Posted on 10/11/2009 11:34:51 AM PDT by kristinn
The South Vietnamese lost because we cut off their supplies even as the Soviets handed billions of dollars of new tanks, heavy artillery and Migs to the North Vietnamese. The South Vietnamese were defeated by superior firepower just as much as the South Koreans were initially hurled back by the invading North Koreans in 1950. The difference is that unlike South Korea, South Vietnam did not have the US 8th Army waiting in the south of the country to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Just prior to the invasion in 1975, guerrilla activity in South Vietnam was non-existent. This is why uniformed NVA took Saigon using brand new Soviet tanks, not black pajama clad VC using AK-47's.
South Vietnam was lost the day we decided we would withdraw.
Who said all of that??? Not me.
This would be news to the North Vietnamese, who had to wait two long years to take Saigon. Without Watergate, South Vietnam would still be around today as an independent country. Heck, if we had withdrawn in 1953, South Korea would be part of unified communist Korea. Here's a table of US KIA by year:
| Country | Year of Death | Number Killed |
|---|---|---|
| USA[6] | ||
|
|
1956-1964 | 401 |
|
|
1965 | 1,863 |
|
|
1966 | 6,143 |
|
|
1967 | 11,153 |
|
|
1968 | 16,592 |
|
|
1969 | 11,616 |
|
|
1970 | 6,081 |
|
|
1971 | 2,357 |
|
|
1972 | 641 |
During the Tet offensive in 1968, the US lost over 3,000 men KIA, in a year that saw over 16,000 GI's KIA. During the Easter offensive in 1972, a major NVA conventional push, the US lost 641 KIA in the entire year. The war was winding down, and the North Vietnamese were beaten. But the Democrats couldn't stand to see their communist allies beaten, and made sure to hand victory to them on a plate by cutting aid to the South Vietnamese, at a time when the North Vietnamese were getting billions of dollars in shiny new equipment.
What? You're finally saying that the native rulers were no better than their European governors? But what about what you see as the unique* evils perpetrated by Europeans in the form of the twin ideologies of "Social Darwinism" and "white man's burden"?
* "Unique" ideologies that native civilizations had practiced for thousands of years.
I simply don't care. My only point is that we did a lousy job of counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Period. That is it. Nada mas. Whatever your psychological or ideological baggage, I don't care. It is irrelevant to that one simple point that I made. Comparative catastrophies in colonial exploitation, moral relativism in imperialistic overreach, or whatever point you are trying to make. I don't care. We ran a lousy strategy in Vietnam and we lost.
So what? We lost.
Actually, you're arguing native man's superiority, moral relativism and all kinds of BS to support decolonization.
My only point is that we did a lousy job of counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Period. That is it.
And my point was that we did a good job, but ultimately failed because North Vietnam's allies were more steadfast than we were.
Whatever your psychological or ideological baggage, I don't care.
Your ideological baggage is very relevant, because it clouds the basic issue, which is that America defeat had nothing to do with not backing the "right" side. It had to do with winning the war and then having the rug pulled out by the Democratic party, at a time when US casualties were shrinking to nothing.
You said South Vietnam was lost the day we decided to withdraw. I pointed out if it were true, the North Vietnamese would have been in Saigon the next day. North Vietnamese victory was not a foregone conclusion. The triggering event was not our withdrawal. It was the Democratic party's withdrawal of military aid to South Vietnam carried out in sync with billions in Soviet supplies to North Vietnam.
I am not arguing for decolonization. I don't need to. The argument would be pointless. There is nowhere to decolonize, decolonialization having run its course, in case you had not noticed, unless you are sympathetic to the fate of St. Pierre and Miquelon Islands. That is a poor target, however.
And my point was that we did a good job [of counterinsurgency], but ultimately failed because North Vietnam's allies were more steadfast than we were.
Which is just another way of saying we did a lousy job.
Your ideological baggage
What is my ideological baggage? My point here is that if you are going to fight a war you should try to win it and that starts with having a winning strategy which starts with not defending the indefensible.
then having the rug pulled out by the Democratic party, at a time when US casualties were shrinking to nothing.
Us casualties shrank to nothing because it was Presidential policy to avoid American combat casualties by avoiding having American troops engage the enemy. Instead we resorted to mass bombing by B-52. Our total lack of commitment to a winning strategy could not have been clearer. I.e. we did a lousy job at counterinsurgency.
Former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Medal of Honor recipient of the Vietnam war, wrote an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal Friday night that congratulated Obama on his Nobel Peace Prize but then went on to criticize Obama for being "naive" and apologizing for America too much.Expect Obama's att'y general to indict Kerrey for war crimes committed in Vietnam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.