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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Javelin66

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.

Originally Posted by Javelin66

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.

Originally Posted by Javelin66

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.

Originally Posted by Javelin66

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?

Originally Posted by Javelin66

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]

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

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]

Originally Posted by Javelin66

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]

Originally Posted by 03_SHOOTER

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?