How I began to teach about the Vietnam War

[Timsup2nothin]

And the surprising point of that statement is that it seems to have left you almost as devoid of actual knowledge as the person in the OP. As Dachs extensive posting might have made clear, it was not 'the media' that blundered in Vietnam, but simple the entire US administration under successive presidents.

But perhaps you'd have preferred a situation where 'the media' would have hid such blunders from the public.

I contend there was only one blunder...getting militarily involved in a foreign civil war. Once that is done there are basically no good options available to successive administrations.

 

[abradley]

Originally Posted by FriendlyFire View Post
By 1968 the US had turned against the endless sacrifices and was seeking to exit the war, This was not a blind exit the US understood that and was prepared to spend lives and money for a lasting peace. But this commitment was reaching the end.

You can pretend this was the cause of Media, the rest of use who actutally lived through the war understood far clearer all the mistakes and costly stratergies, political corruption which lead to this point.
If you want to win the Vietnam war go back to ww2 when the US armed funded and trainned the communist North Vietnamese to fight against the Japanese.

abradley: I joined the USAF in 1954 and served continuously until 1976.

And the surprising point of that statement is that it seems to have left you almost as devoid of actual knowledge as the person in the OP. As Dachs extensive posting might have made clear, it was not 'the media' that blundered in Vietnam, but simple the entire US administration under successive presidents.

But perhaps you'd have preferred a situation where 'the media' would have hid such blunders from the public.

Thank you, and again Thank you: http://lrc.cornell.edu/asian/faculty/bios/kwtaylor cv

BUt in no way am I the man Professor K W Taylor is.

But thank you anyways.

 

[abradley]

And here's a 193 power point entitled 'Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory' by Robert F. Turner
http://www.virginia.edu/cnsl/pdf/turner-snatching-defeat-vietnam2013.pdf

And there's his http://www.virginia.edu/cnsl/pdf/Turner-Myths.pdf 'Myths of the Vietnam war.'

Plus there's this 'Myths and Realities in the Vietnam Debate' http://www.viet-myths.net/Turner.htm

There's a whole other story that's not in the liberal media.

 

[FriendlyFire]

My apologies Mr Taylor

Go ahead and educate us how the Vietnam war could have been won. Maybe you should also immediately contact the Pentagon and Obama and offer advice on Afghanistan on how the US should over come the Afghanistan governments massive and pervasive corruption. The massive criminal drug trade and weakness of the government forces.

It would save a lot of lives and prevent Afghanistan following Vietnam and Iraq.

 

[FriendlyFire]

And here's a 193 power point entitled 'Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory' by Robert F. Turner
http://www.virginia.edu/cnsl/pdf/turner-snatching-defeat-vietnam2013.pdf

I have a feeling of dejavu

1) Someone lied the US into war on faulty intelligence in Vietnam, thankfully Congress approved this which make the entire thing ok then

2) Vietnam War was super popular (at the start)

3) Long story short the US F##Ked Up

4) Nixon won Vietnam, but did not land on enough carriers and needed more mission accomplished banners. To be fair the US did manage to crush the VC at Tet rather decisively and the North started sending in Regular units

5) Really lack of monies ? The US left so much hardware that the South couldnt even make use of it all. The main problem was morale, training and extravagant wastage that the US were use to. I can think so many other problems facing Vietnamese other then lack of monies. Dose this sound familiar ?

6) Communism is suck

7) And so Vietnam war was justified (except for the bad stuff and losing part)

 

[Zkribbler]

1) Someone lied the US into war on faulty intelligence in Vietnam ...

I agree with everything you say, except this.

We leaped headfirst into Vietnam because of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which did not arise from faulty intelligence. It was just a straight-out made-up lie.

BTW: As in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, Congress abdicated it's power to Declare War by voting to allow the President to take any military steps he believed were necessary.

 

[Commodore]

If you need a draft the war is probably fubar

Exactly. Conscription should be used as an absolute last resort since there is abundant historical evidence to show conscripts generally make extremely poor soldiers.

 

[Zkribbler]

Exactly. Conscription should be used as an absolute last resort since there is abundant historical evidence to show conscripts generally make extremely poor soldiers.

Hotlips [complaining about Hawkeye]: How did someone like that get to be an officer in the U.S. Army?
"He was drafted."

 

[Agent327]

I contend there was only one blunder...getting militarily involved in a foreign civil war. Once that is done there are basically no good options available to successive administrations.

So the idea of pulling out was 'not an option'. That would be one of the blunders made by successive US administrations.

And here's a 193 power point entitled 'Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory' by Robert F. Turner
http://www.virginia.edu/cnsl/pdf/turner-snatching-defeat-vietnam2013.pdf

And there's his http://www.virginia.edu/cnsl/pdf/Turner-Myths.pdf 'Myths of the Vietnam war.'

Plus there's this 'Myths and Realities in the Vietnam Debate' http://www.viet-myths.net/Turner.htm

There's a whole other story that's not in the liberal media.

History is not written by 'the media', Mr Bradley. And all wars have their myths; that's not really something new or earth shattering. One of these myths would also be that 'the Vietnam war could have been won'. It is, in fact, a quite persistent myth, and also one that ignores the parameters of Nam. As already explained by Dachs extensively earlier. And to which you fail to respond.

 

[FriendlyFire]

BUt the Dems took over and like in Iraq withdrew all support.

Thats because its not "convenient" to remember that G.W.Bush signed for the withdrawal of US forces at the insistence of the democratically elected Iraq Government. I suppose the US could have overthrown the government and installed a Military dictatorship. Meanwhile in Afghanistan where things were going "swimmingly" was blowing up.

Thanks Obama

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So the idea of pulling out was 'not an option'. That would be one of the blunders made by successive US administrations.

It was an option, just not a good one.

 

[Agent327]

Peace With Honor was a much better option. And secretly extend the war to Laos and Cambodja. Which also ended up Communist. So, pulling out after decades of war: much better option.

Thats because its not "convenient" to remember that G.W.Bush signed for the withdrawal of US forces at the insistence of the democratically elected Iraq Government. I suppose the US could have overthrown the government and installed a Military dictatorship. Meanwhile in Afghanistan where things were going "swimmingly" was blowing up.

If only you hadn't added that last sentence... US policy in Afghanistan was never about reforming anything. So it doesn't really matter at which point they pull out. As long as the resulting government calls itself 'democratic' everything is fine. And then the blame game can begin.

Interestingly, relations with Vietnam have long been normalized. I hear Cuba is next.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Peace With Honor was a much better option. And secretly extend the war to Laos and Cambodja. Which also ended up Communist. So, pulling out after decades of war: much better option.

Notice you keep talking (even sarcastically) about "better" options. But you don't offer anything to counter the basic position that as soon as you involve your military in someone else's civil war there are no good options.

Look at Iraq. Obama ran on "get us out of there," but then confronted the reality that if you kick over the government in a nation of thirty million people you can't just say "oops" and leave them to suffer in their anarchy...unless you have no conscience at all, of course. Unfortunately even your conscience recognizes that eventually you just have to do it, because you cannot fix the mess you have made.

Back again to involve your military in a foreign civil war and you have no good options. So the only good option is to not do that. A lesson we supposedly learned in Viet Nam, and now is indelibly printed on another generation. Hopefully it sticks this time.

 

[Commodore]

Back again to involve your military in a foreign civil war and you have no good options. So the only good option is to not do that. A lesson we supposedly learned in Viet Nam, and now is indelibly printed on another generation. Hopefully it sticks this time.

To be fair, we didn't get involved in a foreign civil war in Iraq...we kinda just started one with our lackluster administration of the nation immediately following the collapse of Saddam's government. That key failure then just snowballed and started a civil war in Iraq that slowly spiraled out of control into the situation we have now.

So I think we still learned our lesson from Vietnam, we just had to learn a slightly different, yet still related, lesson in Iraq.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

To be fair, we didn't get involved in a foreign civil war in Iraq...we kinda just started one with our lackluster administration of the nation immediately following the collapse of Saddam's government. That key failure then just snowballed and started a civil war in Iraq that slowly spiraled out of control into the situation we have now.

So I think we still learned our lesson from Vietnam, we just had to learn a slightly different, yet still related, lesson in Iraq.

Destroying the existing government in hopes that a "better" one can take its place is the basic premise of a civil war. The whole "the people will rise up and welcome us as saviors" premise was rooted in the idea that they were having a civil war, but the rebels were incapable of any military action without our "help".

 

[Birdjaguar]

But if we don't intervene militarily in other countries, how can we show exert our world leadership, spread democracy and allow our military test their new toys on live targets?

 

[abradley]

So the idea of pulling out was 'not an option'. That would be one of the blunders made by successive US administrations.



History is not written by 'the media', Mr Bradley. And all wars have their myths; that's not really something new or earth shattering. One of these myths would also be that 'the Vietnam war could have been won'. It is, in fact, a quite persistent myth, and also one that ignores the parameters of Nam. As already explained by Dachs extensively earlier. And to which you fail to respond.

No, I didn't ignore Dachs http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14170400&postcount=57

As for Dachs, what are Dach's creds compared to K.W.Taylor's that I linked to earlier http://lrc.cornell.edu/asian/faculty/bios/kwtaylor cv

Taylor served in Vietnam, speaks Vietnamese, has written and lectured on the history of Vietnam in Vietnam.

And finally, we had a choice, support South Vietnam when the NVA invaded as we had promised them when they agreed to the untenable truce conditions, or sit by and watch them collapse under the NVA onslaught.

One was honorable, the other wasn't ... we chose the other.

 

[abradley]

Thats because its not "convenient" to remember that G.W.Bush signed for the withdrawal of US forces at the insistence of the democratically elected Iraq Government. I suppose the US could have overthrown the government and installed a Military dictatorship. Meanwhile in Afghanistan where things were going "swimmingly" was blowing up.

Thanks Obama

Obama wasn't interested in keeping troops there:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/bush-clinton-play-blame-game-in-iraq/
{Snip}
We take no position on whether the U.S. should have left some combat troops in Iraq. But the record shows that Jeb Bush ignored the fact that his brother agreed to the withdrawal deadline and agreed not to leave behind a residual force. Likewise, the Clinton campaign’s response that Iraq wouldn’t allow the Obama administration to renegotiate the terms of the withdrawal ignored criticism that Obama didn’t try hard enough. That criticism isn’t just partisan. His own defense secretary said Obama wasn’t actively engaged in the negotiations and allowed the opportunity to “slip away.”
— Eugene Kiely

As per the article, there was plenty of leverage with the reconstruction projects:

Panetta wrote that the U.S. “had leverage” and could have “threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid” if Iraq didn’t agree to “some sort of continued U.S. military presence.”
Panetta, “Worthy Fights,” 2014:

 

[Borachio]

Exactly. Conscription should be used as an absolute last resort since there is abundant historical evidence to show conscripts generally make extremely poor soldiers.

This is interesting.

I remember reading somewhere that WWI conscripted officers were generally thought to be better than their professional counterparts since they were only interested in "getting the job done" rather than their own careers.

 

[whyidie]

I would hope that we can all agree on a few things at least. At the very least there shouldn't have been a draft during the Vietnam war. If anyone wants to potentially die in someone else's civil war then it should be optional not mandatory. Furthermore if the army issued orders to an all volunteer force to participate in someone else's civil war then there should have been the option available for soldiers to refuse if they didn't want to go. The US military is here to defend the US not fight in someone else's dirty Civil War.

I'd agree as long as I was able to refuse funding to the military as well.

Wars should be difficult to enter into. It has been too easy for us to enter into the last couple of conflicts, and to our chagrin, much harder to exit.