The primary manifestation of fear is aggression. The United States woke up on 9/11 to the fact that there are elements of distant societies unattached to nation-states that wish to do us harm. The events of that day struck fear into America that these elements could one day work with nation-states to acquire significant weaponry without the concomitant accountability that comes with the possession of such weaponry by vested interests such as traditional nation-states. Rather than logically question the viability of or the reasons behind such behavior, the United States chose simple aggression with the purpose of spreading "free society" throughout the Middle East in the hopes of lessening the influence of such elements and to increase the transparency of Arab regimes.
If this was a "war for oil", I'd be much happier. We'd have abandoned it by now. Unfortunately, the people driving this war actually believe what they're saying.
I think America and some other world nations (including my own) need to realize that to combat "cultures" that are not nation states needs to be done differently than combating nation states (ie. Germany in WW2).....you will never win a fist fight with them.....that will only strengthen them......it has been proven in the past and will be proven again (which I do say with no hint of happiness though)
This is my point. Niether of us have hard evidence on this. We might in 30+ years when documents have been de-classified, but right now we both rely on assumptions. You rely on the assumption that agression is about fear. I rely on the assumption agression can be about other things. There's arguments that back each of these assumptions up, but there's no real evidence.
The documents, statements and actions are right in front of your eyes.
I think America and some other world nations (including my own) need to realize that to combat "cultures" that are not nation states needs to be done differently than combating nation states (ie. Germany in WW2).....you will never win a fist fight with them.....that will only strengthen them......it has been proven in the past and will be proven again (which I do say with no hint of happiness though)
Completely agreed. Vietnam teaches another important lessen there. War lost the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. Capitalism earned them, as is evidenced by the direction Vietnam is now headed in. Culture is best fought with culture.
Anyone feel that the US don't need to solve all the worlds problems. We have different theories into different attacks. Vietnam Communism against people fighting for independence. IRaq getting rid of dictator or oil. Will the USA turn to the Congo next or is it of little importance?
Anyone feel that the US don't need to solve all the worlds problems. We have different theories into different attacks. Vietnam Communism against people fighting for independence. IRaq getting rid of dictator or oil. Will the USA turn to the Congo next or is it of little importance?
Don't expect the USA to turn to the Congo. But also don't expect the USA to stop trying to solve a lot of international problems. As the world's primary power, the US is in a lose-lose situation. When we help, we get accused of alterior motives. When we don't, we get accused of other alterior motives.
The USA needs to tell the entire world to fix their problems and then focus on our own problems. Furthermore we need to stop actively contributing to the world's problems. That means no more regime changes, no more proxy wars. The world is a much different place than it was 100 years ago.
But do yee Americans feel that yee actively have to get involved in most things however trivial?
No, and we typically don't get actively involved in the trivial problems and conflict of this world. We just often find ourselves attempting to solve large problems we can't solve or making the problems worse in the process.
That may depend on what natural resource gets uncovered there.......we did prop up Mobuto Sese Seko during his run....we also interfered in the Katanga crisis........internal Congo business........yes, that was during the cold war.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Anyone feel that the US don't need to solve all the worlds problems. We have different theories into different attacks. Vietnam Communism against people fighting for independence. IRaq getting rid of dictator or oil. Will the USA turn to the Congo next or is it of little importance?
vietnam wasn't about communism no matter what washington told its people. but as you know, there isn't a bigger red flag to the american people than communism.(no pun intended) it was a nationalist push from within south vietnam to reunite the country after it was arbitrarily divided in two by people who yet again thought they knew better and who had no business doing it. and that is after they supported the corrupt south vietnamese government and continued doing so even in the face of human rights abuses. the vietnamese had spent years fighting the french imperialists. did the americans think they would fare any better? well i guess obviously they did.
you know vietnam was one big fuck up from the beginning to its sad inevitable end. fighting a war without regard of local conditions, doing so as if it were just another ground war and on a very shaky premise to begin with, at best just begs for trouble. the US and friends got their arses kicked and yet they didn't learn a god damn thing did they?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The US politicians and the corrupt south Vietnamese government got our arses kicked for us; we did not loss one decisive battle in that war. The French got their ass kicked.
Can't you see that there's light in the dark.
Nothing's quite what it seems in the city of dreams.
(Wolfmother)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grand Rapids 2006
The US politicians and the corrupt south Vietnamese government got our arses kicked for us; we did not loss one decisive battle in that war. The French got their ass kicked.
i disagree. what got your arses kicked was trying to wage a conventional land war when it was clear that you were dealing with an unconventional enemy. it was american arrogance and unwillingness to adapt. and when you realised the situation was quite beyond you, it was decided that bombing vietnam into the stone age was an acceptable direction to go. oh and while we're at it why don't we cross the border and dump on the cambodians.
that whole bullshit about destroying a village to save it. what brainiac came up with that one?
no matter how many films hollywood makes about this debacle, it will never change the fact that the US lost and nothing you can say can justify what happened in indo-china.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Viet Nam was a war waged by the 'Best and Brightest' in think tanks that wanted to demonstrate how to win a guerilla war with overwhelming technology. It was the perfect testing ground to prove that superior firepower and technological advances could defeat this relatively new type of warfare.
Why? Because the U.S. saw how Cuba was defeated by Castro's guerillas. They feared that his type of warfare would flare up in South and Central America and sweep upward to the U.s. border with Mexico. This type of thinking (fear) also lead to our covert operations the C.I.A. executed in Latin American nations in the form of military coups throughout the 1960s and 1970s.
These think tanks convinced the Pentagon to test out operations in Indo-China where the French were involved with trying to hold on to their Imperial colonies there. The French were getting their asses kicked by guerillas fighting in the jungles and villages and not the open land that favors conventional weapons and tactics. Ho Chi Mihn was NOT A COMMUNIST. He was a nationalist who wanted to unifiy his country that was arbitrarilly divided by Western nations. He tried to gain support from the U.S. to pressure France to leave Viet Nam and was turned away. That is why he turned to China to help fight he French. When the Americans became involved, the Soviet Union provided aid in the form of weapons and advisors.
Initially, the U.S. forces were C.I.A. advisors who tried to train South Vietnamese forces. It lead to military support personel and soon spun out of control as the tactics we deployed failed over and over again.
Read the 'Ten Thousand Day War: Viet Nam 1945-1975' by Michael Maglear for an in depth report on the events that took place.
We were supposed to learn the lessons of Viet Nam... Colin Powell did... so did Norman Swartzkopf. Overwhelming force with overwhelming support from the homefront using clear military objectives and an exit strategy. Command and Control from the commanders on the battlefield, not the civilians and politicians in the White House and the Pentagon. Win the hearts and minds of the populous with aid and support, not bullets and bombs.
Finally, to lessen the results of our experience and defeat in Viet Nam by pretending it wasn't such a bad loss is to pay disrespect to the young men and women who died or came back home fucked up from their exposure to that war. This country should never treat our military personel as pawns at the disposal of rich, fat mother fuckers sitting safely at home.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Vietnam is what happens when the government doesn't want to fight a war like it's a war. That's why I wouldn't say that we "lost" in Vietnam. After all, all it took was heavy B-52 strikes on Hanoi to bring the North to the negotiating table.
The US lost approx. 58,000 troops in Vietnam. In 1995, the Vietnamese government stated that it lost approx. 1,000,000 combatants during the war.
It was an ugly war that did not work out in the US' favor, but I would hardly say that the US "lost" and it "got its ass kicked".
It's always fun to slag a superpower when things don't exactly go its way, but look at the statistics: The only thing keeping the North in the game was a bottomless supply of bodies, not superior military tactics.
It's always fun to slag a superpower when things don't exactly go its way, but look at the statistics: The only thing keeping the North in the game was a bottomless supply of bodies, not superior military tactics.
so tell me, did the united states achieve it's objective in vietnam?
and as far as i could see the thing the north had going for it that the united states and friends didn't, was the fact that they were in the right.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Depends. There are a lot of nasty stories out there of veterans being spit on or assaulted or generally harassed. But that's not to say that all anti-war folk engaged in such acts.
You'll hear a lot of anti-war folks now go on and on about "we still support the troops", etc. That language is largely in response to the treatment of veterans post-Vietnam.
Strange that. A lot of the top brass of the anti-war movement were veterans. A lot of people forget this.
How is it that they were many US companies based in Vietnam during and after the war?
The dollar (peso, yen, pound, Euro...etc.) trumps the sword.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Strange that. A lot of the top brass of the anti-war movement were veterans. A lot of people forget this.
Well, I wouldn't say "a lot" and there really was no "top brass" -- the anti-war movement wasn't that organized then or now. But the essence of your point is certainly valid. Many veterans spoke out against the war during and following the conflict.
so tell me, did the united states achieve it's objective in vietnam?
and as far as i could see the thing the north had going for it that the united states and friends didn't, was the fact that they were in the right.
I wouldn't say either side was in the right. Even before the US arrived in Vietnam, the north vietnamese people were fleeing by the thousands to south vietnam in order to escape the socialistic n. vietnamese government.
In spite of whatever reason Ho Chi Minh may have had in enlisting assistance from and emulating the communist party, the fact of the matter is that N. Vietnam was, in fact, a communist government when all was said and done. And the people in South Vietnam did not want to be a part of this government.
I had a Vietnamese roommate in college whose dad was killed by communists after the US left. Somehow I doubt he'd agree with the notion that N. Vietnam was in the right.
Now let's assume that the N. was in the right. How does that constitute something that it had going for it? How did that help the N.? I don't think it mattered if the N. was in the right or if it was in the wrong. Its intentions were to annex S. Vietnam regardless.
And of course the US did not accomplish its goal. However, nor did it ever wholly commit to that goal. It was assumed that after enough casualties were inflicted on the north, they would eventually give up. But, they didn't. They just kept sending bodies over the border. That's why I say it was a matter of who wanted it more. The US didn't want it as bad as the N. did, and that was that.
So, it wasn't a matter of the US winning or losing. It was a matter of the US deciding it wasn't worth the effort. In fact, the US would have continued to provide air support to the South long after troop withdrawal had it not been for the Watergate scandal.
Finally, to lessen the results of our experience and defeat in Viet Nam by pretending it wasn't such a bad loss is to pay disrespect to the young men and women who died or came back home fucked up from their exposure to that war. This country should never treat our military personel as pawns at the disposal of rich, fat mother fuckers sitting safely at home.
I couldn't agree more, with all that you said Cosmo.
I read this entire thread earlier and find that it has gotten under my skin, so as the sibling of a Vietnam vet I feel I need to say something.
First, to those who feel we did not 'lose' in Vietnam, I can't figure out where that would come from. We did lose in Vietnam. The definition of loss to me in this case is, the US did not accomplish their objective. I still to this day remember the words of Nixon I believe saying, 'I will not be the first President to lose a war'. What arrogance! Easy to say when you're sitting in a nice cushy pad thousands of miles away from the death and destruction. Easy for the political hawks to spew this also when they were also sitting in their nice cushy congressional, senatorial offices all over the country. hmmmm....seems to me history is repeating itself once again, or is this just a delusion that I'm having?
My brother (1/2 bro, didn't get to grow up together but we have the same dad) was there for 2 tours (grunt/US Army/enlisted), I think he would find this interesting, for people who were not there to say we didn't 'lose' or get 'our asses kicked'. In some cases, we didn't get our asses kicked, we did the ass kicking. In some cases it was the opposite but I suppose you would have to look at each battle/confrontation individually to make a statement such as 'we didn't get our asses kicked'. Such is war I suppose.
I remember another eye-opener in the form of a book called 'Nam' by Mark Baker that I read years ago. It is a collection of thoughts and letters by veterans of that war. One passage that stuck out to me that left me sickened when I read it, was about the rubber plantations ie: one owned by Goodyear and how at all costs, our soldiers were to protect that plantation and not let anything or anyone who may cause destruction anywhere near it. A 'fire free zone'. Unfortunately, soldiers died while carrying out tasks such as these. I felt nauseated when I read this. It was shocking to read, honestly, I had no idea this type of thing went on. I was young and it was the early 80s when I read it. Like I said, it gave me a new awareness and to this day, has left me with my eyes open to shennigans and the special interests of this government and others for that matter. It's not an exclusive scenario for the US believe me. It's rampant all over the world.
Now that I've rambled, I don't know what my point is anymore.
I guess I get too emotional even to this day, when I read statements like 'we didn't lose'. It feels like a flip statement, one that brushes all of the pain and suffering of that war aside.
My Brother-in-law arrived home (US Army/1year tour/drafted) to be told he was 'too young' to rent a car to drive to his home when he arrived at the airport.
A few friends who grew up in my neighborhood in NY had their older brothers arrive home in body bags.
A few friends who grew up in my neighborhood in NY had their older brothers come home fucked up and addicted to heroin, (3 to be exact).
My husband narrowly missed the draft because his social security number was in the right category during the 'lotteries'.
He also had friends come home either fucked up or in body bags.
By the way, my brother was one vet that came home completely opposed to that war. No one would hire him, not even people who 'claimed' to be in favor of the war. He ended up living on the Zuni res. for about a year drowning his feeling of not fitting into society anymore in the forms of alcohol, and way too many drugs.
Thankfully he realized if he didn't get out of there he would most likely die.
He met his wife eventually and got his shit together.
He has the words 'Born To Die' tattoed on his left forearm from a wicked binge in Saigon inspired by losing many friends in his plattoon during a firefight.....he couldn't understand why he was alive and not dead.
The problem with calling Vietnam a loss is that doing so would distort the very definition of what a loss truly is. The original objective was to stem the spread of communism into S. Vietnam and, by doing so, wage a "proxy war" against the USSR and China.
Now, there are many people out there who see a much different objective on the part of the US - an objective that entails a deliberate effort to spur the US economy through weapons and supply contracts. In which case, the US certainly did achieve its objective in Vietnam.
But, if we base our assessment of US achievements in Vietnam in regards to the first objective, then obviously there was an enormous failure. And, with that in mind, it's safe to say that every american who lost his her life, or who suffered in any way shape or form as a result of the war, did so in vain.
And it's that wasteful use of human life by our government that makes people feel inclined to call that war a loss. By calling it a loss, people hope to enforce the notion that our government should think twice before sending troops into battle w/o realistic and well-defined objectives. That is, by highlighting the failure of the US to reach its objectives, it is hoped that future politicians understand the severity of the potential consequences.
But, you have to ask yourself why the US didn't achieve its objective in Vietnam. And the answer is simple: Nixon couldn't handle the political pressures of the war.
Had Nixon been able to keep the war going w/o interference of public opinion, who knows how long US military presence in Vietnam would have lasted, in which case it's not entirely unreasonable to assume that the N. would have eventually given up. After all, Operation Linebacker II brought the N. to the negotating table in a big, big hurry.
So, what if the US had stayed in Vietnam for a few more years, resulting in the surrender of the north as well as thousands of additional US casualties? Would you call that a win? Would you then say "objective achieved"? Would your relative's wounds all of the sudden seem like justification for the US' achievements rather than its failures?
By your defition, the answer is yes. And that's why it's really more of an insult to call Vietnam a loss rather than to call it an abandoned and poorly planned US military objective. By calling the Vietnam war a loss, you are disproportionately focusing on the military's track record, rather than on the political debacle that it really was.
As I said before, the kill ratio was 17:1. For every US combatant that was killed, 17 N. combatants were killed. Had the war gone on longer, especially with the involvement of B-52 strikes, the US certainly would have achieved its objective.
In fact, even after US troops left, the US had agreed to lend heavy financial and military air support to the south vietnamese army, but later retracted as a result of the watergate scandal.
So, from a military standpoint, Vietnam was a victory. US troops in Vietnam did an outstanding job of taking on the enemy in its own environment. From a political standpoint, it was a failure. And that's why calling that war a loss is to insult the men and women who served there - it is to ignore the fact that while the US military was there, it was achieving its objectives in spite of being up against overwhelming odds.
However, nor did it ever wholly commit to that goal. It was assumed that after enough casualties were inflicted on the north, they would eventually give up. But, they didn't.....
oh that's perfect. i'd be thrilled to know that my government was sending me into a situation that it wasn't fully committed to. this is the most insane comment i've read on this thread. it certainly explains why the US wasn't victorious. what was it? some kind of game to them then?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yes it was. It was called the cold war. You call my comment insane, yet it is based on fact. It's a factual statement. Maybe the circumstances that my comment was descibing define insanity, but the comment itself makes no delusional assumptions.
I'm going to try to use a parallel here. Let's consider what happened in Somalia in 1993. After a couple of US servicemen were shown on TV being dragged naked through the streets of mogadishu, Clinton decided US involvement in Somalia's internal strife was politically unfeasible.
Do you want to call that a loss? Do you want to say that the Rangers in Somalia got their asses kicked? A handful of them literally fought their way out of an entire city full of enemy combatants. If ordered to do so, they would've come back another day and done it again.
But, the commander-in-chief decided that it wasn't worth the negative publicity. And that's all there was to it.
That was exactly the situation in vietnam. While heavily outnumbered and while being restrained by their own government, US servicemen in Vietnam kept the N. at bay. They would have continued to do so had it not been for the negative publicity that the war was getting at home.
That is, the commander-in-chief found the war to be politically unfeasible. By using the expressions "got their asses kicked" and "cut and run", people are implying that the US should've stayed in Vietnam to finish the job. They are implying that even more US soldiers and Vietnamese civilians should have died just so we can call the war a win.
By referring to the Vietnam war on a loss/win basis, we are in effect ignoring the notion that Vietnam was a mistake to begin with. People knew this, and so our government decided it was no longer in its own best interest to continue. We didn't "lose". We didn't "get our asses kicked". Instead, we put an end to an objectionable use of military resources.
Referring to Vietnam as a loss only encourages future similar wars to be fought to the bitter end, no matter how wastefully, just for the sake of keeping face. And that, in my opinion, is a true insult to those who bravely fought there.
The problem with calling Vietnam a loss is that doing so would distort the very definition of what a loss truly is. The original objective was to stem the spread of communism into S. Vietnam and, by doing so, wage a "proxy war" against the USSR and China.
But, if we base our assessment of US achievements in Vietnam in regards to the first objective, then obviously there was an enormous failure. And, with that in mind, it's safe to say that every american who lost his her life, or who suffered in any way shape or form as a result of the war, did so in vain.
sponger, don't you understand that this is what those young boys were told the objective was when they enlisted or were drafted? This was their goal, to end the spread of communism. My brother felt strongly about that being force fed those ideals in the 1950s.
First sponger, I understand the point you are making. I find it noble and truly optimistic and I do not mean that in a condescending way.
I re-read what I wrote and realize I was wrapped up in emotion when I typed it. I need to make myself clear as I didn't in what I wrote yesterday.
Vietnam was a conflict we should have never been involved with in the first place. This government of ours needs to learn when to keep it's noses out of other peoples business.
When I state that Nixon was arrogant for making that statement I mean he and the politicians who backed him were more concerned with losing face than being concerned with the plight our young, young, young men were going through...and their commanders for that matter.
It should have ended when LBJ was in office.
When we were kids sponger, we were told it was a 'conflict in Southeast Asia' in history class, I guess the word 'War' was too dirty and realistic...it was still going on, it was on tv every night. Do you remember this?
And it's that wasteful use of human life by our government that makes people feel inclined to call that war a loss. By calling it a loss, people hope to enforce the notion that our government should think twice before sending troops into battle w/o realistic and well-defined objectives. That is, by highlighting the failure of the US to reach its objectives, it is hoped that future politicians understand the severity of the potential consequences.
And this is one of my favorite things that you wrote.
The sad thing about your statement is putting in perspective with what is going on now in Iraq. The minute we 'liberated' Baghdad and the crazyness of the next few days ensued with the looting and pilaging and no plan on the part of the military leaders, mine and my husband's first thoughts were ...
'holy shit, there's no plan is there?' It was the first thing everyone who grew up with the Vietnam 'conflict' thought of, we all shared our thoughts about it.
The insanity of those first few days was a foreshadowing of what was to come...
We have been opposed to this war also, ever since the micro-second they began talking about it.
The US was not in a "war" in Vietnam. We were only suppose to be support. That is why the objectives were not reached. Minimal troops were sent over at a time which left many dead or maimed.
There are many lies still surrounding that era. Some history books say we were out of there by '73. Well, my husband joined the army in '74 and in no way was it over. American troops were still being sent over. It has only been in recent years that historians admit we were still in Vietnam after '73.
Vuetnam vets get additional benefits, but because the government, at that time, said we were out of Vietnam pre '74, my ex is not considered a Vietnam era vet. The government now admits it was not over when they initially said, but has not rewarded those vets who were there in '74 and '75.
I believe wholeheartedly that what is now going on in Iraq is way worse than the Vietnam fiasco. At least there were objectives in the Vietnam days. There were clear plans.
This Iraq debacle has no objectives other than "stay the course".
Of course for Vietnam they were drafted for the most part, so basically they were unwilling participants, however, the troops there now may have willingly joined the military, but they never expected to go to war against an ideology and an illegal war. Also, even in the Vietnam days, they didn't call up people who had already served their tiime. That is what they are doing now!!! I also don't recall the reserves going overseas back then.
Comments
I think America and some other world nations (including my own) need to realize that to combat "cultures" that are not nation states needs to be done differently than combating nation states (ie. Germany in WW2).....you will never win a fist fight with them.....that will only strengthen them......it has been proven in the past and will be proven again (which I do say with no hint of happiness though)
The documents, statements and actions are right in front of your eyes.
Aggression is always about fear.
Completely agreed. Vietnam teaches another important lessen there. War lost the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. Capitalism earned them, as is evidenced by the direction Vietnam is now headed in. Culture is best fought with culture.
I also think maybe it lies in the ego of a nation as well (more of its leaders).....
Don't expect the USA to turn to the Congo. But also don't expect the USA to stop trying to solve a lot of international problems. As the world's primary power, the US is in a lose-lose situation. When we help, we get accused of alterior motives. When we don't, we get accused of other alterior motives.
The USA needs to tell the entire world to fix their problems and then focus on our own problems. Furthermore we need to stop actively contributing to the world's problems. That means no more regime changes, no more proxy wars. The world is a much different place than it was 100 years ago.
No, and we typically don't get actively involved in the trivial problems and conflict of this world. We just often find ourselves attempting to solve large problems we can't solve or making the problems worse in the process.
vietnam wasn't about communism no matter what washington told its people. but as you know, there isn't a bigger red flag to the american people than communism.(no pun intended) it was a nationalist push from within south vietnam to reunite the country after it was arbitrarily divided in two by people who yet again thought they knew better and who had no business doing it. and that is after they supported the corrupt south vietnamese government and continued doing so even in the face of human rights abuses. the vietnamese had spent years fighting the french imperialists. did the americans think they would fare any better? well i guess obviously they did.
you know vietnam was one big fuck up from the beginning to its sad inevitable end. fighting a war without regard of local conditions, doing so as if it were just another ground war and on a very shaky premise to begin with, at best just begs for trouble. the US and friends got their arses kicked and yet they didn't learn a god damn thing did they?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Nothing's quite what it seems in the city of dreams.
(Wolfmother)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grand Rapids 2006
i disagree. what got your arses kicked was trying to wage a conventional land war when it was clear that you were dealing with an unconventional enemy. it was american arrogance and unwillingness to adapt. and when you realised the situation was quite beyond you, it was decided that bombing vietnam into the stone age was an acceptable direction to go. oh and while we're at it why don't we cross the border and dump on the cambodians.
that whole bullshit about destroying a village to save it. what brainiac came up with that one?
no matter how many films hollywood makes about this debacle, it will never change the fact that the US lost and nothing you can say can justify what happened in indo-china.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Why? Because the U.S. saw how Cuba was defeated by Castro's guerillas. They feared that his type of warfare would flare up in South and Central America and sweep upward to the U.s. border with Mexico. This type of thinking (fear) also lead to our covert operations the C.I.A. executed in Latin American nations in the form of military coups throughout the 1960s and 1970s.
These think tanks convinced the Pentagon to test out operations in Indo-China where the French were involved with trying to hold on to their Imperial colonies there. The French were getting their asses kicked by guerillas fighting in the jungles and villages and not the open land that favors conventional weapons and tactics. Ho Chi Mihn was NOT A COMMUNIST. He was a nationalist who wanted to unifiy his country that was arbitrarilly divided by Western nations. He tried to gain support from the U.S. to pressure France to leave Viet Nam and was turned away. That is why he turned to China to help fight he French. When the Americans became involved, the Soviet Union provided aid in the form of weapons and advisors.
Initially, the U.S. forces were C.I.A. advisors who tried to train South Vietnamese forces. It lead to military support personel and soon spun out of control as the tactics we deployed failed over and over again.
Read the 'Ten Thousand Day War: Viet Nam 1945-1975' by Michael Maglear for an in depth report on the events that took place.
We were supposed to learn the lessons of Viet Nam... Colin Powell did... so did Norman Swartzkopf. Overwhelming force with overwhelming support from the homefront using clear military objectives and an exit strategy. Command and Control from the commanders on the battlefield, not the civilians and politicians in the White House and the Pentagon. Win the hearts and minds of the populous with aid and support, not bullets and bombs.
Finally, to lessen the results of our experience and defeat in Viet Nam by pretending it wasn't such a bad loss is to pay disrespect to the young men and women who died or came back home fucked up from their exposure to that war. This country should never treat our military personel as pawns at the disposal of rich, fat mother fuckers sitting safely at home.
Hail, Hail!!!
The US lost approx. 58,000 troops in Vietnam. In 1995, the Vietnamese government stated that it lost approx. 1,000,000 combatants during the war.
It was an ugly war that did not work out in the US' favor, but I would hardly say that the US "lost" and it "got its ass kicked".
It's always fun to slag a superpower when things don't exactly go its way, but look at the statistics: The only thing keeping the North in the game was a bottomless supply of bodies, not superior military tactics.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
so tell me, did the united states achieve it's objective in vietnam?
and as far as i could see the thing the north had going for it that the united states and friends didn't, was the fact that they were in the right.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The same way there are US companies in basically every nation in the world.
Strange that. A lot of the top brass of the anti-war movement were veterans. A lot of people forget this.
Well, I wouldn't say "a lot" and there really was no "top brass" -- the anti-war movement wasn't that organized then or now. But the essence of your point is certainly valid. Many veterans spoke out against the war during and following the conflict.
As it should.
I wouldn't say either side was in the right. Even before the US arrived in Vietnam, the north vietnamese people were fleeing by the thousands to south vietnam in order to escape the socialistic n. vietnamese government.
In spite of whatever reason Ho Chi Minh may have had in enlisting assistance from and emulating the communist party, the fact of the matter is that N. Vietnam was, in fact, a communist government when all was said and done. And the people in South Vietnam did not want to be a part of this government.
I had a Vietnamese roommate in college whose dad was killed by communists after the US left. Somehow I doubt he'd agree with the notion that N. Vietnam was in the right.
Now let's assume that the N. was in the right. How does that constitute something that it had going for it? How did that help the N.? I don't think it mattered if the N. was in the right or if it was in the wrong. Its intentions were to annex S. Vietnam regardless.
And of course the US did not accomplish its goal. However, nor did it ever wholly commit to that goal. It was assumed that after enough casualties were inflicted on the north, they would eventually give up. But, they didn't. They just kept sending bodies over the border. That's why I say it was a matter of who wanted it more. The US didn't want it as bad as the N. did, and that was that.
So, it wasn't a matter of the US winning or losing. It was a matter of the US deciding it wasn't worth the effort. In fact, the US would have continued to provide air support to the South long after troop withdrawal had it not been for the Watergate scandal.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I couldn't agree more, with all that you said Cosmo.
I read this entire thread earlier and find that it has gotten under my skin, so as the sibling of a Vietnam vet I feel I need to say something.
First, to those who feel we did not 'lose' in Vietnam, I can't figure out where that would come from. We did lose in Vietnam. The definition of loss to me in this case is, the US did not accomplish their objective. I still to this day remember the words of Nixon I believe saying, 'I will not be the first President to lose a war'. What arrogance! Easy to say when you're sitting in a nice cushy pad thousands of miles away from the death and destruction. Easy for the political hawks to spew this also when they were also sitting in their nice cushy congressional, senatorial offices all over the country. hmmmm....seems to me history is repeating itself once again, or is this just a delusion that I'm having?
My brother (1/2 bro, didn't get to grow up together but we have the same dad) was there for 2 tours (grunt/US Army/enlisted), I think he would find this interesting, for people who were not there to say we didn't 'lose' or get 'our asses kicked'. In some cases, we didn't get our asses kicked, we did the ass kicking. In some cases it was the opposite but I suppose you would have to look at each battle/confrontation individually to make a statement such as 'we didn't get our asses kicked'. Such is war I suppose.
I remember another eye-opener in the form of a book called 'Nam' by Mark Baker that I read years ago. It is a collection of thoughts and letters by veterans of that war. One passage that stuck out to me that left me sickened when I read it, was about the rubber plantations ie: one owned by Goodyear and how at all costs, our soldiers were to protect that plantation and not let anything or anyone who may cause destruction anywhere near it. A 'fire free zone'. Unfortunately, soldiers died while carrying out tasks such as these. I felt nauseated when I read this. It was shocking to read, honestly, I had no idea this type of thing went on. I was young and it was the early 80s when I read it. Like I said, it gave me a new awareness and to this day, has left me with my eyes open to shennigans and the special interests of this government and others for that matter. It's not an exclusive scenario for the US believe me. It's rampant all over the world.
Now that I've rambled, I don't know what my point is anymore.
I guess I get too emotional even to this day, when I read statements like 'we didn't lose'. It feels like a flip statement, one that brushes all of the pain and suffering of that war aside.
My Brother-in-law arrived home (US Army/1year tour/drafted) to be told he was 'too young' to rent a car to drive to his home when he arrived at the airport.
A few friends who grew up in my neighborhood in NY had their older brothers arrive home in body bags.
A few friends who grew up in my neighborhood in NY had their older brothers come home fucked up and addicted to heroin, (3 to be exact).
My husband narrowly missed the draft because his social security number was in the right category during the 'lotteries'.
He also had friends come home either fucked up or in body bags.
By the way, my brother was one vet that came home completely opposed to that war. No one would hire him, not even people who 'claimed' to be in favor of the war. He ended up living on the Zuni res. for about a year drowning his feeling of not fitting into society anymore in the forms of alcohol, and way too many drugs.
Thankfully he realized if he didn't get out of there he would most likely die.
He met his wife eventually and got his shit together.
He has the words 'Born To Die' tattoed on his left forearm from a wicked binge in Saigon inspired by losing many friends in his plattoon during a firefight.....he couldn't understand why he was alive and not dead.
Now, there are many people out there who see a much different objective on the part of the US - an objective that entails a deliberate effort to spur the US economy through weapons and supply contracts. In which case, the US certainly did achieve its objective in Vietnam.
But, if we base our assessment of US achievements in Vietnam in regards to the first objective, then obviously there was an enormous failure. And, with that in mind, it's safe to say that every american who lost his her life, or who suffered in any way shape or form as a result of the war, did so in vain.
And it's that wasteful use of human life by our government that makes people feel inclined to call that war a loss. By calling it a loss, people hope to enforce the notion that our government should think twice before sending troops into battle w/o realistic and well-defined objectives. That is, by highlighting the failure of the US to reach its objectives, it is hoped that future politicians understand the severity of the potential consequences.
But, you have to ask yourself why the US didn't achieve its objective in Vietnam. And the answer is simple: Nixon couldn't handle the political pressures of the war.
Had Nixon been able to keep the war going w/o interference of public opinion, who knows how long US military presence in Vietnam would have lasted, in which case it's not entirely unreasonable to assume that the N. would have eventually given up. After all, Operation Linebacker II brought the N. to the negotating table in a big, big hurry.
So, what if the US had stayed in Vietnam for a few more years, resulting in the surrender of the north as well as thousands of additional US casualties? Would you call that a win? Would you then say "objective achieved"? Would your relative's wounds all of the sudden seem like justification for the US' achievements rather than its failures?
By your defition, the answer is yes. And that's why it's really more of an insult to call Vietnam a loss rather than to call it an abandoned and poorly planned US military objective. By calling the Vietnam war a loss, you are disproportionately focusing on the military's track record, rather than on the political debacle that it really was.
As I said before, the kill ratio was 17:1. For every US combatant that was killed, 17 N. combatants were killed. Had the war gone on longer, especially with the involvement of B-52 strikes, the US certainly would have achieved its objective.
In fact, even after US troops left, the US had agreed to lend heavy financial and military air support to the south vietnamese army, but later retracted as a result of the watergate scandal.
So, from a military standpoint, Vietnam was a victory. US troops in Vietnam did an outstanding job of taking on the enemy in its own environment. From a political standpoint, it was a failure. And that's why calling that war a loss is to insult the men and women who served there - it is to ignore the fact that while the US military was there, it was achieving its objectives in spite of being up against overwhelming odds.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
more like a strategic retreat then huh?
oh that's perfect. i'd be thrilled to know that my government was sending me into a situation that it wasn't fully committed to. this is the most insane comment i've read on this thread. it certainly explains why the US wasn't victorious. what was it? some kind of game to them then?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Yes it was. It was called the cold war. You call my comment insane, yet it is based on fact. It's a factual statement. Maybe the circumstances that my comment was descibing define insanity, but the comment itself makes no delusional assumptions.
I'm going to try to use a parallel here. Let's consider what happened in Somalia in 1993. After a couple of US servicemen were shown on TV being dragged naked through the streets of mogadishu, Clinton decided US involvement in Somalia's internal strife was politically unfeasible.
Do you want to call that a loss? Do you want to say that the Rangers in Somalia got their asses kicked? A handful of them literally fought their way out of an entire city full of enemy combatants. If ordered to do so, they would've come back another day and done it again.
But, the commander-in-chief decided that it wasn't worth the negative publicity. And that's all there was to it.
That was exactly the situation in vietnam. While heavily outnumbered and while being restrained by their own government, US servicemen in Vietnam kept the N. at bay. They would have continued to do so had it not been for the negative publicity that the war was getting at home.
That is, the commander-in-chief found the war to be politically unfeasible. By using the expressions "got their asses kicked" and "cut and run", people are implying that the US should've stayed in Vietnam to finish the job. They are implying that even more US soldiers and Vietnamese civilians should have died just so we can call the war a win.
By referring to the Vietnam war on a loss/win basis, we are in effect ignoring the notion that Vietnam was a mistake to begin with. People knew this, and so our government decided it was no longer in its own best interest to continue. We didn't "lose". We didn't "get our asses kicked". Instead, we put an end to an objectionable use of military resources.
Referring to Vietnam as a loss only encourages future similar wars to be fought to the bitter end, no matter how wastefully, just for the sake of keeping face. And that, in my opinion, is a true insult to those who bravely fought there.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
sponger, don't you understand that this is what those young boys were told the objective was when they enlisted or were drafted? This was their goal, to end the spread of communism. My brother felt strongly about that being force fed those ideals in the 1950s.
First sponger, I understand the point you are making. I find it noble and truly optimistic and I do not mean that in a condescending way.
I re-read what I wrote and realize I was wrapped up in emotion when I typed it. I need to make myself clear as I didn't in what I wrote yesterday.
Vietnam was a conflict we should have never been involved with in the first place. This government of ours needs to learn when to keep it's noses out of other peoples business.
When I state that Nixon was arrogant for making that statement I mean he and the politicians who backed him were more concerned with losing face than being concerned with the plight our young, young, young men were going through...and their commanders for that matter.
It should have ended when LBJ was in office.
When we were kids sponger, we were told it was a 'conflict in Southeast Asia' in history class, I guess the word 'War' was too dirty and realistic...it was still going on, it was on tv every night. Do you remember this?
And this is one of my favorite things that you wrote.
The sad thing about your statement is putting in perspective with what is going on now in Iraq. The minute we 'liberated' Baghdad and the crazyness of the next few days ensued with the looting and pilaging and no plan on the part of the military leaders, mine and my husband's first thoughts were ...
'holy shit, there's no plan is there?' It was the first thing everyone who grew up with the Vietnam 'conflict' thought of, we all shared our thoughts about it.
The insanity of those first few days was a foreshadowing of what was to come...
We have been opposed to this war also, ever since the micro-second they began talking about it.
Cheers sponger, it's been nice talking to you.
There are many lies still surrounding that era. Some history books say we were out of there by '73. Well, my husband joined the army in '74 and in no way was it over. American troops were still being sent over. It has only been in recent years that historians admit we were still in Vietnam after '73.
Vuetnam vets get additional benefits, but because the government, at that time, said we were out of Vietnam pre '74, my ex is not considered a Vietnam era vet. The government now admits it was not over when they initially said, but has not rewarded those vets who were there in '74 and '75.
I believe wholeheartedly that what is now going on in Iraq is way worse than the Vietnam fiasco. At least there were objectives in the Vietnam days. There were clear plans.
This Iraq debacle has no objectives other than "stay the course".
Of course for Vietnam they were drafted for the most part, so basically they were unwilling participants, however, the troops there now may have willingly joined the military, but they never expected to go to war against an ideology and an illegal war. Also, even in the Vietnam days, they didn't call up people who had already served their tiime. That is what they are doing now!!! I also don't recall the reserves going overseas back then.