'standards', despite rolling through the best military forces Camel Boy had to offer in Iraq in mere days, the fact that there is still some form of combat with armed opposition in the country is also 'proof' that we 'lost' that war, too?

You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. In my mind, OIF's objective was to remove Saddam and the Baathist from power. If Dubya had left it at that and left it would have been a resounding victory for our military forces and the nation. I don't remember an objective of leaving a republic with the guidelines of a Jeffersonian democracy within the prevailing geographical boundary of the current Iraq. The armed opposition that now exist in Iraq were not extent in Saddam's Iraq. Our military forces are organized, equipped and trained to conduct conventional operations. We're very good at it. What we are lousy at is conducting unconventional warfare and "Nation Building." Until we organize, train and equip military forces to conduct these operations and prepare our nation for the long and unpleasant prospects for these tasks, we risk the inevitable failure of fighting insurgencies with conventional forces.


While 'victory' appears to have become a matter of opinion subject to cherry-picked facts (and factoids), there was a time when accomplishing one's stated objectives - no matter how ill-advised and shortsighted those 'objectives' may have been - was, indeed, 'victory'. Unfortunately, the world is not static - circumstances and conditions have a nasty way of changing, the world as it is is not the world as it was. This does not alter history - unless, as in an Orwellian world, one merely rewrites it to suit.

Americans have developed a very skewed concept of "victory" from our experience in WWII. One almost has to go back to the War between Rome and Carthage to find an example of unconditional surrender to the complete will of the "victor." World history from our cultural background has been overwhelmingly limited wars with limited objectives. The stated objective of the North Vietnamese government was the unification of Viet Nam under their auspices. Their objective was met. If our final objective was to leave, I guess that could be victory. If so, what do you say to the families of the victims, Americans, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao, etc for the death and destruction visited just to leave? Are we the modern Vandals?

Would we not be better off politically (military) by admiting a mistake and purchasing one less B-2 or Carrier and compensating Viet Nam for our interference in their internal affairs? The world as we see it today would be a far different place if we had our C-17's training Vietnamese paratroops along side their organic C-130's and their tactical air forces flying F-16's

The Pentagon papers and McNamara's own assertions from 1965 were admissions that we could not "win" the war under terms acceptable to the American public. If true then the war after 1965 was immoral. To fight a war for "national prestige" and expect the American people to sacrifice their sons and daughters for such will never "play in Peoria." Those that expect for such an paradigm are the "fifth columnist" that we should look out for.

Just whom is rewriting history?:)

[wukong]

As I clearly showed earlier, what we consider to be two wars, that in Korea and Vietnam, to the Communists (as laid out in the 1941 8th Plenum) was simply part of the same operation, essentially a pincer movement to encompass most of Asia (if anyone isn't following this, please consult a map), with the goal of converting all of that region of Communism, and then spreading outward to seize the rest of Asia and Australia. The Soviets plan was to coordinate their efforts by seizing all of Europe, at which time the Communists would control everything from the North Pole to the South Pole, and from Western Europe to the Kamchatka Peninsula, thereby isolating the Americas, at which time they could either strike direct by moving into Central America and moving southward, taking Central and South America, thereby effectively isolating us at which point they could strike at the US from all sides, or simply wait us out until we capitulated. By committing ourselves to the War in Vietnam (and elsewhere), we proved to the Communists that we not only knew of their plans, but that we would fight them on any and every front to ensure that their plans were not accomplished. By bleeding them nearly dry in our 15 year commitment in Vietnam, we demonstrated that resolve fully, which is precisely what led to the eventual fall of Communist expansionism around the world, and the ultimate fall of the Soviet Union.


The Epiphany, oh what rapture! Once again I am both amazed and overwhelmed with your unique talents that have recognized a plan of political objectives and marriage to the capability to obtain those objectives. That my master is the ability to formulate Grand Strategy!!!!!!!

I would suggest, no beg you to expose your wide range and depth of global political astuteness along with your complete knowledge of military capabilities to General Jones, our current National Security Adviser. I understand that General Jones is an exceptionally gifted person when it comes to recognizing talent such as yours and has a history of employing and rewarding such gifted individuals.

I sincerely encourage to contact General Jones and implore you not to desert America now in our hour of need.

[HairyEyeball]

Not to point out the fallacy of thinking in a vacuum, but had we followed your suggestion and just left after overthrowing Camel-boy, what, precisely, would the situation be in the area now - and where would the islamofascists still flocking to Iraq to die under the current structure have gone had we done so? Here?

Granted, our limited experience in empire building has left us somewhat unsuited for 'nation building'; and our efforts in forcing 'democracy' on a people who have, at best, little more than a nodding acquaintance with the precept were ill-advised and poorly executed. That acknowledged, having created a power vacuum in a country picked for its strategic location at the center of the islamofascist movement, would you care to elucidate what alternatives were open to us? Perhaps picking 'our' strong man, as we did so successfully in Greece and so poorly in Vietnam?

[03_SHOOTER]

The Epiphany, oh what rapture! Once again I am both amazed and overwhelmed with your unique talents that have recognized a plan of political objectives and marriage to the capability to obtain those objectives. That my master is the ability to formulate Grand Strategy!!!!!!!

I would suggest, no beg you to expose your wide range and depth of global political astuteness along with your complete knowledge of military capabilities to General Jones, our current National Security Adviser. I understand that General Jones is an exceptionally gifted person when it comes to recognizing talent such as yours and has a history of employing and rewarding such gifted individuals.

I sincerely encourage to contact General Jones and implore you not to desert America now in our hour of need.

Given your abject failure to comprehend the most basic of fundamental truths, or the ability to think any further than the wind screen directly in front of you, as stated in your previous post;
The stated objective of the North Vietnamese government was the unification of Viet Nam under their auspices. Their objective was met.
,any advise from you should be limited to suggestions directed to your bartender as to your choice of adult beverage.

As to General Jones, given his recent, and rather staggeringly and blatantly stupid analysis of the situation between Israel and the "Palestinians" in the Gaza, it is entirely possible that it would be highly advantageous for him to seek my advise, because his grasp is obviously far exceeded by his reach.

[Javelin66]

The biggest problem with your entire train of thought on this is two fold; 1) you're thinking tactically rather than strategically, and 2) you're assuming a traditional war definition of victory in that tactical sense, but everyone knows that Vietnam was anything but a traditional war, and it was never intended to be. Just like in Korea less than a decade before, our involvement in Vietnam was never envisioned to include the military overthrow of the political leadership of the aggressor nation, which we could have done in both cases, at the cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions more US deaths, and trillions of dollars in occupying them like we did during and following WWII, the (strategic) mission was simply to stem the spread of Communism throughout Asia, at as small a cost as we could possily expend, which we accomplished.


Twofold is one word.

Your reversal here is astounding. Suddenly you are embracing my assertion that tactical victories are meaningless if strategic goals are not met, and that strategic goals cannot be met by military force alone.

By the way, you are confusing your terminology with regard to the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war. Even in the construct you outline, Korea and Vietnam would be regarded as two separate (and poorly coordinated) operational campaigns.

This is an amazing pincer movement that you describe. I was not aware that the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam constituted 'most' of Asia. Could you explain the remarkable sequencing of these operations? I am especially interested in why the Communists started in Vietnam in 1946 but waited until 1950 to launch the supporting operation in Korea, then called an operational pause after the defeat of the French before launching major attacks in South Vietnam. I was also not aware that we bled the Soviets dry in Vietnam as you imply.

I am also confused about your repeated use of the ‘little guy’ story- is this autobiographical?

[Javelin66]

Not to point out the fallacy of thinking in a vacuum, but had we followed your suggestion and just left after overthrowing Camel-boy, what, precisely, would the situation be in the area now - and where would the islamofascists still flocking to Iraq to die under the current structure have gone had we done so? Here?

Granted, our limited experience in empire building has left us somewhat unsuited for 'nation building'; and our efforts in forcing 'democracy' on a people who have, at best, little more than a nodding acquaintance with the precept were ill-advised and poorly executed. That acknowledged, having created a power vacuum in a country picked for its strategic location at the center of the islamofascist movement, would you care to elucidate what alternatives were open to us? Perhaps picking 'our' strong man, as we did so successfully in Greece and so poorly in Vietnam?

You pose some interesting questions here. As you can probably tell, I am very conflicted about this war. I think we had a legal justification to invade, but I think it was a bad idea- it would be nearly impossible to 'win' in the timelines that were being described given the patience of the American people. Now that we are in it, we should do everything to succeed. I think that requires embracing some long forgotted precepts of irregular war.

I think the various 'Islamofascists' (you are giving some of them way too much credit) may well have flocked to Iraq anyway, for many of the same reasons they are there now. Had the Iranians tried to assert too much influence (through Quds, JAM, etc) AQ would have come in to counter them.

Had we planned a little more carefully and taken a longer view of things, we could have exploited these groups and engineered a major problem for Iran, which could only benefit the US.

Actually, most of the educated Iraqis knew what we meant when we proposed a democracy, which is precisely why they opposed it. A relatively educated Sunni or even Shia who had anything to lose wanted no part of a government dominated by uneducated Shias hungry for revenge on anyone associated with the former regime.

[wukong]

Not to point out the fallacy of thinking in a vacuum, but had we followed your suggestion and just left after overthrowing Camel-boy, what, precisely, would the situation be in the area now - and where would the islamofascists still flocking to Iraq to die under the current structure have gone had we done so? Here?

Hairy, what I postulated was not a suggestion but an option that would have satisfied a criterion of "winning." What we have now is the realization that the raw use of military power can create more problems than it solves. The potential to wreak massive death and destruction most often has a far greater political impact than the demonstrated capability. Have you ever considered the possibility that had we abruptly left, Iran could be stuck with the Tar Baby instead of us?

Granted, our limited experience in empire building has left us somewhat unsuited for 'nation building'; and our efforts in forcing 'democracy' on a people who have, at best, little more than a nodding acquaintance with the precept were ill-advised and poorly executed. That acknowledged, having created a power vacuum in a country picked for its strategic location at the center of the islamofascist movement, would you care to elucidate what alternatives were open to us? Perhaps picking 'our' strong man, as we did so successfully in Greece and so poorly in Vietnam?

I spent 10 of my 20 years in the Far East and not a single hour in either Europe or the Middle East. I have no intention of suggesting solutions for problems that I have no practical experience with or have only cursory knowledge. I am not the forums resident expert on everything and do not intend to pontificate in those areas. Should you wish to discuss Iraq, we should do so in a different thread. I am comfortable in those areas of the world influenced by Sinitic culture.

A well posed question or thesis on Iraq, Iran and Afganistan could be a very pleasant and rewarding exercise. My take on this area is that Islam is at war within itself. We the US and the West have only felt the spill over. If Iran had a nuclear weapon the first target would not be Tel Aviv but Wazeristan.

[03_SHOOTER]

Twofold is one word.

And when one constantly resorts to playing "spellcheck" and "grammar" police it proves that they've lost the debate. You've already done so twice in this discussion alone.

Your reversal here is astounding. Suddenly you are embracing my assertion that tactical victories are meaningless if strategic goals are not met, and that strategic goals cannot be met by military force alone.

There is no reversal except in your own mind. We are discussing the military aspect of our geopolitical strategy. The fact that you can't get your head wrapped around that concept only serves to amplify your own ignorance of history. We achieved our overall strategic goals in Vietnam by 1973, by military force alone, when we left in accordance with the Paris Peace Accords, because we left the N. Vietnamese no other option than total annihilation should they choose otherwise. This is evinced by the fact that all previous attempts to end the War in Vietnam peacefully failed utterly, during which the N. Vietnamese used the operational pauses to resupply, rearm, and bring in fresh troops. By the end of the Linebacker II operation, we had so heavily decimated their infrastructure that they knew that there was no other option than to capitulate.

By the way, you are confusing your terminology with regard to the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war. Even in the construct you outline, Korea and Vietnam would be regarded as two separate (and poorly coordinated) operational campaigns.

It would seem that you need a new dictionary along with an highly improved understanding of history. The fact is that the Communist directed campaigns in Korea and in Vietnam were being conducted simultaneously or did you forget that the COMMUNIST Viet Minh were fighting the French while we were fighting the COMMUNIST N. Koreans? You also seem to be blissfully unaware that the Viet Minh were using US made 105mm Howitzers, that had been captured from us by the N. Koreans and Chicom troops in Korea, against the French defenders at Dien Bien Phu, which also serves to disprove your "poorly coordinated" argument out of the water, or is it your assertion that those howitzers mysteriously transported themselves, all the way across China, from Korea to Vietnam, all by themselves?

This is an amazing pincer movement that you describe. I was not aware that the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam constituted 'most' of Asia. Could you explain the remarkable sequencing of these operations? I am especially interested in why the Communists started in Vietnam in 1946 but waited until 1950 to launch the supporting operation in Korea, then called an operational pause after the defeat of the French before launching major attacks in South Vietnam. I was also not aware that we bled the Soviets dry in Vietnam as you imply.

There's obviously a LOT you're obviously unaware of, including geography, (they did teach you what a "pincer maneuver was didn't they?) so try doing your own research my young Padawan. The reason that our involvement in Korea didn't start until 1950, while the French were already fighting the Communist sponsored Viet Minh in Vietnam in 1946 was because under the agreements reached at the Yalta Conference, the Soviets were in the process of "liberating" N. Korea during the years 1946 to 1950, and it took them those 4 years to exert control of N. Korea, install and stabilize the new government there, and prepare their forces for the initial assault in June of 1950. It would also be helpful for your education to point out that it wasn't until 1949 when Mao Tse Tung took control in China, thereby providing easier access to full Communist support from just across the border, rather than the piecemeal support from Mao's Red Guard they had been receiving earlier, which is why before 1950 the Viet Minh efforts in Vietnam were essentially ineffective and limited to strictly "hit and run" or guerrilla attacks.

You are also still thinking tactically. What we're discussing here is the geopolitical goals of the International Communist Party, so when you talk about "operations" in reference to specific campaigns, it only demonstrates that you're not thinking "big" enough. Now I understand that for a young Officer like yourself, in your day to day duties, thinking "above your pay grade" is often considered to be a "bad" thing, but how can you expect to advance in your career if you consistently demonstrate that you lack the ability to "think above your pay grade" when discussing historical events? Perhaps it would serve you well to acquire a copy of the board game "Risk" by Parker Brothers in order to assist you in obtaining a better understanding of the differences between "operational", "tactical", and "strategic" since the Army has obviously done such an abysmal job of teaching it to you.

I am also confused about your repeated use of the ‘little guy’ story- is this autobiographical?

You do seem to spend a great deal of your time in a state of confusion. It would appear that your "gummint skuul ejucashun" has failed you as badly as some of we more 'seasoned citizens' suspected.

[wukong]

There is no reversal except in your own mind. We are discussing the military aspect of our geopolitical strategy. The fact that you can't get your head wrapped around that concept only serves to amplify your own ignorance of history. We achieved our overall strategic goals in Vietnam by 1973, by military force alone, when we left in accordance with the Paris Peace Accords, because we left the N. Vietnamese no other option than total annihilation should they choose otherwise.

Other than your vacuous musings, list at least one political objective as stated by a US President or Secretary of State that was accomplished by 1973. Cite a reliable source and not the John Birch Society.

It would also be helpful for your education to point out that it wasn't until 1949 when Mao Tse Tung took control in China, thereby providing easier access to full Communist support from just across the border, rather than the piecemeal support from Mao's Red Guard they had been receiving earlier, which is why before 1950 the Viet Minh efforts in Vietnam were essentially ineffective and limited to strictly "hit and run" or guerrilla attacks.

http://www.answers.com/topic/red-guards
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Red Guards
Paramilitary units of radical university and high-school students formed during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Responding in 1966 to Mao Zedong's call to revitalize the revolutionary spirit of the Chinese Communist Party, they went so far as to attempt to purge the country of its pre-Communist culture. With a membership in the millions, they attacked and persecuted local party leaders, schoolteachers, and other intellectuals. By early 1967 they had overthrown party authorities in many localities. Internal strife ensued as different units argued over which among them best represented Maoism. In 1968 their disruption of industrial production and urban life led the government to redirect them to the countryside, where the movement gradually subsided.
For your edification the Chinese "Red Guards" were a phenomenon of the late 60's and were never a "piecemeal" feature of the Korean Conflict. I suppose next you will be expounding upon 314/374 TAW "E" Flight support for the Visigoths on the Laotian Plain of Jars.

Let me give you a history lesson in an allegorical sense. Although the Ottoman Turkish Army at some time in history used machine guns, they were not used at the capture of Constantinople in 1453.

Now I understand that for a young Officer like yourself, in your day to day duties, thinking "above your pay grade" is often considered to be a "bad" thing, but how can you expect to advance in your career if you consistently demonstrate that you lack the ability to "think above your pay grade" when discussing historical events? Perhaps it would serve you well to acquire a copy of the board game "Risk" by Parker Brothers in order to assist you in obtaining a better understanding of the differences between "operational", "tactical", and "strategic" since the Army has obviously done such an abysmal job of teaching it to you.

Whether or not Javalin66 can "think above his rank" is much better put into context of whether you can "Think up to your stated rank or better yet think." It might come as a shock to you but rather than to "brag" about scholarship and writing, some of us are paid authors of published works in recognized professional journals. I am courious about that academic grade that you seem so proud. Was it for Modern Fiction 101 or for a more scholarly course from one of those correspondence universities that one finds in the back of True Detective or Soldier of Fortune magazines?

You may manufacture history in this forum, but the world outside of your parallel universe is a different place. I am somewhat amused and aghast at your obsession with massive casualties. Although those of us who are or were Professional Soldiers know we are called upon to destroy another human beings, it is not the end all in the profession. Our job as professionals is to find a way to accomplish our mission with the minimum destruction of life and property. I don't believe that basic training failed you, but you failed basic training.

You do seem to spend a great deal of your time in a state of confusion. It would appear that your "gummint skuul ejucashun" has failed you as badly as some of we more 'seasoned citizens' suspected.

Your "little man" parable is further evidence of a deep malignant Psychosis. You would have made a great non-combatant SS General for Himmler or for Saddam in the likes of Uday or Cousin Ali.

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[03_SHOOTER]

Other than your vacuous musings, list at least one political objective as stated by a US President or Secretary of State that was accomplished by 1973. Cite a reliable source and not the John Birch Society.

“Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.

Now, with respect to the first one, two of the items from this particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very important. There are others, of course, the rubber plantations and so on.

Then with respect to more people passing under this domination, Asia, after all, has already lost some 450 million of its peoples to the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can’t afford greater losses.

But when we come to the possible sequence of events, the loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following, now you begin to talk about areas that no only multiply the disadvantages that you would suffer through the loss of materials, sources of materials, but now you are talking about millions and millions of people.

Finally, the geographical position achieved thereby does many things. It turns the so-called island defensive chain of Japan, Formosa, of the Philippines and to the southward; it moves in to threaten Australia and New Zealand.

It takes away, in its economic aspects, that region that Japan must have as a trading area or Japan, in turn, will have only one place in the world to go--that is, toward the Communist areas in order to live.

So, the possible consequences of the loss are just incalculable to the free world."

President Dwight David Eisenhower, April 7, 1954


In 1973 when we departed, the events that President Eisenhower had envisioned had not come to pass as those parts of Indochina that were still free when we arrived, as well as Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Japan, Formosa, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan were all still free. Even after 1975, with the exception of S. Vietnam, and Laos, (Cambodia was only under Communist control for a very short time) they have all remained free ever since, thereby proving that our very clearly stated national goal of stemming the spread of Communism was in fact achieved.

http://www.answers.com/topic/red-guards
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Red Guards

For your edification the Chinese "Red Guards" were a phenomenon of the late 60's and were never a "piecemeal" feature of the Korean Conflict. I suppose next you will be expounding upon 314/374 TAW "E" Flight support for the Visigoths on the Laotian Plain of Jars.

It would appear that your ignorance of the history of Communist China is as vast as your ignorance of just about everything except for alcoholic beverages. Mao's Red Guard in China were supplied quite heavily by the Soviets in the years immediately following WWII in support of their Civil War against Chiang Kai-shek, and it was these supplies that were given to the Viet Minh in their fight against the French until Chiang finally fell and the might of the entire Chinese Communist government was able to back them openly, at which time they also transferred our captured weaponry to the Viet Minh for their use in finishing off the French at Dien Bien Phu.

As for the rest of your alcohol induced blathering, I refuse to engage in speculative badinage with someone who isn't even capable of comprehending the basic fundamentals of the Constitution that he allegedly swore to support and defend. Suffice to say that you represent that small group of people who are so consumed by their own small piece of the puzzle that they remaining totally oblivious of the bigger picture unfolding around them, and then being retained and promoted FAR above their ability to grasp those events.

[wukong]

The domino theory, the central religious article of faith of the John Birchers. And proven just as invalid as the Ptolemy theory of the Universe with the Earth as the center.

Perhaps you are right about those commies, there is one under every bed and behind every chair everywhere.

[wukong]

It would appear that your ignorance of the history of Communist China is as vast as your ignorance of just about everything except for alcoholic beverages. Mao's Red Guard in China were supplied quite heavily by the Soviets in the years immediately following WWII in support of their Civil War against Chiang Kai-shek, and it was these supplies that were given to the Viet Minh in their fight against the French until Chiang finally fell and the might of the entire Chinese Communist government was able to back them openly, at which time they also transferred our captured weaponry to the Viet Minh for their use in finishing off the French at Dien Bien Phu.

I owe you one hell of an apology. I've recovered from the effects of a double shot of Bailey's and now realize that 1966 does occur before 1949. Mea Culpa!! I'm all confused now, perhaps the Turks did use machine guns at Constantinople. The Red Guards, did Mao get them from Yuan Shi-kai?

[03_SHOOTER]

The domino theory, the central religious article of faith of the John Birchers. And proven just as invalid as the Ptolemy theory of the Universe with the Earth as the center.

Perhaps you are right about those commies, there is one under every bed and behind every chair everywhere.

Ah, so it's your contention that President Eisenhower was a Bircher? That's interesting, especially considering that Eisenhower made his speech discussing that very issue 4 years BEFORE the John Bircher Society was even formed. I was under the impression that he was simply telling us what he knew about the Communist plans, as evinced by the minutes of the 8th Plenum in 1941. Perhaps the Birchers should rename themselves the "Dwight David Eisenhower Society" instead.

Yup, telling the Commies that we KNEW what their plans were, and then taking steps to stop them is definitely a "conspiracy theory".

[03_SHOOTER]

I owe you one hell of an apology. I've recovered from the effects of a double shot of Bailey's and now realize that 1966 does occur before 1949. Mea Culpa!! I'm all confused now, perhaps the Turks did use machine guns at Constantinople. The Red Guards, did Mao get them from Yuan Shi-kai?

Mao's "Red Guard" (no 's') refers to that specific part the Communist military operating between the end of WWII and the end of the Chinese Civil War that later folded into the PLA. The "Red Guards" you refer to are the student movement. It would appear that even though you've temporarily regained the use of that part of your brian that isn't totally pickled, your eyesight is still rather blurry as you have repeatedly missed the fact that there is no 's' on the end of the "Red Guard" that I have referenced.

I suppose you're all confused about the NRA too, but I can assure you that the American NRA (National Rifle Association) has absolutely no connection with the Chinese NRA (National Revolutionary Army) of the mid 1920's to the late 1940's.

[wukong]

Mao's "Red Guard" (no 's') refers to that specific part the Communist military operating between the end of WWII and the end of the Chinese Civil War that later folded into the PLA. The "Red Guards" you refer to are the student movement. It would appear that even though you've temporarily regained the use of that part of your brian that isn't totally pickled, your eyesight is still rather blurry as you have repeatedly missed the fact that there is no 's' on the end of the "Red Guard" that I have referenced.

I'm intrigued, honestly. Communist organizations are characterized by tight personal control by a charismatic leader over subordinate units. This is true of Soviet, Yugoslav, Chinese, Vietnamese and especially Korean communist party organs. Would you post the leadership, organizational structure and campaigns of these Red Guard(s) of whom you have enlightened us? Why would Mao hide this party organ from Edgar Snow and other historians of Red Chinese affairs?

[03_SHOOTER]

I'm intrigued, honestly. Communist organizations are characterized by tight personal control by a charismatic leader over subordinate units. This is true of Soviet, Yugoslav, Chinese, Vietnamese and especially Korean communist party organs. Would you post the leadership, organizational structure and campaigns of these Red Guard(s) of whom you have enlightened us? Why would Mao hide this party organ from Edgar Snow and other historians of Red Chinese affairs?

I no longer have any information on leadership (other than Mao), organizational structure or campaigns any longer as the vast majority of my research material was destroyed in Katrina.

[Murray B]

Thank you 03shooter for going through the historical materials, selecting the correct information, and presenting it in readable form. Many veterans do not seem to understand that most civilians do not really have a mechanism to separate the good history from the bad.

I too think you should write a book if you have time but I will also mention that for a book to be any good you will need to find a strict editor. If they are any good they will make you real mad but your work will be even better for it.

Thanks again for sharing your experiences.

[03_SHOOTER]

Thank you 03shooter for going through the historical materials, selecting the correct information, and presenting it in readable form. Many veterans do not seem to understand that most civilians do not really have a mechanism to separate the good history from the bad.

And thank you for the compliment Murray. After having lost a very dear cousin in Vietnam, and then hearing all of the "we lost" garbage, I became very motivated to find out what really happened, to find out if my cousin had really died in vain, or if he had sacrificed his life for what he felt was a noble cause in the defense of those who could not defend themselves. With my step-father, and three other cousins who had also served in Vietnam as references for a starting point I began my research and quickly came to the conclusion that all of the people who were spreading their blatantly erroneous propaganda were either mindless products of the "boob-tube" generation who couldn't be bothered to find out if the "talking heads" were right or not, or they were the "useful idiots" that Lenin spoke of who were intentionally fomenting their lies in order to promote the spread of Communism and their ultimate goal of the downfall of America.

When the opportunity presented itself in one of my classes, I seized upon it to put the stacks of information that I had found into a format (albeit a very short one, as the Prof. limited the length of our essays) that would be easily readable, backed by facts and original source material, and keeping my own personal opinion to a minimum until the conclusion in order to attempt to dispel the myths, rumors, and fallacious innuendo about our involvement in Vietnam.

I too think you should write a book if you have time but I will also mention that for a book to be any good you will need to find a strict editor. If they are any good they will make you real mad but your work will be even better for it.

Right now I'm in the process of trying to find a publisher for a 1300+ page book I've already completed, and if I'm successful in that, then I'll begin work on the next one. Unfortunately when Hurricane Katrina struck, I lost the vast majority of my research material, and I haven't yet taken the time to reassemble it, but it is my intention to do so when I can take the time to dedicate to it again.

Thanks again for sharing your experiences.

Thank you again, but I do need to be clear, I did not serve in Vietnam. The War had already been over by a few years by the time I was old enough to enlist.

[wukong]

Yes, yes, it is so wonderful to know that 58,000 American service members did not die in vain to keep the Southern portion of Viet Nam from falling under the control of monolithic world communism as practiced by those commies in North Viet Nam.

McNamara and historical documents clearly indicate that the "war" in Viet Nam could not be won in a political context consistent with the will of the American public in 1965.

Evidently the "Domino Theory" was validated by the war between Communist Viet Nam and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Further validated by war between Communist Viet Nam and the Peoples Republic of China. Further validated by hostile action between the Peoples Republic of China and the USSR. And ----- by all means Tito's Yugoslavia was just an anomaly. You know those commies all stick together. They will readily sacrifice their own people in the expansion of Soviet led world domination. Since the Commies never made it to San Angelo, TX we obviously won.

Could perhaps Vietnamese reunification have occurred with 57,000 dead Americans or perhaps 20,000 dead American? I wonder where the Vietnamese got all those soldiers to fight Cambodia and China after we destroyed them by the gazillions? Why if we had just stuck it out for another 10 years and expended 116,000 Americans and killed every man, woman and child in Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia, the Berlin wall would have came down in perhaps 1982 instead of several years later. War is like basketball, the side that kills the most is the winner.

Katrina was such a disaster. Has to be the greatest loss of intellectual material since the burning of the library at Alexandria. Thank god in his mercy that we are blessed with people of unimpeachable encyclopedic memory.

[Murray B]

Thank you again, but I do need to be clear, I did not serve in Vietnam. The War had already been over by a few years by the time I was old enough to enlist.

That is okay but it means that your editor needs to be a combat veteran with good editing skills if you want to record the facts. Wukong and Hairy both remind me of some excellent but strict editors I have had.

[wukong]

For those interested in our victory in Viet Nam this should prove interesting.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/February%202007/0207pentagon.aspx

The Pentagon Papers

What the Study Disclosed
Most of what the Pentagon Papers revealed was already known in a general way, or at least suspected. A Washington Post editorial June 17 said, “The story that unfolds is not new in its essence—the calculated misleading of the public, the purposeful manipulation of public opinion, the stunning discrepancies between public pronouncements and private plans—we had bits and pieces of all that before. But not in such incredibly damning form, not with such irrefutable documentation.”

The archive also provided complete documents rather than excerpts, and it exposed the differences between official public statements and what government officials were saying to each other internally. Among the instances noted were these.

The Diem overthrow. The Kennedy Administration professed shock and surprise when South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem was overthrown and killed in November 1963. However, in a top secret cablegram Aug. 29, Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge said, “We are launched on a course from which there is no respectable turning back: the overthrow of the Diem government.” On Oct. 30, McGeorge Bundy, special assistant to the President, cabled Lodge that “once a coup under responsible leadership has begun, ... it is in the interest of the US government that it should succeed.” Bundy said there should be no direct US intervention on either side “without authorization from Washington.”

Escalation of the war. In the 1964 election campaign, the Democrats depicted Republican challenger Barry M. Goldwater as a dangerous extremist, determined to expand the war into North Vietnam. In fact, the Administration’s thoughts were not all that different from Goldwater’s.

In September, a contingency plan by McNamara’s confidant, McNaughton, proposed actions that “should be likely at some point to provoke a military response [and] the provoked response should be likely to provide good grounds for us to escalate if we wished.” Care should be taken, McNaughton said, so these actions were not “distorted to the US public” before the upcoming elections.
The ground war. In October 1964, Johnson said, “We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”

In March 1965, two Marine battalions landed at Da Nang for the sole purpose of defending the air base there. Less than a month later, their mission was changed “to permit their more active use.” The White House directed that “premature publicity be avoided” to “minimize any appearance of sudden changes in policy” and continued to deny that the mission of ground troops in Vietnam had changed. In July, Johnson approved the deployment of 44 ground battalions to Vietnam.

Purpose of the war. In early 1964, Johnson and McNamara said that the central US aim was to secure an “independent, non-Communist South Vietnam.” In a March 24, 1965 “Plan for Action for Vietnam,” McNaughton listed a different set of priorities:

“US Aims: 70 percent—To avoid a humiliating US defeat (to our reputation as a guarantor). 20 percent—To keep SVN (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands. 10 percent—To permit the people of SVN to enjoy a better, freer way of life. ALSO—To emerge from the crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.NOT—To ‘help a friend,’ although it would be hard to stay in if asked out.”

[03_SHOOTER]

The Pentagon Papers?? PLEASE! That report was completed in 1968, a full 5 years BEFORE we bombed the N. Vietnamese into capitulation. Referencing them as any kind of "vindication" for a defeatist mentality is as intellectually disingenuous as reading a synopsis of the first half of Super Bowl X and declaring that Pittsburgh "lost" regardless of the fact that the final score was 21-17 Steelers.

[wukong]

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1987/werrell.html
Linebacker II:

What did the bombing achieve? On the diplomatic front, the North Vietnamese returned to the peace talks apparently with a different attitude. This was the purpose of the bombing, and there were changes to the final treaty. We got what we wanted––our POWs out, the South Vietnamese onboard, and some face saving. The North Vietnamese got us out; the South Vietnamese got some assurances from the United States. However, the bottom line remains that there were no substantial changes from the agreements made in October.

Nevertheless, strategic bombing of North Vietnam was unable to achieve decisive results for two other reasons. First and foremost, there were no vital strategic targets in the North, with the possible exception of people. Second, American airmen were neither adequately equipped nor tactically ready to carry out decisive nonnuclear operations. Linebacker II was not, and could not be, decisive in the Vietnam War.

If you perhaps chanced to read Kissinger's papers you would gather that he alone of all people on Earth "expected" the North Vietnamese to live up to the Paris Agreement.

Linebacker II was in many ways the campaign over a photo op. Nixon did not want to be the President when our POW were marched out under the guns of the North Vietnamese as the French after Dien Bien Phu or the British at Yorktown.

I believe that this paper accurately reflects the opinion of those who make a living in the study and exercise of warfare that the only strategic target was the people of Viet Nam. Adds clarity to the saying, "We had to burn it down to save it." You seem to have a moral kinship with the likes of Himmler, Bin laden, and McVeigh.

[HairyEyeball]

It appears that the major participants here are all viewing (most of) the same set of 'facts' (and factoids, and mis- and disinformation) and reaching vastly different conclusions. In an effort to bring some context to the opposing views, perhaps those proponents of 'we lost' would care to posit their concept of what they would define as 'victory'?

If we know what would cause you to believe we had won, perhaps your arguments and assertions that we did not might become clearer.

[wukong]

In early 1964, Johnson and McNamara said that the central US aim was to secure an “independent, non-Communist South Vietnam.

Was this not the specific political objective of the exercise of US military power? Is this not the rational presented to the American people for the use of their army? Was any other concrete political objective cited to the American people for the employment of some 2 million GI's? What is the name of that huge city on the North shore of the Mekong delta? Did not the Paris Peace Accords promise US military assistance and involvement to accomplish this political objective?

Winning would be "an independent, non-Communist South Vietnam." How else can you justify 58,000 dead Americans?

[03_SHOOTER]

Was this not the specific political objective of the exercise of US military power? Is this not the rational presented to the American people for the use of their army? Was any other concrete political objective cited to the American people for the employment of some 2 million GI's? What is the name of that huge city on the North shore of the Mekong delta? Did not the Paris Peace Accords promise US military assistance and involvement to accomplish this political objective?

Winning would be "an independent, non-Communist South Vietnam." How else can you justify 58,000 dead Americans?

For the moment totally disregarding the ORIGINAL goal as established by President Eisenhower in 1954 (and 4 years before the Birchers) having been shifted (nothing like moving the goal posts while the game is underway), then we are fully in agreement after all, because in 1973, when the War ended, and we VICTORIOUSLY left Vietnam in compliance with the terms of the Paris Peace Accords, there was in fact "an independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", so using your own definition, WE WON!

[03_SHOOTER]

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1987/werrell.html


If you perhaps chanced to read Kissinger's papers you would gather that he alone of all people on Earth "expected" the North Vietnamese to live up to the Paris Agreement.

Linebacker II was in many ways the campaign over a photo op. Nixon did not want to be the President when our POW were marched out under the guns of the North Vietnamese as the French after Dien Bien Phu or the British at Yorktown.

I believe that this paper accurately reflects the opinion of those who make a living in the study and exercise of warfare that the only strategic target was the people of Viet Nam. Adds clarity to the saying, "We had to burn it down to save it." You seem to have a moral kinship with the likes of Himmler, Bin laden, and McVeigh.

No, you're little paper reflects the opinion of a revisionist asshat who has obviously been educated well beyond his intelligence level as the disclaimer at the bottom of the page clearly announces;

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

For those of you that have difficulty following the above (that means you wukong), the disclaimer says that these are the opinions and conclusions of a Libtard gutless surrender monkey, and "useful idiot" that bear absolutely no semblance to reality, and were obviously conceived while under the influence of copious amounts of alcohol and/or illegal narcotics.

One of the major advantages of living where I do (right outside of Ft. Bragg) is the fact that I routinely interact with Vetarans of the Vietnam War, and over the past couple of weeks I've solicited the opinions of all of those Veterans of Vietnam I've come in contact with in my daily travels, Officers, Warrant Officers, and Enlisted, and to a man they have all said that anyone who thinks that we "lost" in Vietnam is (please note the quotes) "an idiot", and (today from a Retired Chief Warrant Officer 5 who pulled 3 tours there) "anyone who served in Vietnam who says we lost must have been a stoner REFM, some other kind of chair polisher who sure as hell didn't do any of the fighting, or is lying about having been there". Now you can take that for what it's worth, and if you doubt me, feel free to come on up and I'll be more than happy to take you around to some of the local watering holes and you can ask them for yourself, but I would suggest that if you do, you wear a cup and boxers head protection, because around here, your kind of talk usually ends up with someone taking a trip to the hospital.

As to your parting shot, I've already told you Comrade, I'm not the slightest bit interested in engaging in useless badinage with someone that would make Engels, Lenin, Marx, Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin proud, so go put your well worn copy of Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza on the phonograph, unfurl your Soviet flag, pour yourself a large Vodka and reflect longingly of the glory days of your beloved USSR.

[03_SHOOTER]

It appears that the major participants here are all viewing (most of) the same set of 'facts' (and factoids, and mis- and disinformation) and reaching vastly different conclusions. In an effort to bring some context to the opposing views, perhaps those proponents of 'we lost' would care to posit their concept of what they would define as 'victory'?

If we know what would cause you to believe we had won, perhaps your arguments and assertions that we did not might become clearer.

My definition of victory is the one originally laid down by President Eisenhower in 1954, specifically that all of Asia was not to be allowed to fall under Communist control and the resultant enslavement and murder of tens, if not hundreds of millions of people, and the loss of access to those resources that are/were vital to our national security.

It was this very clear mission statement that resulted in the very first Special Forces teams being dispatched to Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam in 1955 and 1956. It is also a result of that mission statement, and our commitment to preventing the fall of Asia to the Communists that the very first American to give his life in that War, Captain Harry G. Cramer Jr. of the 14th SFOD, died on October 21, 1957 when the VC mortared his teams position about 10 miles south of Nha Trang. He is buried at USMA Cemetary where he had been the youngest member of the Class of 1946, and "Road 1" of the new 1st Special Forces compound at Ft. Lewis Washington was named "Cramer Ave." in his honor.

As a nation, we lost over 58,000 brave Americans in that War, including my dear cousin Tommy Hosey, in order to accomplish the mission laid down for us by President Eisenhower, and I will not allow to go unchallenged attempts by historical revisionists to sully their names by implying that they died in vain, for some "hopeless cause", or that we "lost".

[wukong]

I suppose it would have been impossible to get out in 1964 with perhaps 50,000 less dead than to drag a "victory" out 9 years later with all the blood, sacrifice, and wasted treasure. As far as the Domino Theory, what stopped the Vietnamese from rolling thru Thailand in 1975 like a dose of salts thru a widow woman. It sure was not US national will for some ally in Southeast Asia. The Vietnamese armed forces were the 4th largest combat hardened force in the world.

I have numerous family members who served in Southeast Asia, some were injured. I don't subscribe to sentimentality. You can argue your own set of facts oblivious to the reality that Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City. The American public developed "victory fatigue" from defeating the Vietnamese too often. It is time to give the Vietnamese credit for their accomplishments and move on to the development of a "natural ally" of US interest which should have happened 50 years ago.

[03_SHOOTER]

I suppose it would have been impossible to get out in 1964 with perhaps 50,000 less dead than to drag a "victory" out 9 years later with all the blood, sacrifice, and wasted treasure.

If we had, we would have lost, because not only would Vietnam have fallen, but all of Asia would have as well, shortly followed by Western Europe, and then we would have completely been cut off.

You can cry all of the Liberal tripe you want to about "wasted treasure", but that doesn't change the fact that that's exactly what it is; tripe. We lost over 1 million dead and wounded in the 45 months of WWII, but by contrast we lost just over 58,000 in the 16 YEARS of our involvement in Vietnam. We didn't resort to nuking anyone like we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we didn't indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands at a shot by fire bombing the major cities of N. Vietnam like we had in Tokyo and Dresden, we didn't throw thousands of our own troops at heavily fortified positions like we had on D-Day, and we sure as hell weren't interested in occupying Vietnam like we had to do in Japan and Germany, where we still have forces to this day! We simply used the least amount of force necessary, while maximizing the casualties and loss of matériel of the enemy, and drug them out until they simply couldn't effectively respond any longer. We exhausted them, militarily and economically, and gave them no other choice but to capitulate, which they did.

Could the War have been prosecuted more effectively? Of course. SHOULD it have been prosecuted more effectively? Absolutely! But we can sit here and play Monday Morning Quarterback for the next thousand years about the "would've and could've" but that doesn't change the facts of the end result, which was that, by your own definition, in 1973 when we left Vietnam we left them an "independent and non-communist S. Vietnam". The only reason that they weren't able to hold on to it is because of the Communists in our own Congress who violated our Treaty with them, and left them twisting in the wind with their dick in their hands 2 years after the War was over.

EDIT TO ADDRESS YOUR EDIT

As far as the Domino Theory, what stopped the Vietnamese from rolling thru Thailand in 1975 like a dose of salts thru a widow woman. It sure was not US national will for some ally in Southeast Asia.

They did not have the resources to take Thailand and S. Vietnam, but I suspect you know that just as well as I do.

The Vietnamese armed forces were the 4th largest combat hardened force in the world.

Yeah, sure, but only if you counted every single man, woman and child in Vietnam in 1975.

I have numerous family members who served in Southeast Asia, some were injured. I don't subscribe to sentimentality.

So they tell you that you're full of **** too huh.

You can argue your own set of facts oblivious to the reality that Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

Attempting to move the goal posts in the middle of the game again I see. To remind you, your OWN definition was that we leave "an independent and non-communist S. Vietnam", now was, or was not, S. Vietnam independent and non-communist when we left in 1973? This is not a difficult question, so a simple yes or no will suffice.

The American public developed "victory fatigue" from defeating the Vietnamese too often.

Yup, as I said earlier, we kicked the crap out of the "little guy", but he kept getting up again, and it got to the point that it was embarrassing having him beat the mess out of our fist with his face, so we pile drove him in Linebacker II, and that time he STAYED down.

It is time to give the Vietnamese credit for their accomplishments and move on to the development of a "natural ally" of US interest which should have happened 50 years ago.

Give them "credit"? OK, we'll give them credit for violating every Treaty they have EVER signed. We'll give them credit for violating every cease-fire that THEY asked for. We'll give them credit for BUTCHERING hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who didn't want anything to do with Communism. Let's see, what else can we give those little heathen sacks of feces credit for? OH, that's right, let's give them credit for getting the crap kicked out of them by the United States Armed Forces and taking 2 years to recover before they once again violated their Treaty and invaded a sovereign nation. And one other thing we'll give them credit for is finally realizing the Communism was a complete waste of time which is why they're embracing CAPITALISM today!

[wukong]

I must apologize to Henry Kissinger. Evidently there is at least one other person that expected North Viet Nam to live up to an obligation to let the Catholic Kleptocracy continue to rule in the South.

[03_SHOOTER]

I must apologize to Henry Kissinger. Evidently there is at least one other person that expected North Viet Nam to live up to an obligation to let the Catholic Kleptocracy continue to rule in the South.

You mean like the one they're living under today? The entire religion argument is a strawman wukong as no Buddhist ever 'ruled' Vietnam, and as HE pointed out, never would have even wanted to.

[wukong]

I posted:
In early 1964, Johnson and McNamara said that the central US aim was to secure an “independent, non-Communist South Vietnam.

You countered:
To remind you, your OWN definition was that we leave "an independent and non-communist S. Vietnam", now was, or was not, S. Vietnam independent and non-communist when we left in 1973? This is not a difficult question, so a simple yes or no will suffice.

So good of you to interpret MY definition which is a quote from the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers are well documented as they are Pentagon documents. In my quote the operative word is secure. The operative word in your regurgitation is "leave." The speed of which was astounding. I will admit that your quote has more reality than our governments stated objective.

You mean like the one they're living under today? The entire religion argument is a strawman wukong as no Buddhist ever 'ruled' Vietnam, and as HE pointed out, never would have even wanted to.

Vietnamese history, little of which most Americans have read, is several thousands years long. I was not aware of your vast in depth of knowledge of Viet Nam's religious history and the dynastic history of the Vietnamese people. I suppose they have been ruled by Roman Catholics for thousands of years. Glory be, we have finally found the kingdom of Prester John. I guess we can chalk another loss to Katrina.

Yup, as I said earlier, we kicked the crap out of the "little guy", but he kept getting up again, and it got to the point that it was embarrassing having him beat the mess out of our fist with his face, so we pile drove him in Linebacker II, and that time he STAYED down.
Was it the Chinese, Cambodians or perhaps an army of turncoat liberals who marched into Saigon in 1975? Very clever of them to stage manage a broken down Vietnamese in a broken down tank in a well distributed flag ceremony.

Give them "credit"? OK, we'll give them credit for violating every Treaty they have EVER signed.

Treaty? With whom? Careful, your mantle of Pontifex Maximus of forum Constitutional Law appears to be slipping a bit. A treaty has certain legal requirements or are you not so sure of the Civics lessons of high school?

I guess there are good violations by altruistic outsiders as opposed to bad violations by prime players.

http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/bios/html/diem.html

(Ngo Dinh Diem) became prime minister of South Vietnam in 1954 just as the defeated French forces left. The peace accord called for elections in 1956 and unification of the divided country. With American support, Ngo cancelled the elections, knowing full well that Ho Chi Minh would have easily won the presidency. Over the next seven years, he presided over an increasingly corrupt, nepotistic and repressive regime. Communist guerrillas backed by North Vietnam launched a new rebellion, but a civil disobedience campaign led by the country's Buddhist monks contributed more directly to his downfall. Brutal persecution of the dissident monks in 1963 damaged the regime's already shaky international reputation. With American support, Vietnamese generals overthrew and assassinated Ngo later that year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjpAh4rqTv4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PWM9gWR5E

Do you ever wonder how Americans would react to an unwanted colonial power?

[03_SHOOTER]

I posted:
I know what you posted
You countered:
With your own words.
So good of you to interpret MY definition which is a quote from the Pentagon Papers. The Pentagon Papers are well documented as they are Pentagon documents. In my quote the operative word is secure. The operative word in your regurgitation is "leave." The speed of which was astounding. I will admit that your quote has more reality than our governments stated objective.
I didn't interpret anything wukong, I directly quoted you. Now, seeing as words really do have meaning, I can only go by what you write, so if you meant something else, you should have written it instead. As to the "Pentagon Papers", we've already established that they are completely inconsequential to anything that happened after 1967 as all the data contained therein is based solely on that information accumulated from 1945 until 1967. Again, you're still trying to say that the Steelers "lost" Super Bowl X based on the score at half time. I would also appreciate it if you would stop attempting to use your revisionist historical techniques. You never used the word "secure" in your definition of what victory meant to you, as is plainly clear to anyone reading your post (http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/board/showpost.php?p=11438&postcount=52).

Was it the Chinese, Cambodians or perhaps an army of turncoat liberals who marched into Saigon in 1975? Very clever of them to stage manage a broken down Vietnamese in a broken down tank in a well distributed flag ceremony.
Again with moving the goal posts! What happened in 1975 has no bearing on our victory in 1973. You can continue to drag that drek up as much as you want to, but it still doesn't mean anything. As has been stated repeatedly, using your highly dubious logic, the fact that the Germans attacked their neighbors beginning in 1939 would mean that they won WWI in 1918!
Treaty? With whom? Careful, your mantle of Pontifex Maximus of forum Constitutional Law appears to be slipping a bit. A treaty has certain legal requirements or are you not so sure of the Civics lessons of high school?
I'm beginning to think that you don't even possess a High School Diploma, or perhaps you just never heard of the 1954 Peace Treaty or for that matter the 1973 Peace Treaty? I know they're generally called the "Geneva Accords" which is probably what's confusing you, but they are TREATIES nonetheless, and the N. Vietnamese violated them before the ink was even dry.

As to the rest of your vain attempts at misdirection, the 1956 elections have absolutely no bearing on our victory and will not be entertained at this time.

[wukong]

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/vietnam/pow_mia/06_paris.txt

The U.S. entered the negotiations with three goals foremost in
mind. The first was to obtain the fullest possible accounting of
American POW/MIAs. The second was to ensure that the Government of
South Vietnam's President Nguyen Van Thieu could stand alone after
U.S. withdrawal. And the third was to establish a framework for the
future political self-determination of the South Vietnamese people.

The overriding goal of the DRV, on the other hand, was to establish
the conditions that would make a Communist military takeover in the
south more likely.

Maybe we did win, the US got what we wanted from the 1954 and 1973 Accords and the North Vietnamese got NADA. It is so crystal clear now. It is so un-cricket when someone "cheats" at war. Can you imagine someone acting so Machiavellian in these modern times? Have they no shame?

[03_SHOOTER]

In my entire life, I've never seen anyone argue so hard to prove that they got their ass kicked.

[wukong]

George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Propaganda sometimes has it's place. However, when one comes to believe in it and plan accordingly results differ radically from desires. Just because you subscribe to a "domino theory" does not obligate Mao, Tito, Ho, or Sukarno to act in accordance to the same illusion.

It is great fun to be number 9 in a formation dropping a brigade of airborne troops. Javalin missiles and J-DAM's can deliver overwhelming firepower. We can create one hell of a vacuum. But before we exercise that power to create a political vacuum, we need an answer to the question: "what will fill it?"

We conquered Japan through military might, we won when the Japanese people stopped believing in Tojoist propaganda. That is the significance between US occupation of both Germany and Japan as opposed to Soviet occupation. No significant indigenous opposition developed to US occupation that required the raw use of military power to quell. Somehow people of whatever stripe or caste seem to resent the use of raw alien power.

One never learns a lesson when one fails to recognize reality. If we draw the conclusion that the exercise of military power for no measureable political objective is winning, how can a cost/benefit analysis me made for the venture? We do have a metaphor for such, it is call a Pyrrhic victory.

[03_SHOOTER]

George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Which is exactly why we didn't leave Iraq immediately after deposing Saddam, and have remained, and hopefully will continue to remain until such time as the Iraqi government is fully operational and capable of defending themselves against the very real threat from across it's eastern border. We did learn exactly what happens when we leave before the government we have assisted is fully capable of running and defending itself, and unless the Kenyan illegal immigrant and his Communist sycophants in Congress screw it up (like their predecessors did 36 years ago), we won't be repeating that mistake any time soon.

Propaganda sometimes has it's place. However, when one comes to believe in it and plan accordingly results differ radically from desires. Just because you subscribe to a "domino theory" does not obligate Mao, Tito, Ho, or Sukarno to act in accordance to the same illusion.

Again you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the facts. It's not a matter of anyone "subscribing" to the "domino theory", the Communists themselves, including Stalin, Mao, and Uncle Ho repeatedly made it abundantly clear that their goals included the "domino theory" for the fall of Asia. The only people operating under any "illusion" are the ones that refuse to accept that the "domino theory" wasn't a "theory" at all, but a fact.

But before we exercise that power to create a political vacuum, we need an answer to the question: "what will fill it?"

And how many more will have to die while we're trying to figure out what's going to fill it? Did we wait to engage the Japanese or Germans until we could figure out what was going to replace Hitler and Hirohito? NO! We kicked the crap out of them and THEN worried about what to replace them with.

We conquered Japan through military might,

Correct.

we won when the Japanese people stopped believing in Tojoist propaganda.

Wrong. We won when we dropped 2 atomic bombs on them, and threatened to drop even more if they didn't submit. Belief or not in Tojoist propaganda had nothing to do with our victory over Japan, their belief that we would incinerate their entire population is what tipped the scales.

That is the significance between US occupation of both Germany and Japan as opposed to Soviet occupation. No significant indigenous opposition developed to US occupation that required the raw use of military power to quell. Somehow people of whatever stripe or caste seem to resent the use of raw alien power.

The reason that no real opposition developed was because they were defeated and they KNEW IT. In Germany the only way that they could have continued to oppose us would have been to adopt the Palestinian tactic of throwing rocks. The Japanese didn't mount any opposition because (thank God) their Emperor told them not to, for without his instruction to surrender and cooperate with us there would no longer be a Japanese race.

One never learns a lesson when one fails to recognize reality. If we draw the conclusion that the exercise of military power for no measureable political objective is winning, how can a cost/benefit analysis me made for the venture? We do have a metaphor for such, it is call a Pyrrhic victory.

And once again you fail to acknowledge the facts. We DID achieve our measurable political objective because all of Asia has never fallen under the control of the Communists. Cambodia, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Japan, Formosa, Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as all of Western Europe are all still free and independent nations, free of communist influence. In the years since the end of the War in Vietnam, ALL of the Communist nations that existed in 1973 when we withdrew, if they haven't completely thrown off the yoke of Communism, have begun adopting OUR Capitalist economic system and allowing far more of OUR style of freedom than they ever had under Marxist Communism because they have finally realized that Communism simply doesn't work. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. If you consider our unfettered access to free and independent trading partners, natural resources, shipping and trading routes for the past 36 years as opposed to having those trading partners under the iron thumb of communism, and no access to those same said resources, and no access to Pacific trading routes to be a "Pyrrhic victory", then you truly do have a rather narrow and naive concept of geopolitics and history.

[HairyEyeball]

We conquered Japan through military might, we won when the Japanese people stopped believing in Tojoist propaganda.

Say, what? What manner of revisionist crap have you been reading? The Japanese people, still believing in the 'godhood' of their emperor, stopped fighting when he 'deigned' to appear on the radio appealing to them to lay down their arms. Without the emperor's permission to cease resistance, neither two atomic bombs nor the certainty of invasion would have caused them to surrender until the entire 'race' was annihilated.

The postwar occupation of Japan - and of Germany - was deemed 'necessary' not to quell any presumptive 'indigenous opposition' nor recurrence of hostilities, but to fill the vacuum left by the fascist 'enforcers' who provided 'police' presence and apportioned resources to the 'party faithful'; as well as administering the millions of American dollars poured into rebuilding the societies, manufacturing capabilities, and infrastructure of those nations (who had, so recently, attempted to destroy us).

That, and anywhere the US and its erstwhile allies 'were', the soviets 'weren't'.