Vietnam

farfromglorified

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

tybird wrote:

The dollar (peso, yen, pound, Euro...etc.) trumps the sword.

As it should.

fada

Having watched the documentary , is or was the minster of defence between 69-69 the only member who said that it was wrong to go to Vietnam?

sponger

catefrances wrote:

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.

brokenarrow

Cosmo wrote:

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.

sponger

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.

catefrances

so, let me get this straight. the united states cuts and runs and you say that is not a loss?
more like a strategic retreat then huh?

sponger wrote:

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?

sponger

catefrances wrote:

what was it? some kind of game to them then?

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.

brokenarrow

sponger wrote:

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.

sponger wrote:

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?

sponger wrote:

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.


Cheers sponger, it's been nice talking to you.

Heatherj43

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.

sponger

Well, I'm under the impression that the draft was making it possible for war to be waged in Vietnam without recalling troops who had already served.

fada

Are the soldiers of Nam remembered in the same way as their counterparts in World War Two( as in like the normandy landing etc..)?

sponger

fada wrote:

Are the soldiers of Nam remembered in the same way as their counterparts in World War Two( as in like the normandy landing etc..)?

Now they are. Back in the day, they were villified by the american public for being "baby killers" and so on.

Vietnam was the first "televised" war. And I think it may have marked the first time most americans were really exposed to the harsh realities of war. Not knowing how to react, people began blaming the soldiers. My guess is that they didn't understand that the same stuff probably happened in previous wars, but just wasn't exposed as a result of limitations on the media.

But, I think Lee Iacocca said it best in his opening remarks in the film "Platoon" when said in regards to Vietnam veterans, "They were called, and they went."

Of course, what he was saying was that regardless of who may have won or lost, or what objective may or may not have been achieved, Vietnam veterans share a common ground with veterans of say, WWII, in that they answered their "call to duty", so to speak.

Restless Soul

this thread has just reminded me, I met a guy today who's running a petition calling for Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange to receive compensation from the US.

Sign it here: http://www.petitiononline.com/AOVN/

Heatherj43

sponger wrote:

Well, I'm under the impression that the draft was making it possible for war to be waged in Vietnam without recalling troops who had already served.

That is true. It prevented this "backdoor" draft. It also kept the reserves at home.
As for the later post about "they were called, etc.", back then you did not need to be a high school grad to join and many guys who were facing jail time weree given the option of joining the military or going to prison.
I don't think there were too many who willingly went.
I remember the feeling was that if someone joined willingly, they were a bit crazy.
I don't feel most answered the call to duty. Most were forced.

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

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.

...
Come up with all the excuses you want and try to warp factual events through the distortion of time... but, anyway you slice it... it was a loss. Deal with it.
It doesn't lessen the ideals and principles of America... and it doesn't tarnish the uniforms of our soldiers. All it says is, 'We fucked up. Let's take this lesson and learn from it so we do not repeat it.' America is not perfect and trying to cover up her blemishes, diminishes and nulifies the truth about her. We make mistakes, we're human. We need to get over this God complex of perfection and admit it... we are a nation of humans. And humans make mistakes.

sponger

Cosmo wrote:

...
Come up with all the excuses you want and try to warp factual events through the distortion of time... but, anyway you slice it... it was a loss. Deal with it.
It doesn't lessen the ideals and principles of America... and it doesn't tarnish the uniforms of our soldiers. All it says is, 'We fucked up. Let's take this lesson and learn from it so we do not repeat it.' America is not perfect and trying to cover up her blemishes, diminishes and nulifies the truth about her. We make mistakes, we're human. We need to get over this God complex of perfection and admit it... we are a nation of humans. And humans make mistakes.

No one is trying to cover up anything. If you think you have a point to make, try using supporting details.

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

No one is trying to cover up anything. If you think you have a point to make, try using supporting details.

...
You are lost in symantics... a loss is 'this'... not 'that'. Face the facts... we won every battle in Viet Nam, yet lost the War.
Point 1. Viet Nam is united, not divided (as we wanted it). South Viet Nam and saigon no longer exist.
Point 2. Viet Nam is a socialist nation, as Ho Chi Mihn wanted.
Point 3. Our military is not there. The Army we stood up in south Viet Nam is gone.
...
Pretending we didn't lose is a dis-service to the lives sacrificed in this political experiment. We lost, we need to learn from the lesson and we need to avoid making the same mistake.

sponger

Cosmo wrote:

...
Pretending we didn't lose is a dis-service to the lives sacrificed in this political experiment. We lost, we need to learn from the lesson and we need to avoid making the same mistake.

If you really want to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future, you have to focus on why Vietnam was abandoned, not lost. By using the term lost, you make it sound as though the US was really trying to win, which it wasn't.

You see, there's an even bigger sacrifice that Vietnam vets made than fighting in a war that was "lost". That bigger sacrifice was fighting in a war that their own government wasn't fully committed to winning. That is what makes Vietnam Vets the victims that you want them to be perceived as.

So, again, by calling the war a loss, you ignore the shameful fact that the US wasn't really trying to win. And by doing that, you are in fact ignoring the circumstances that made Vietnam the waste of military personnel and resources that it was. And by ignoring those circumstances, the most likely outcome will be a repetition of what happened. And that is a true insult to those who served there.

You can't learn from a mistake unless it is understood and remembered why that mistake happened. By referring to Vietnam as a loss simply because the original objective wasn't met, the how and why of the mistake is ignored, and therefore is not learned from. By referring to Vietnam was an abandoned objective, the misleading causation of "we tried, but we couldn't.." is immediately discounted, leading to the how and the why that serve as a reminder of the unnecessary wasteful sacrifices made by those who fought in Vietnam.

WhiteMaleRat

I agree with Sponger, we could of won Vietnam, but it would of took another 5 years at least, double the casualties unless we dropped the bomb again. It just wasn't worth it - which was the case from the start of the conflict. We just tried to achieve the objective by slowly escalating our involvement and resources. Intention and objective was somewhat correct - actions and results were not.