Was Vietnam Misunderstood?

[YotoKiller]

"From start to finnish, American leaders remained catastrophically ignorant of Vietnmese history, culture, values, motives, and abilities. Misperceiving both it enemy and its ally and imprisoned in the myopic conviction that sheer military force could somehow overcome adverse political circumstances, Washington stumbled from one failure to the next in the continuing delusion that success was always just ahead" - Without Honor - Arnold R. Isaacs


seems we have learnt very little

So what does that tell us? That if General Westmorland had read a book about Vietnamese culture and history the war would have been won? C'mon, its a little more complicated than that. Don't you think?

Other than that I agree with bugfatt's excellent point on the matter.

 

[FriendlyFire]

So what does that tell us? That if General Westmorland had read a book about Vietnamese culture and history the war would have been won? C'mon, its a little more complicated than that. Don't you think?

I was juxterposing it with comments which stated the US would have won if hadnt been handicaped militarily.

I find it startling that people accept this idea that with more force the US could have easily won. "If brute force isnt working your not using enough." You can apply this sentiment to almost any military defeat. The US should have won the vietnam war it lost not because of the lack of "force". If you look at the series of US miscalculations and mistakes, which resulted in its confused and unrealistic , where they stemed from.

 

[YotoKiller]

I was juxterposing it with comments which stated the US would have won if hadnt been handicaped militarily.

I find it startling that people accept this idea that with more force the US could have easily won. "If brute force isnt working your not using enough."

Except I don't know anybody who says the U.S. didn't have enough forces Vietnam. The limited warfare problem has nothing to do with the amount of force.

The US should have won the vietnam war it lost not because of the lack of "force". If you look at the series of US miscalculations and mistakes, which resulted in its confused and unrealistic , where they stemed from.

Again the U.S. did not "lose" the war. There was a cease fire and a peace treaty signed by both sides that more or less ended the war in 1973. Much like the Korean War and World War 1. It was a consentual stalemate. Except that as soon as the U.S. left, the war kicked back up again due to agression from both North and South Vietnam and ended 2 years later with the fall of Saigon.
Paris Peace Agreement

How does it constitute a defeat when the U.S. wasn't even around to be defeated? The world wonders....

 

[dgfred]

Except I don't know anybody who says the U.S. didn't have enough forces Vietnam. The limited warfare problem has nothing to do with the amount of force.



Again the U.S. did not "lose" the war. There was a cease fire and a peace treaty signed by both sides that more or less ended the war in 1973. Much like the Korean War and World War 1. It was a consentual stalemate. Except that as soon as the U.S. left, the war kicked back up again due to agression from both North and South Vietnam and ended 2 years later with the fall of Saigon.
Paris Peace Agreement

How does it constitute a defeat when the U.S. wasn't even around to be defeated? The world wonders....

Great post Yoto . I wonder too .

 

[privatehudson]

I would consider it a defeat because the US was unable to prevent the collapse of it's ally, which I would understand as one of it's principle aims when the conflict began.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I would consider it a defeat because the US was unable to prevent the collapse of it's ally, which I would understand as one of it's principle aims when the conflict began.

I disagree. I think the domino theory was the main reason and the contaiment of communism was the real goal. Like the Korean War. South Vietnam was not as near as important as Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines to the U.S.

http://www.vietnam-war.info/myths/

"The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America's commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism."

Although Vietnam fell to communism and so did Laos and Cambodia for while, the rest of South East Asia was saved from further insurgency and thanks to fear of another American war.

 

[privatehudson]

I'm not that sure it was so vital in preventing communism from spreading, that quote after all is from Westmoreland, who was not exactly an independant analyst of the effects of the theory Assuming other countries will fall simply because Vietnam did is to attribute a rather simplistic view of the politics and situation in those countries IMO.

Not that I think the US did badly in the war, but portraying it as a victory is just plain old being economical with the truth as much as presenting it as a disaster not worth fighting is.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I'm not that sure it was so vital in preventing communism from spreading, that quote after all is from Westmoreland, who was not exactly an independant analyst of the effects of the theory Assuming other countries will fall simply because Vietnam did is to attribute a rather simplistic view of the politics and situation in those countries IMO

Not my point. I'm saying that the U.S. did not fight in Vietnam war to protect the South Vietnamese. It had larger, regional consequences.

Not that I think the US did badly in the war, but portraying it as a victory is just plain old being economical with the truth as much as presenting it as a disaster not worth fighting is

I'm not calling it a victory. I don't know anybody in their right minds who would call it a victory. It was a stalemate if anything.

After the U.S. left in 1973, North and South Vietnam ripped up the Paris treaty and reopened the war themselves. To blame fall of Saigon on the U.S. and call it a defeat of a superpower doesn't make any sense.

 

[privatehudson]

Not my point. I'm saying that the U.S. did not fight in Vietnam war to protect the South Vietnamese. It had larger, regional consequences.

Which in your post were entirely related to a rather dubious theory which I am questioning the logic of.

After the U.S. left in 1973, North and South Vietnam ripped up the Paris treaty and reopened the war themselves. To blame fall of Saigon on the U.S. and call it a defeat of a superpower doesn't make any sense

And I'm not calling it a defeat I can't imagine though that the US politicians didn't suspect that the North would do that anyway, so the south was effectively abbandonned to it's own devices, knowing that the probable result ran contary to part of the reason the war was fought in the first place.

 

[Jorge]

Again the U.S. did not "lose" the war. There was a cease fire and a peace treaty signed by both sides that more or less ended the war in 1973. Much like the Korean War and World War 1. It was a consentual stalemate. Except that as soon as the U.S. left, the war kicked back up again due to agression from both North and South Vietnam and ended 2 years later with the fall of Saigon.
Paris Peace Agreement

How does it constitute a defeat when the U.S. wasn't even around to be defeated? The world wonders....

If you and your enemy agree on a cease fire but after that the enemy breaks it, the war continues. The USA just admitted that they couldn't go on with the war and flee. If you call that a stalemate ....

 

[Jorge]

Although Vietnam fell to communism and so did Laos and Cambodia for while, the rest of South East Asia was saved from further insurgency and thanks to fear of another American war.

That's only a theory, not a fact. Propaganda if you ask me.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Which in your post were entirely related to a rather dubious theory which I am questioning the logic of.

Dubious or not. The Vietnam War would not have resulted in that kind of massive American commitment if they did not believe that communism was threatening the South East Asian nations.

 

[Bugfatty300]

If you and your enemy agree on a cease fire but after that the enemy breaks it, the war continues. The USA just admitted that they couldn't go on with the war and flee. If you call that a stalemate ....

At least read the link he gave. It explains everything.

 

[Jorge]

At least read the link he gave. It explains everything.

Isn't what he explained a nice summary

 

[YotoKiller]

If you and your enemy agree on a cease fire but after that the enemy breaks it, the war continues. The USA just admitted that they couldn't go on with the war and flee. If you call that a stalemate ....

No. You did not understand my post. I said that North Vietnam signed a peace treaty with U.S. and a cease fire with South Vietnam. The Americans then left. Several months after the U.S. left, the war between South and North Vietnam reopens.

North Vietnam honored the peace treaty between them and the U.S.

And why should U.S. have re-opened a war with a country that honored the treaty, to protect South Vietman who where really the ones who broke the cease fire with North Vietnam? Why?

The U.S. was not about to re-enter into war with North Vietnam even more so after North Vietnam more or less obeyed Peace Treaty with America.

Read the link!

 

[Jorge]

Do you mean that the peace treaty the USA signed with North Vietnam didn't include any obligation for North Vietnam (other that not invading the USA which is out of the question)?

 

[YotoKiller]

Do you mean that the peace treaty the USA signed with North Vietnam didn't include any obligation for North Vietnam (other that not invading the USA which is out of the question)?

The peace treaty between the U.S. and North Vietnam basicly included a cease fire and return of POWs from both sides. The North Vietnam obligation to the U.S. was not to attack the U.S. forces in Vietnam and the return of American POWs. North Vietnam pretty much obeyed the treaty because they simply wanted the U.S. out of the war for good and obeying the treaty was their best shot at doing this.

And I'm not calling it a defeat I can't imagine though that the US politicians didn't suspect that the North would do that anyway, so the south was effectively abbandonned to it's own devices, knowing that the probable result ran contary to part of the reason the war was fought in the first place.

South Vietnam on the other hand broke the cease fire and like-wise was invaded. Because of this the South was pretty much on its own. The U.S. had no obligation what so ever to protect South Vietnam after this.

 

[Gelion]

Somebody tell me what was the US goal in the war if not to protect its ally South Vietnam (which is not even considered a state in Geneva talks. As well as North Vietnam)?

 

[YotoKiller]

Somebody tell me what was the US goal in the war if not to protect its ally South Vietnam (which is not even considered a state in Geneva talks. As well as North Vietnam)?

Has already been explained.

 

[Gelion]

So many different goals were given it already confused me. Once and for all what were the goals? For you to better undersand what I mean I'll quote President Lyndon Johnson (1965): "We will not be defeated, we will not grow tired, we will not withdraw openly either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement". So what were the goals if US did withdraw?