Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is It Possible, Could America Have Won the Vietnam War In '1968?
Article by: Gene Kuentzler '1999 ^ | 3/17/02 | Gene Kuentzler

Posted on 03/17/2002 2:25:49 PM PST by Mom_Grandmother

Is It Possible, Could America Have Won the Vietnam War In '1968?

By '1968, North Vietnamese morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap (Senior General Vo Njuyen Giap) and NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a "failure", they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a "surrender."

At the time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard "Walter Cronkite" (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the NVA. They were completely and totall amazed at hearing tha the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, the NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated that riots and protesting on the streets of America.

According to General Giap, these distorted reports were insperational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in America would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield.

Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of '1967, beginning of '1968. Today, there were 58,000 names on the Vietnam Wall Memorial that was built with the donations made by the American public.

Although General Giap did not mention each and every protester's name in his book, many of us will never forget the 58,000 names on the Wall. We will also never forget that names of those who helped in placing those additional 48,000 names there: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Walter Cronkite, and other's.

Gene Kuentzler, '66-67, S-3 Operations 19th Combat Engineer Battalion


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: protesters; reporting; traitors; vietnam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last

1 posted on 03/17/2002 2:25:49 PM PST by Mom_Grandmother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
And if the military had been honest with the media from the start, maybe Cronkite would not have just assumed they were lying when they told him Tet was a failure.
2 posted on 03/17/2002 2:29:20 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
I think we would have won if we let the military do its job. That would have included invading north vietnam and wiping out the root of the problem.
3 posted on 03/17/2002 2:30:35 PM PST by glockmeister40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
"Is It Possible, Could America Have Won the Vietnam War In '1968?"

YES.

4 posted on 03/17/2002 2:32:30 PM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
It became a political instrument, used by politicians for political purposes. Had the military been allowed to conduct it as a "war," it would have been won. But they were subjected to the political persuasions of the politicians who were micro-managing and conducting it from their offices in Washington, DC.
5 posted on 03/17/2002 2:35:32 PM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
The US concentrated too much on "body counts". The Communists weren't that much concerned about bodies -- they had lots of cannon-fodder. What they DIDN'T have that much of was cash.

If the US had concentrated on economic targets (destroying the dikes in North Vietnam and ruining the rice harvest; taking out the warehouses in Haiphong; etc) and gotten the North too busy keeping its own people from starving to look for trouble down South, things might have been different

6 posted on 03/17/2002 2:41:28 PM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
We NEVER lost the war. We left.
7 posted on 03/17/2002 2:46:24 PM PST by freedomtrail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
Walter Cronkite sold out America February 28, 1968, when he stated that we could not win in Vietnam.

4 years later we implemented Linbacker II, after North Vietnam walked out of the peace talks.

After intensive bombing of North Vietname (known as the Christmas offensice), the North Vietnamese ran back to the peace talks and signed the peace agreement.

We did NOT lose in Vietnam.

8 posted on 03/17/2002 2:48:30 PM PST by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
I agree. I'v got a question for anyone that would care to answer. All of the fighing seemed to be focused in South Vietnam, why. Would we today, if we declared war on North Vietnam, take it to North Vietnam, instead of killing the South. It was the South that wanted free of the North.

Now I certainly am no expert when it comes to war, but I would have knocked the he** out of the North. It was politics, right, all politics? Seems to me we were totally destroying the wrong part of Vietnam.

9 posted on 03/17/2002 2:51:32 PM PST by Mom_Grandmother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a "surrender.

This is not a credible statement!

10 posted on 03/17/2002 2:51:46 PM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomtrail
Your so right, they were pulled out! To this day my husband will never understand. Vietname 70'-74'.
11 posted on 03/17/2002 2:53:16 PM PST by Mom_Grandmother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
I don't understand, if we won, why is the South still overrun and ruled by the North and Russia. I have a friend that came here by homemade boat in 1983, she said it became unbearable and dangerous because of the North and the Russians, their's and their children lives were in danger all the time. They stayed hungry and desperate, who's lying? Thank you.
12 posted on 03/17/2002 2:56:56 PM PST by Mom_Grandmother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
We had that war won and snatched defeat from victory at least three times. The first defeat for us was Kennedy's assassination of Diem. The second was McNamara's defeatest military strategy. Nixon's bombing of the north was bring about capitulation until it was shut off here.

go here

http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/rlkocher_index.htm

for a 190 page analysis of the Viet Nam War complete with recently released Kennedy tapes documenting the assassination.

13 posted on 03/17/2002 2:58:45 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verity
This statement was make by "Senior General Vo Njuyen Giap" NVC commander. It is in his book.
14 posted on 03/17/2002 3:00:47 PM PST by Mom_Grandmother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Thank you RLK.
15 posted on 03/17/2002 3:02:03 PM PST by Mom_Grandmother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
The truth is that as of October 1967 the war was over, in that North Vietnam could not win it and they knew it. Tet 68 was their last gasp and if we had not been sold down the river we would have won AND we would not be wondering today about MIA's and a lot of other things. The veterans of "the conflict" would have been treated like heroes and Hanoi Jane would have been... (I guess I was just dreaming)
16 posted on 03/17/2002 3:02:17 PM PST by OldEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
maybe Cronkite would not have just assumed they were lying when they told him Tet was a failure. 2 posted on 3/17/02 3:29 PM Pacific by xm177e2

Cronkite is an avowed Socialist
17 posted on 03/17/2002 3:03:57 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
True enough...
18 posted on 03/17/2002 3:05:28 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: freedomtrail
We NEVER lost the war. We left.

We left = We lost the war in Vietnam

19 posted on 03/17/2002 3:05:55 PM PST by Recon by Fire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
Gene Kuentzler is either lazy or relies on Doris Kearns Goodwin to do his research. According to records, by the end of 1967 there were 19,560 KIAs alone and by the end of 1968 there were 36,152 KIAs.
20 posted on 03/17/2002 3:06:55 PM PST by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
"Is It Possible, Could America Have Won the Vietnam War In '1968?"

From a Must Visit Site
Vipers Vietnam Veterans Page, A Vietnam Veteran & Proud Web Site
About Vietnam

The Vietnam war was the longest in our nation's history. Two American advisors were killed on July 8, 1959, and the last casualties in connection with the war occurred on May 15, 1975, during the Mayaquez incident. Approximately 2.7 million Americans served in the war zone; 300,000 were wounded and approximately 75,000 permanently disabled. Officially there are still 1,991 Americans unaccounted for from SE Asia.

Vietnam was a savage, in your face war where death could and did strike from anywhere with absolutely no warning. The brave young men and women who fought that war paid an awful price of blood, pain and suffering. As it is said: "ALL GAVE SOME ... SOME GAVE ALL"
The Vietnam war was not lost on the battlefield. No American force in ANY other conflict fought with more determination or sheer courage than the Vietnam Veteran.  For the first time in our history America sent it's young men and women into a war run by inept politicians who had no grasp of military strategies and no moral will to win. They were led by "top brass" who were concerned mainly with furthering their own careers, most neither understood the nature of the war nor had a clue about the impossible mission with which they'd tasked their soldiers.  And the war was reported by a self serving Media who penned stories filled with inaccuracies, deliberate omissions, biased presentations and blatant distorted interpretations because they were more interested in a story than the truth! It can be debated that we should never have fought that war. It can also be argued that the young Americans who fought so courageously, never losing a single major battle, helped in a huge way to WIN THE COLD WAR.

21 posted on 03/17/2002 3:08:32 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother,All
Tribute To Vietnam Era Veterans....Welcome Home by Snow Bunny
22 posted on 03/17/2002 3:09:40 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recon by Fire
"We left = We lost the war in Vietnam"

Nixon and Kissenger left, not the military.
23 posted on 03/17/2002 3:11:45 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: freedomtrail
"We NEVER lost the war. We left."

Nixon and Kissenger refused to listen to the 55% silent majority that supported the war.
Instead they blamed the media and Congress for their own lack of courage to let the military finish the war.
24 posted on 03/17/2002 3:15:44 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: glockmeister40
The war was being run by a misanthropic collection of ultra libs like McNamara - remember this guy: He announced a air strike on a specific area, the enemy erected decoys, and the bottom line was almost an entire squadron of good pilots and airplanes were wiped out.

All we had to do was bomb the living clinton out of Hanoi, but the limp wristed libs were in charge, tying one hand behind the General's backs.

Still makes me sick. Thanks again LBJ what a piece of clinton he was.

25 posted on 03/17/2002 3:15:55 PM PST by oldtimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
We did NOT lose in Vietnam.

As a Linebacker 2 veteran I'm inclined to agree that we didn't lose militarily. But war is "policy carried out by other means" and unless our policy was to fight for ten years and then evacuate ignominiously, we lost.

I doubt the America of the 1960s, with its clueless politicians and careerist military officers, could have done anything but flounder around and make excuses. We were facing an enemy who was serious - and our decision-makers weren't, except about looking good at the moment.

26 posted on 03/17/2002 3:17:09 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
Is It Possible, Could America Have Won the Vietnam War In '1968?

It is not only possible but likely if the war were prosecuted in the same fashion as the Persian Gulf war.

1) With overwhelming force instead of gradual escalation

2) With decisive use of airpower assets and effective strategic bombing.

3) By letting the military set the priorities instead of politically based micromanagement.

4) With insistent and unrelenting pressure instead of bombing pauses and truces intended to send messages and "open dialogue opportunities"

5) By establishing a stong alliance with allied forces in the region particularly Australia, Thailand and Japan.

27 posted on 03/17/2002 3:21:55 PM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
No. The war couldn't have been won. As a matter of fact Vietnam was the absolute WORST place on the planet to fight the communists. Whatever one thinks of the VC and NVA philosophy, they were incredibly tenacious. Think the Polish army or the Hungarian army or even the Soviet army at that time would have fought so tenaciously? Of course not. Few of the soldiers in those countries gave a damn about the communist system.

The problem with Vietnam is that the communists successfully intertwined themselves with nationalsim. The average VC (actually Viet Minh but that's another story) or even NVA soldier was fighting for their country, NOT for communism. If you notice, communism has pretty much taken a back seat in Viet Nam today.

The USA missed out on a golden opportunity when it didn't send in air support at the Bay of Pigs. Even with the landing mishaps there, Castro could have been easily overthrown if we sent in air support to destroy his air force and ground forces.

Of course, you must remember that the Secretary of Defense during both the Bay of Pigs fiasco and Vietnam was Robert STRANGE McNamara. Think there was any chance of victories with him there?

Bottom line on Vietnam was that the communists were willing to sacrifice large numbers of people in a war of attrition. We weren't willing to make the sacrifice in a war of attrition.

As somebody once said of Vietnam: It was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Looking back at the Cold War era, the USA should have picked it's battlefields more carefully.

28 posted on 03/17/2002 3:22:04 PM PST by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
"Is It Possible, Could America Have Won the Vietnam War In '1968?"

YES!

29 posted on 03/17/2002 3:24:44 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldEagle
The truth is that as of October 1967 the war was over, in that North Vietnam could not win it and they knew it. Tet 68 was their last gasp and if we had not been sold down the river we would have won AND we would not be wondering today about MIA's and a lot of other things. The veterans of "the conflict" would have been treated like heroes and Hanoi Jane would have been... (I guess I was just dreaming)

You are essentially correct, IMHO. The primary problem was micromanagement of military decisions by Johnson. All failures originate there.

30 posted on 03/17/2002 3:25:55 PM PST by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oldtimer
McNamara was a killer in this thing with two weak presidents under his command. He never put the communist leadership at risk or even inconvenience. As a consequence, they never had reason to stop aggression. By 1968 the lefist ant-war effort was so solidly emplaced int the schools, in the media, and on the streets here as to prevent further reasonable prosecution of the war.
31 posted on 03/17/2002 3:27:29 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Recon by Fire
We left = We lost the war in Vietnam

If you want to speak for yourself, say I lost the war in Vietnam."

But don't speak for me.

32 posted on 03/17/2002 3:28:24 PM PST by O6ret
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: toddst
The primary problem was micromanagement of military decisions by Johnson.

That was just one problem among many. A victory at the Bay of Pigs just a hundred or so miles from our shores would have been easy. Instead, we got suckered into fighting a tenacious foe on the other side of the world. We should have picked out Cold War battles a lot more carefully.

33 posted on 03/17/2002 3:29:03 PM PST by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: O6ret
But don't speak for me.

How did we win almost every major battle, but end up on the short end of the stick?

34 posted on 03/17/2002 3:31:56 PM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Don't blame the military for following the orders of President Johnson.
35 posted on 03/17/2002 3:35:27 PM PST by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
How did we win almost every major battle, but end up on the short end of the stick?

------------------

Partially because the real battlefield was moved. In that battle people such as Joan Baez and Jane Fonda were the generals and won the real war taking place here.

36 posted on 03/17/2002 3:36:25 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad; Mom_Grandmother; xm177e2; glockmeister40; elbucko; TomGuy; SauronOfMordor; freedomtrail;
The war was lost November 1965.

No, not because of the valiant performance of Lt. Col. Hal Moore's 1st Battalion Seventh Cavalry at Landing Zone X-Ray in the Ia Drang Valley November of that year.

Because of the fifteen-minute meeting LBJ had in the White House that month with the Joint Chiefs.

The full account appears in the four-page article by Lieutenant General Charles G. Cooper, U.S. Marine Corp (Retired) in the May 1996 Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute "The Day It Became the Longest War".

The Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1965 (Army General Harold Johnson; Air Force General John McConnell; the Chairman, Army General Earle Wheeler; Navy Admiral David McDonald; Marine Corps General Wallace Greene) were allowed fifteen minutes in a small room of the White House to urge their course of action. No chairs were provided. They stood.

They stood and delivered their strongest recommendation for the massive bombing of Hanoi, mining of Haiphong, and LBJ replied:

"He screamed obscenities, he cursed them personally, he ridiculed them for coming to his ofice with their 'military advice.' Noting that it was he who was carrying the weight of the free world on his shoulders, he called them filthy names--sh__heads, dumbsh__s, pompous assh___s--and used 'the F-word- as an adjective more freely than a Marine at boot camp. He then accused them of trying to pass the buck for World War III to him. It was unnerving. It was degrading."

The result of LBJ's target list "sanitization" is shown in the novel and film "Rolling Thunder"--and with the tens of thousands of names on The Wall.

Cronkite was aided in subverting American will by Hanoi Jane who in 1972 went to Hanoi to pose on the NVA AAA and deliver propaganda broadcasts on their radio--which they said gave them the strength to continue their fight. Hence the book, Aid and Comfort: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam by Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer at the link. Taping Hank Holzer's appearance cleaning Tom Hayden's clock on The O'Reilly Factor, the Holzers found themselves having dinner two tables down from Bill Clinton, who distinguished himself as the only president to journey to Hanoi to pose by a large bust of Ho. Bust and ho being terms irrevocably associated with traitor-rapist 42.

LBJ could have allowed his military leaders to win the war, but chose to waste American bravery and blood, while simultaneously squandering American wealth on a multi-trillion-dollar "war on poverty".

Dealing with the North Vietnamese who imprisoned and tortured 40,000 French (and, as the Holzers point out, the French cannot say to the nearest ten thousand how many of their young men they lost in that war), LBJ spared the North the full might of the American military.

And now Barbara Walters on The View allows Jane Fonda to say the "government lied to us" and she was only "trying to save American lives". In truth, she committed treason.

As did Taliban John.

And today we have a fifth column led by Tom Daschle--who incredibly wants to tar and feather Tom Ridge. While giving immunity to Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat, and the rest.

In truth, Vietnam was a battle against evil in a war which continues. The New York Times to the contrary notwithstanding.

37 posted on 03/17/2002 3:37:07 PM PST by PhilDragoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Mom_Grandmother
Nonsense. Do people just make this stuff up off the top of the head? The war in Vietnam was lost when the cost in blood and treasure became too high for the majority of Americans to accept. There was no defeat of the Americans on the battlefield, and repeated victories there did not end the war on our terms. Nor could it have been so. It was not a war that an outside power could win in any sensible description of "win". Even if we had been willing to use the utmost of our military power (nuclear weapons) to make the cities of North Vietnam uninhabitable, this would not have ended the conflict -- which included Cambodia and Laos. Nuke them? Nuke China? Nuke everybody? Stay in Vietnam forever (as we are doing in South Korea) to forcibly prevent the North from overrunning the South? For what? A corrupt, authoritarian government? If American politicians had given a second thought to the enormousness of sending young Americans to their deaths in combat, they would have demanded better reasons than protecting the bad guys from the communists. Vietnam was a failure of American politics, testosterone over reason. If you recall, at the time U.S. society was coming down with a fever that lasted an entire, crazy generation. We could have pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and done a lot better in court than Andrea Yates did. Millions believed that the ills of America, indeed of the world, could be cured in an afternoon by goodwill among the populace, free booze and dope, and liberal fiat from Washington. When fever seizes the mighty, peasants better run for their bunkers. But peasants have a way, like the Joads, of enduring.
39 posted on 03/17/2002 3:39:13 PM PST by Whilom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
I'v got a question for anyone that would care to answer. All of the fighing seemed to be focused in South Vietnam, why. Would we today, if we declared war on North Vietnam, take it to North Vietnam, instead of killing the South. It was the South that wanted free of the North.

We did that in Korea. China did not want to tolerate US forces occupying land close to the Chinese border, so when we got close in Korea, the Chinese entered the war. We did not want to repeat that in Vietnam.

40 posted on 03/17/2002 3:39:22 PM PST by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
You got it. And people like young Bill Clinton traveling to Moscow were part of the reason for our loss.
41 posted on 03/17/2002 3:41:32 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
I don't follow some of your logic about it being the worst place on earth to fight. My father fought in Japan, he said the landscape and terrain is the same as that of Vietname, maybe worse. The booby traps and tenacity of the Japanese were no different. They tortured and disgraced our troops the same in Japan, they cared for no one, not even their own people.

I am truley beginning to believe this did not have anything to do with our Military, they could have taken this war, they could have brought the North to their knees if they had been given the "back up" and "support" they needed. Some did not want to go the whole nine yards and it was not the United States Military.

They had the backing and support the needed to kick Japan and Germany's butt at the same time. I do believe Vietnam was a disaster because too many back home didn't have the guts, or sided with the them. just my opinion!

42 posted on 03/17/2002 3:42:57 PM PST by Mom_Grandmother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: oldtimer
I agree with you. IMHO, bombing hanoi would not have been enough. We needed to invade, and the cost would have been high. We never succeeded in interdicting the flow of supplies into south vietnam from the north. The nva, in reality, controlled laos and cambodia and moved massive amounts of war material down the ho chi min trail, which went partly through laos and cambodia. If we would have invaded, the nva would have found themselves in a two front war. Russia would not have been able to re-supply them by ship, because we would have captured haiphong harbor. Red china would not have helped, because they despise the north vietnamese. I expect the nva would have pulled out of south vietman and concentrated their fight in the north.
43 posted on 03/17/2002 3:43:47 PM PST by glockmeister40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
If the US had concentrated on economic targets (destroying the dikes in North Vietnam and ruining the rice harvest; taking out the warehouses in Haiphong; etc) and gotten the North too busy keeping its own people from starving to look for trouble down South, things might have been different

The biggest problem was president johnson micromanaging the war. He personally picked bombing targets. When the president has that much distain and mistrust of the military, there is no way the military could function. And when we did withdraw, we failed to support the South. So they were unprepared to fight alone.

44 posted on 03/17/2002 3:44:24 PM PST by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Thorn11cav
God Bless you Thorn11cav.
45 posted on 03/17/2002 3:46:41 PM PST by Mom_Grandmother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
No. The war couldn't have been won. As a matter of fact Vietnam was the absolute WORST place on the planet to fight the communists.

Of course it could have been won--and with far less loss of life on our side. But a winning plan would have required the use of overwhelming, unrelenting, and devastating force from Day One, force sufficient to utterly break the morale and will of the enemy. That is best done early, in an all-out sprint, before the enemy finds its legs. If you build up to it slowly, you only allow the enemy to harden and become inured to death and hardship. You make your enemy into a marathoner.

The north Vietnamese were not superhuman by any stretch of the imagination. They could have been defeated. We had the ability to defeat them, but neither the will nor the plan to bring it about.

46 posted on 03/17/2002 3:48:43 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. By 1967 the Viet Minh had been fighting for over 25 years and would have fought for another 25 years. The long and the short of it is that they wanted it worse than we did, worse then the South Vietnamese did. The North Vietnamese were willing to fight to the last man, woman, and child and we weren't.
47 posted on 03/17/2002 3:48:50 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
We did that in Korea. China did not want to tolerate US forces occupying land close to the Chinese border, so when we got close in Korea, the Chinese entered the war. We did not want to repeat that in Vietnam

Re: korea, towards the end we were beating the north koreans and their chinese helpers. Vietnam was the biggest mistake in the history of the united states. The worst thing happened: people became disconnected from their government.

48 posted on 03/17/2002 3:53:03 PM PST by glockmeister40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mom_Grandmother
The booby traps and tenacity of the Japanese were no different.

Notice that it took TWO A-Bombs to end the war with Japan. We weren't about to do that in Vietnam. Also the war with Japan was a truly national struggle. Vietnam was something of a police action or that is how it was portrayed to be. Remember, the purpose of the Vietnam War was to stop communism. This could have been much more easily accomplished at the Bay of Pigs with just a little air support. You gotta know where to pick the fights and where to avoid them.

49 posted on 03/17/2002 3:54:00 PM PST by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The North Vietnamese were willing to fight to the last man, woman, and child

You've bought into the myth. You truly believe they were extra-human. But then you were likely weaned on Cronkite's socialist-praising pablum.

50 posted on 03/17/2002 3:54:53 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson