Who lost the Vietnam war and why?

[time expired]

I just finished rereading the long discussion about Gen Haig in WW1
and found very interesting,a shame it just tapered off.However I am
sure we could generate am equally interesting discussion on the
subject of the Vietnam war.
Mods if you feel this is in the wrong forum please move.
This war has one thing in common with with WW1,the facts are so
clouded by missinformation mainly by the media and the antiwar
movement, that it is very difficult to find any degree of "truth"
about this war.I think the two questions that concern me are should
America have fought the war at all and could it have been won.
                                      Regards

 

[Kat Stevens]

Casualty counts are not an  indicator of won/lost.  The US were forced to withdraw their forces, and the South was quickly overran.  THERE'S your win indicator.

 

[exspy]

Time,

In my opinion, the US and its South Vietnamese ally lost the war.  For the US the 'why' is down to the political leadership of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson who wanted victory without cost.  The 'why' for the South Vietnamese was the people not willing to support a corrupt regime no matter what the alternative may have meant.  I don't think it has anything to do with number of casualties, or of troops committed, or of the billions spent, or of superpower realpolitik, but the lack of an American will to fight a sustained all out war and the lack of the support of the South Vietnamese people.

Cheers,
Dan.

 

[mariomike]

Note: I accidentally removed, rather than modify, my original post.

I mentioned kill ratio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
The dominos did not fall in Asia to Communism. By 1979, American trade with Asia had surpassed trade with Europe. Asian prosperity is the wonder of the 21st century. The Republic of Vietnam is poverty stricken.

 

[Kat Stevens]

The net result to a nations economy is not an indicator of victory, it is an after effect.  Both Germany and Japan lost a major punchup a few years ago, and later enjoyed very robust economies.  Victory is indicated by driving your enemy from the field, forcing him to disengage, and taking his territory away from him.  Therefore, the US and South Viet Nam, Republic of,were the losers.

 

[mariomike]

Both Germany and Japan lost a major punchup a few years ago, and later enjoyed very robust economies. 

Germany and Japan thrived as American trading partners.
"Although the U.S. was defeated on the battlefield, two decades later Vietnam appears to have surrendered its economic sovereignty to its former wartime enemy."
1995. Michel Chossudovsky. Professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.
Who won the peace?

 

[Journeyman]

Choose your sources with care.
In Chossudovsky's world, all evil is directly due to American conspiracies to create:

permanent "New World Order" wars of conquest serving the interests of Wall Street and the financial community, the US military-industrial complex, Big Oil, and all other corporate interests profiting hugely from a massive scheme harming the public interest...

See Michel Chossudovsky, America's War On Terrorism, 2nd Ed., 2005.

In the case of Vietnam, because it did not turn out to be a Marxist workers' paradise (name one communist attempt that has)...then obviously Vietnam "surrendered its economic sovereignty" to the Americans.

:

 

[mariomike]

Choose your sources with care.
In Chossudovsky's world, all evil is directly due to American conspiracies to create:See Michel Chossudovsky, America's War On Terrorism, 2nd Ed., 2005.

Thanks. I'll be retiring pretty soon, so I'll add that to my reading list!
I did come across this link titled, "What America won in Vietnam":
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050501/news_mz1e1lipscom.html

 

[time expired]

I feel the decision to fight the Vietnam War by the US was the right
one.The "Domino Theory" seemed very real in the early 60s,the
Viets were fomenting a communist insurgency in Laos and a little
latter in Cambodia all with the help of their sometime friends,the
Chinese.Both countries had different aims,the Chinese to extend
the communist influence further into Indo-China and the Viets to
secure supply lines and sanctuaries to support their already well
established insurgency in South Vietnam.Latter in the war the Viets
even attacked border areas of Thailand and as both Laos and Cambodia
were neutral I feel that SEATO was bound to take some kind of
action even if the US had not acted. Another thing worth mentioning
is the  incredable brutality used by the Viets to subdue anyone who
opposed any of their objectives, what happened in Laos would be
labelled as genocide or at least ethnic cleaning today and is,by the
way ,continuing today under the communist regime in Laos.All of these
actions were in direct contravention of the Geneva Accords which
was signed at the end of the French Indo-China war.
  Could the US have won militarily its war to keep South Viets
independent?,I feel it could have ,given a less inept political and
sometime military leadership.One just had to look at how totally self-
-defeating the both the strategy and the tactics dictated in a large
part by the Johnson/ McNamara team and a getting along by going
along,General staff.The granting of  sanctuaries ,micromanaging the
airwar,Marines climbing up and down mountains on the DMZ and Army
troops doing amphibious assaults in the Mekong Delta,B52 bombers
tactical bombing in the South while F105 tactical fighter bombers
were strategic bombing the North,the list goes on and on.I almost
forgot the most damaging strategy,that of gradually increasing the
pressure on the North to force them to negotiate,gradually is the key
word here.
    To win ,I feel that a declaration of war,mobilisation of the National
Guard,the elimination of loopholes in the draft system,student
deferments,would have made the war more acceptable to the US
public.The closing of Haiphong's port, destruction of the Chinese rail
link and a naval blockade of the North plus breaching of the irrigation
dams and quickly, before the formidable air defence system could  have
been built.This would have bought the North quickly to its knees and
to the negotiating table and saved thousands of American and hundreds
of thousands of Viets lives.
  These are personal views and I am sure will not be accepted by all.
                                      Regards   

 

[Kat Stevens]

Germany and Japan thrived as American trading partners.
"Although the U.S. was defeated on the battlefield, two decades later Vietnam appears to have surrendered its economic sovereignty to its former wartime enemy."
1995. Michel Chossudovsky. Professor of economics at the University of Ottawa.
Who won the peace?

Who won the peace wasn't the question.  The war was won in the field by the North, and in the villages and cities by the Viet Cong.

 

[Journeyman]

See Michel Chossudovsky, America's War On Terrorism, 2nd Ed., 2005.

Thanks. I'll be retiring pretty soon, so I'll add that to my reading list!

OK, so there's no doubt in the mind of you, or anyone else here.....I actively recommend NOT reading this piece of crap! I meant "see Chossudovsky" only as the source of the tripe quoted above.

Let me say that again, in another way, in order to reinforce: Chossudovsky's books are considered academically valid ONLY by those who hold the same point of view. If you're looking for a logical debate, backed up by references that can be verified.....this is NOT what you want to be reading.

OK, enough beating around the bush.....if you believe that "globalization" is the great evil, and that it is solely the responsibility of some US conspiracy, then, a) nothing is likely to convince you otherwise, and b) Chossudovsky is somehow brilliant.

If you're a fan of "fact" and/or "reality".....avoid this book.

Subtle enough?

 

[mariomike]

OK, so there's no doubt in the mind of you, or anyone else here.....I actively recommend NOT reading this piece of crap!
Subtle enough?

Five by Five! Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood. It's off my list of books to read. I look forward to catching up on my reading and following the debates. I am here to learn.

 

[forcerecon85]

The Vietnam War is my passion. The US won all major battles. Other than the occasional SF or firebase that was overran, when the US made contact, they walked away from it. Here's the but: Since it was an insurgency kill ratios don't matter, you can't win by attrition. The real battle was for public support in the villages and there was some progress with the whole "killing them with kindness" strategy. Public support was lost in Vietnam in different ways. Establishing free fire zones, randomly shelling possible places the enemy could be without having eyes on target, calling arty in at anything that looked suspicious, killing people who happened to be wearing black pyjamas fleeing from US forces didn't help and the list goes on.

In 1967 though the North Vietnamese Army started playing a bigger role. After the 1968 Tet Offencive it was a political win for the North and Viet Cong, even more so after Cronkite said the war was un-winnable. On the battlefield however 38,000 Viet Cong were killed and that was their last major operation and the NVA took full control afterwards. Adding another nail in the coffin so to speak was making US Army SF focus on recon instead of taking care of and training the Montanyards. After Tet 1968 the whole strategy was to train the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) to fight for themselves, the whole "Vietnamazation" idea and the US would provide support and wind down their involvement. 1972 brought on the North's offencive in which it was destroyed by US air power. After 1973 there were no US combat units in Vietnam, just support, air and sea. shortly afterwards air power stopped. The North discovered this and rolled right over the South without much resistance and Saigon fell in 1975.

The way I see it the US won all the battles but the overall objective was to stop Communism in the South. It was merely delayed, the US left and the North was free to do as it pleased. In the end the US lost the war since they held the South up, walked away and let them fall on their own. The US won the US portion, but I don't think a country can consider a war a victory if as soon as they leave everything falls apart. This is all my $.02 though.

 

[JimMorrison19]

I feel the decision to fight the Vietnam War by the US was the right
one.The "Domino Theory" seemed very real in the early 60s,the
Viets were fomenting a communist insurgency in Laos and a little
latter in Cambodia all with the help of their sometime friends,the
Chinese.Both countries had different aims,the Chinese to extend
the communist influence further into Indo-China and the Viets to
secure supply lines and sanctuaries to support their already well
established insurgency in South Vietnam.Latter in the war the Viets
even attacked border areas of Thailand and as both Laos and Cambodia
were neutral I feel that SEATO was bound to take some kind of
action even if the US had not acted. Another thing worth mentioning
is the  incredable brutality used by the Viets to subdue anyone who
opposed any of their objectives, what happened in Laos would be
labelled as genocide or at least ethnic cleaning today and is,by the
way ,continuing today under the communist regime in Laos.All of these
actions were in direct contravention of the Geneva Accords which
was signed at the end of the French Indo-China war.
  Could the US have won militarily its war to keep South Viets
independent?,I feel it could have ,given a less inept political and
sometime military leadership.One just had to look at how totally self-
-defeating the both the strategy and the tactics dictated in a large
part by the Johnson/ McNamara team and a getting along by going
along,General staff.The granting of  sanctuaries ,micromanaging the
airwar,Marines climbing up and down mountains on the DMZ and Army
troops doing amphibious assaults in the Mekong Delta,B52 bombers
tactical bombing in the South while F105 tactical fighter bombers
were strategic bombing the North,the list goes on and on.I almost
forgot the most damaging strategy,that of gradually increasing the
pressure on the North to force them to negotiate,gradually is the key
word here.
    To win ,I feel that a declaration of war,mobilisation of the National
Guard,the elimination of loopholes in the draft system,student
deferments,would have made the war more acceptable to the US
public.The closing of Haiphong's port, destruction of the Chinese rail
link and a naval blockade of the North plus breaching of the irrigation
dams and quickly, before the formidable air defence system could  have
been built.This would have bought the North quickly to its knees and
to the negotiating table and saved thousands of American and hundreds
of thousands of Viets lives.
  These are personal views and I am sure will not be accepted by all.
                                      Regards 

Your views are definitely shared. I recently finished Self-Destruction: The Disintegration and Decay of the United States Army During the Vietnam Era, and it possesses many of the same opinions when it comes to how the war could have been won, and has changed my outlook on the war from nothing. I think it's a very interesting read for pretty much anyone... speaks a lot of obscene careerism, over-inflated numbers of high-ranking officers, and generally poor war-fighting methods of the US Army as well as the issues of blame for the war's failure. I feel a lot different about my own aspirations for the CF after reading it. The Amazon reviews of the book suggest it should be read cautiously and I'm sure someone will agree on that, but it raises questions regardless.

 

[a_majoor]

Of course, many more factors can be dragged kicking and screaming into the argument. 

1. The Johnson Administration was determined to implement the very expensive "Great Society" program, so funds for military expenditures were relatively limited. The Administration was also constrained from full mobilization and a Declaration of War since their primary interest lay in domestic politics, and a real war would detract from the "War on Poverty"

2. They were also leery of engaging in "a ground war in Asia" after the inconclusive results of Korea. In particular, the United States was less than eager to have the Chinese take the field, something they feared might happen if American Forces encroached on North Vietnamese territory or US airpower was deployed against targets near the Chinese border.

3. The US Army was full of career officers who's experience was in "Big Wars" like WWII and the major fighting in Korea. This wasn't the place to learn the skill sets required for "Small Wars". The Moro rebellion and the "Banana Wars" were too far in the past and in any event created too small a cadre of experienced officers and NCO's to pass on the institutional knowledge in a Big War environment.

4. The American "Grand Strategy" called for containment rather than entering the Dragon's den and Bear's cave to slay the monsters within. This necessarily precluded invasions of Eastern Europe and North Viet Nam, since American resources were insufficient to go on the offensive on a regional or global scale, but sufficient to stand watch over the Iron and Bamboo curtains.

End result: the United States withdrew from Viet Nam and allowed their ally to be destroyed, but were successful in the global Grand Strategy of containment.

 

[Invicta]

The US lost because they tried to prop up a corrupt dictatorship.

 

[1feral1]

The US lost because they tried to prop up a corrupt dictatorship.

Oh really?

What makes you think that?

You should not forget that The Philippines, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia also fought there, with Australia alone sending over 50,000 troops.

Yes the Regime was corrupt, but don't forget in that neck of the woods, no matter who was in power, corruption is a away of life, and still is.

To win and prosecute a war effectively, the hearts and minds of the people at home must be won, and that was not done. It was politics which ended it, on the force and military side> The US and its allies had the fire power and logistics to win. The heart and backbone was not there by the majority of the US population.

Australia never lost a battle - ever, but lost around 600 of its Sons fighting for this cause.


OWDU

 

[Journeyman]

The US lost because they tried to prop up a corrupt dictatorship.

Oh really?

What makes you think that?

You should not forget that The Philippines, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia also fought there, with Australia alone sending over 50,000 troops

......The heart and backbone was not there by the majority of the US population.

Rational Argument 101: Don't get feathers ruffled because he didn't mention the allies....then summarily dismiss that alliance and blame defeat solely upon the US population.

Had the civie population behind the all-powerful, never-defeated Aussie army been any more staunch than the US people, I'm sure the Americans would have been more than happy to continue feeding in the logistics to support the inevitably victorious Aussie army.


Oh, and perhaps the US heart/backbone was not there because of the perception of a corrupt regime being propped up. You dismissively say such corruption is just fine because it's just "a way of life" -- I guess not everyone is as liberal and accepting of other cultures as you obviously are, and tend to judge other societies by more univerally recognized standards.

 

[1feral1]

Rational Argument 101: Don't get feathers ruffled because he didn't mention the allies....then summarily dismiss that alliance and blame defeat solely upon the US population.

My point being many people think it was only a US war.

However, the US were the major contributor and its public had the loudest anti-war voice and a overly biased media to back it up.

Your view was not the point I was trying to make.

EDIT: Adding an Australian view of the Viet Nam War....

WRT the Vietnam War. 

Two countries were created shortly after World War II – South Vietnam and North Vietnam.  South Vietnam had the beginnings of democracy and a staunchly pro-west, pro-growth outlook.  It was on its way to being an Asian tiger like the others taking off at the time - Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore. 

North Vietnam fell under the control of Soviet-backed communists and thereafter didn’t have a flicker of democracy.  Innocent South Vietnam was then invaded by North Vietnam.  America, at the request of the South Vietnamese government and South Vietnamese public opinion, went over to help tens of millions resist tyranny.  The Western left, however, wanted America to lose.

After being worn down internally America eventually withdrew.  Not long after the US left, surprise, surprise North Vietnam 'invaded' and South Vietnam fell under the control of Stalinist North Vietnam.

One million people were immediately imprisoned without charge.  About 165,000 were killed in re-education camps.  Food shortages were soon everywhere.  Vietnam got itself into a war with China and then with Cambodia where other communists were murdering one third of its population.  Things were so bad that a couple of million brave Vietnamese jumped into leaking little boats and paddled as far from Vietnam as they could get.  Good old America took in almost a million refugees followed by Australia and Canada at around 140,000 each.  Lets never forgot however the countless unknown who drowned at sea. 

Behind the South Vietnamese, the Australians did the most to encourage American engagement in Vietnam.  While the Vietnam War was being fought hundreds of millions of poor people across South-East Asia were living in turmoil.  The American intervention in Vietnam gave South-East Asia the breathing space it needed to get on its feet.  Today American inspired democratic capitalism has won in South-East Asia and on Australia’s doorstep hundreds of millions of people have become our partners and friends.


Regards,

OWDU

 

[tomahawk6]

The last US combat brigades were withdrawn in Aug 1972. The South Vietnamese government didnt fall until 1975 a year after Congress cut off funding. My guess is that had Congress continued to fund the Vietnamese war effort the South may well have held out.

We see a parallel today. The democrats while anti-war didnt cut off funding for the GWOT because they didnt want to be seen as the losers they were in 1975. I think if we had left our advisors,airpower and naval forces in place the ARVN could have defeated the communists. Today in Iraq we are drawing down our forces and letting the government takeover their own security with us as backup. Lessons learned.