could the Hall Moores have won Vietnam??
I wonder if there had been more like Hall Moore could Vietnan have been won??
I'm a Republican, and thats my opinion on this matter.
The Vietnamese were just too damn determined. Fighting off foreign invaders for a long while. However, yes, I believe if the politicians stayed out of the fight and left it to the ground leaders, more success may have been.
All in all you're just a nother brick in the wall.
LBJ was a fool for not allowing bombings north of Hanio!!
I'm a Republican, and thats my opinion on this matter.
Quite. And Laotian "neutrality" was a joke.
To answer your question, militarily yes, but politically no. And that is the truth of Vietnam. The USA won it in a strictly military sense hands down, but lost politically.
And ultimately, the political victory is what matters in modern war.
In effect what you say is true. But let's be clear: The objectives of Vietnam were political. We had no design on territory or natural resources. This was a political war with limited military objectives. We had no wish to destroy the Vietnamese race and culture. And to win territory that is what we would have had to do. And for what purpose? Since the objectives of war were political, even complete military victory would have resulted in a loss. This is what too few people seem to understand and it is why were are throwing away lifes in Afghanistan today. We haven;t learned a thing from our debacle in Vietnam.
shareSorry but no. Korea, after all, was a political victory in the sense that it was made clear to the Soviet communists that we will not abandon our allies. The objectives of Korea were also political. We had no design on territory or natural resources there either (for what did they have?). Korea was also a political war with limited military objectives. We had no wish to destroy the Korean race and culture either. But we did win territory there, as Korea had more defined battle lines.
(By the way, THANK YOU for not buying into the leftist blood libels that accused and continue to accuse the USA of having evil designs on natural resources, or wishing to destroy other races and cultures).
Had aid to the Republic of (South) Vietnam continued past 1974, and the Thieu regime was not cut off and left to be overrun, then a political victory would have been won in the same sense. Had that happened, I suspect the Soviet communists might have been exhausted by defeats that much sooner and they would have had to throw in the towel a few years before they did in 1991.
Iraq appears to be a political victory, in that Al Quaeda in Iraq has been annilhated and a new regime appears to be making a go of it if not thriving. If Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban leftovers are annilhated and the current regime in Kabul remains, then there will be political victory in Afghanistan as well.
Korea, after all, was a political victory in the sense that it was made clear to the Soviet communists that we will not abandon our allies.
If only Pearson and Trudeau had accepted this fact, and we had supported our allies, instead of the Liberals insisting on closing their eyes and pretending nothing was happening.
The same thing happend with Iraq, where Chretién and the Liberals stalled as long as he could until they had an excuse. Chretién was under pressure to enter Afganistan, and couldn't get out of it. In fact, in 2008, during the last election, Stephan Dionne suggested we leave Afganistan, and Harper just laid into him. Dionne had no response. share
''The USA won it in a strictly military sense hands down, but lost politically.''
Uh-huh. Which is why they were on a retreat since the Tet offensive...
Really, you Americans are so in love with your military. The US Army was actually defeated as it lost most of the major battles in the war, including many the US claim as pyrrhic victories, because you were fighting the people supported by the majority of the populace and the VietCong were made up of local South Vietnamese peasants who detested the US presence and support of the unpopular South Vietnamese government (including Diem, a nepotistic Christian who oppressed the Buddhist majority). Whether the US likes it or not, the Viet Minh were supported by the vast majority of the Vietnamese people and the US had no reason to fight against them.
''They won all the battles but lost the war.''
Nonsense. They did no such thing. If you won all the battles, politics is irrelevant and you wouldn't have lost the war.
''We could have had the NVA and VC peacefully surrendering and we still would have lost the War. Militarily is not the only way to win a war.''
You don't realize how ridiculous this comment is, do you? If the NVA and VC peacefully surrendered you would have won, no matter how unpopular the war was in Washington or with the general public. To win an war you only really need a military victory. Once you have completely defeated your enemy or they have peacefully surrendered, you'd have no enemies left and thus would have won. Political victories are helpful, indeed, but not the be all and end all of conflicts. You achieved neither in Vietnam.
---------------------
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.
"Uh-huh. Which is why they were on a retreat since the Tet offensive..."
Dupe, the VC were decimated, and they and their NVA allies gained NO territory, in fact even lost more territory, after Tet.
But the political will in the USA to continue fighting ended after Tet.
That is what winning militarily but losing politically means. Learn to read.
''Dupe, the VC were decimated, and they and their NVA allies gained NO territory, in fact even lost more territory, after Tet.''
Don't be such an idiot, yank. The fact that the VC lost so many men is irrelevant, after the Tet defensive the US Army decided that they could not hold onto the areas they occupied and went on a TACTICAL (aka MILITARY) retreat back to the south, and the cogs for the eventual evacuation of Vietnam were turning; so saying that North Veitnam gained no territory is somewhat absurd...eventually they gained control of all of Vietnam using military force. It is for this reason that the Tet offensive was arguably the major turning point in the war. Of course, if the Viet Minh went with General Giap's original plan rather than the one they used, Vietnam would have had a great victory rather than losing most of the current crop of the VC - though it should be stressed that the VC were merely made up of the South Vietnamese peasantry and thus were always being recruited after great losses, something US citizens fail of understand.
''But the political will in the USA to continue fighting ended after Tet.''
Because US actions in Vietnam didn't yield any great long-lasting military victories.
''That is what winning militarily but losing politically means. Learn to read.''
This view doesn't hold up to logic. If you keep beating the Vietnamese Communists you'd end up with no enemies left to fight and thus would win the war. The fact is that you didn't and thus lost the war. All the talk of ''military victory, political defeat'' is simply an American's way of saving face because he simply cannot face the fact that his mighty country lost a war, militarily and politically.
In your own words, ''learn to read''. And also learn to think logically and not coloured by your own US nationalist bias.
---------------------
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.
"Don't be such an idiot, yank. The fact that the VC lost so many men is irrelevant, after the Tet defensive the US Army decided that they could not hold onto the areas they occupied and went on a TACTICAL (aka MILITARY) retreat back to the south,"
Wrong, Brit-Brat. After Tet, the South Vietnamese government controlled more territory than it did before. And controlled even more territory by 1972. Look it up. Moreover, the US Army / Marines *never* went into North Vietnam. Only air strikes happened in the North. This is also part of what it means to lose politically.
"and the cogs for the eventual evacuation of Vietnam were turning; so saying that North Vietnam gained no territory is somewhat absurd...eventually they gained control of all of Vietnam using military force."
Sigh. That is what losing politically means. In an actual military battle, the NVA *never* defeated a US Army or Marine force, and never held its ground. Perhaps you like playing semantics, but I do not. The point stands. If the political will existed, this could have gone on indefinitely, but the political will in the USA did not exist, and was sapped by the Tet Offensive. Hence, political defeat.
"It is for this reason that the Tet offensive was arguably the major turning point in the war."
That's the point. Even though the NVA and VC actually controlled less territory after the Tet offensive, they scored a political victory from which President LBJ never recovered. Nixon tried, but his own Watergate corruption did him in.
"Of course, if the Viet Minh went with General Giap's original plan rather than the one they used, Vietnam would have had a great victory rather than losing most of the current crop of the VC - though it should be stressed that the VC were merely made up of the South Vietnamese peasantry and thus were always being recruited after great losses, something US citizens fail of understand."
Sorry, but the ratio of VC fought and KIA or captured, relative to NVA, fell off after Tet. After Tet, it was almost entirely regular NVA, either infiltrated into South Vietnam or operating out of Laos and Cambodia. (Their frontal assault directly from North Vietnam was wiped out at Khe Sanh). Again, look it up. And in the end, it was entirely NVA units that swept down in 1975.
"Because US actions in Vietnam didn't yield any great long-lasting military victories."
And that, in turn, was due to political reasons. If it is politically impossible to go directly into North Vietnam, or overtly go into Laos or Cambodia (though covertly, obviously everybody *did*), then you have an unwinnable political situation, no matter how splendidly you perform on the battlefield.
"This view doesn't hold up to logic. If you keep beating the Vietnamese Communists you'd end up with no enemies left to fight and thus would win the war. The fact is that you didn't and thus lost the war."
Sigh. You are playing semantics.