Why Couldnt the US win the Viet Nam conflict?

anyuta said:
On October 31st after the crops new york escort were all gathered new york asian escort and stored for the long winter,the cooking fires in the homes would be put out. The Druids，the Celtic new york escorts priests,would meet at the top of the hill in the dark oak forest［oak trees were thought to be sacred.The Druids would light new fires，and then offered some crops and animals which theynew york asian escorts killed to their God. As they danced around the fires，the season of the sun passed and the season of darkness would begin.
Click to expand...

Finally a straight answer for this topic. The US was not using the right escort service, how obvious.:lol:

Like the dancing around the fires part.:firedevi:
 
Why we lost the war

It was the bleeding heart liberals in congress that stopped the bombing of the Ho Chi Min Trail that lost the war for us. In 1968 I was at the bottom of the trail about 10 miles south of Saigon in a Infantry Unit and up until they stopped the bombing they only had the Viet Con to fight and they weren't really into fighting. After they stopped the bombs the NVA showed up.
 
IT WAS NOT THE MILITARY THAT LOST THE VIETNAM WAR.

Any time there was one military force against another military force, the United States force won every single battle. It was ONLY because Congress would NOT allow the military to carry out conventional warfare, that the war was lost. As Paddie said, the bleeding heart liberals were dead-set against carrying out bombing in the North that would have forced North Vietnam to come to the Peace Table to seek a cessation of the war that was raging in the South. As in any real war, you have to hurt the other side bad enough that THEY want to stop the fighting. Being unable to take the war to the heart of the North, we were unable to force the issue. Granted the Vietnam War was a guerrilla war, bombing the North (as we did in Germany), would have forced them to be serious when they came to the Peace Talks (which they never were).

Bottom line: IT WAS NOT THE MILITARY THAT LOST THE VIETNAM WAR.
 
Chief Bones said:
Any time there was one military force against another military force, the United States force won every single battle. It was ONLY because Congress would NOT allow the military to carry out conventional warfare, that the war was lost. As Paddie said, the bleeding heart liberals were dead-set against carrying out bombing in the North that would have forced North Vietnam to come to the Peace Table to seek a cessation of the war that was raging in the South. As in any real war, you have to hurt the other side bad enough that THEY want to stop the fighting. Being unable to take the war to the heart of the North, we were unable to force the issue. Granted the Vietnam War was a guerrilla war, bombing the North (as we did in Germany), would have forced them to be serious when they came to the Peace Talks (which they never were).

Bottom line: IT WAS NOT THE MILITARY THAT LOST THE VIETNAM WAR.
Click to expand...

Well I agree with your overall conclusion that the military wasn't to blame for the failure of the vietnam war. I do ask however if it was the lack of a "conventional" war that was to blame.

Yes we should have launched Linebacker II from the get go, but would that have been enough? The thing is, its extremely difficult for a conventional army to defeat an irregular one, to my knowledge it only happened once in the past 50 years in Greece after WWII. Its precisely whats going on in Afghanistan right now, while the taliban aren't beating us it certainly looks like they have got us chasing our own tail.

I think the ultimate reason of the vietnam war's failure was that the US backed the wrong horse. So fervent were we in our anti-communist zeal that we failed to recognize that we were protecting several corrupt dictators who ruthlessly oppressed their own people, while the communists were a highly motivated, nationalist movement with wide public support.

When you in this type of situation, it doesn't matter who many troops and guns you got, chances are you are going to lose. We Americans should know about how a underfunded underequipped army smashed a top notch military fighting force. Just ask the British at Yorktown.

Then again, I'll be the first to admit Im talking out of my as*, as when you were fighting in Vietnam I was getting my diapers changed.
 
Last edited:
the North knew the war was un popular and relied heavily on the political upheaval and dissension. and they got it. in spades.

we jumped for joy when we heard this. officers and enlisted. I was in training in san diego.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-FibDxpkb0"]YouTube - Lyndon Johnson - Remarks on Decision to not seek Reelection[/ame]​
 
United States Lost the war because they were making their stakes on bombs - rather than finding allies. Bombs are just boxes that kill - they will not rule the country you wish to capture. Bombs are important in right place and right time, but without the proper homework - they are useless.
 
The US hadn't done their counterinsurgency homework.
It's a chronic problem with the US military and the US in general, it wants to think that every war is World War II.
 
NoNameAtAll said:
United States Lost the war because they were making their stakes on bombs - rather than finding allies. Bombs are just boxes that kill - they will not rule the country you wish to capture. Bombs are important in right place and right time, but without the proper homework - they are useless.
Click to expand...

Gotta have feet on the ground to clean up the mess, country building in its very nature, is very expensive, time consuming, and very very difficult to do, in this day and age, as far as I can see, the U.S. is the only power who endeavors into it.
 
I think there were two contributing factors
1)Political opinion in the US. I think I've said enough
2)Guerrila warfare
Yes, the US was winning the war militarily, but like a (sorry for US people and especially for vets, I couldn't think of another expression) limping giant. It's nearly indestructible, very powerful, but couldn't respond to small attacks like the VC does. It's like one battleship vs hundreds of speedboats armed with armor-piercers
 
I think the anti-war demonstrations etc. were not the cause of the defeat but a symptom of a war going badly which ultimately accelerated the inevitable.
 
A Can of Man said:
I think the anti-war demonstrations etc. were not the cause of the defeat but a symptom of a war going badly which ultimately accelerated the inevitable.
Click to expand...
The anti war protests were wide spread across the US & likely crushed the will of the politicians to support the war.Cronkite throwing in the towel mid battle during the Tet Offensive when a long ways too. This is a long Thread & can't remember earlier comments of mine, but the constant press coverage showing our guys getting killed in what looked like the same paddy day after day w/o sign of progress wore down a public who had an expectation of victorious progress.
 
We lost the war in Vietnam, not due to the soldiers fighting it but because of the socialist governments that gained control of our countries and the lack of will of the average citizen. I have friends who served and they all state they fought a containing war not an offensive one.
 
Even though many people don't view the Vietnam War as a conventional war, the fact remains that the Guerilla forces were getting their marching orders from the North. Had we carried out attacks in the North as we did in Germany and Japan, the war could have been won through attrition.

Isn't that what was basically done during WWII. We wore the enemy forces down.

The politicians wouldn't allow the military to carry out attacks in the North ... NOUGH SAID ?????
 
Politicians micromanaging Vietnam from Washington didnt help.
Same reason we have missed Bin Laden so many times.

When they turn our forces loose and say "We dont care how you do it
just get the job done." we always win.

To wit: Sept. 11th New York and DC hit by Taliban shielded terrorist.
Night of Nov. 12th Taliban fleeing Kabul like rats on a sinking ship.
 
duoya321 said:
China communist party said ,they can not tolerate European and American,Russia stayed at Asia once more, they should get out of Asia continent, If Eoroprean and American had many moneys spent at military ,why they don't relieve the hungry people in blacke Africa and other poor Asia country ,like India and Bangladesh， the PLA would should their military power ,give a big lesson to European, NATO amry ,are you ready to fight ?
​
Click to expand...


Are you asking if we want to fight? The CCP cannot afford any war with the west. Their entire economy depends on us. As long as that is the case, the CCP will not make a move on Taiwan. Can the CCP do what the US military is and has been doing for years? Fight a protracted war half-way around the world for years. No they can't and yes we can. If it comes to it, we will fight. Still, the likelyhood of a war between the US/NATO/UN and communist China is slim to none...at least for the next 20-30 years.
 
China back north Vietnam fight against American, China provide the weapons and foods ,equiqments ,trucks and military consutants.How the American can win it.?
 
ticwocw said:
China back north Vietnam fight against American, China provide the weapons and foods ,equiqments ,trucks and military consutants.How the American can win it.?
Click to expand...

Couldn't read these posts without thinking about a bloke in the neighbourhood, very active wherever he could make his voice heard, he jumped on every oportunity to opose something and usually held a flaming speech, during which he normaly managed to contradict himself at least 2-3 times, before he ended up with a conclusion pretty close to what others had allready suggested.

It's almost as if I will miss the little bugger. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top