Why Couldnt the US win the Viet Nam conflict? - Page 4




 
--
 
August 11th, 2004  
Damien435
 
 
This loss had almost nothing to do with the military. When most people think we started to lose the war, the Tet offensive, was actually the knock out victory we needed to win Vietnman, but the reporters told only of the attrocities of the S. Vietnamese and pictures of Viet Cong running around the US Embassy, never did they tell that most of the territory conquered was regained within hours, it was a huge military victory for the US. The Vietcong were forced into hiding, 80% of their members were killed, captured, or wounded, but the public was lead to believe by the media that it was a loss for us, we could have ended the war in less than a year, instead it was forced to drag on for years, costing even more American lives. It was thanks to the hippies and draft dodgers that we lost the war. This war was not lost in Vietnam, it was lost at home, you would think that the National Guard killing 11 students at Kent State they would have taken the hint and shut up, letting the military do what they do best.

And a better name for this thread is "Why didn't the US win in Vietnam?" Because to ask "Why couldn't the US win in Vietnam?" is to say that a US victory was impossible.
August 12th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
i think that is a good point.
November 14th, 2004  
Kirill K
 
IMO the war was lost in the USA as Damien said, but also i think the US tactics were a little off. From what i know the US soldiers were dropped off at areas, and the were to walk and patrol areas that Viet Kong is hiddin in. I think it wasn't an organized tactics that cost US too many lives. Platoons were send out in different areas to sweep across a certain area for Viet Kong, plus the terrain played a factor in this too.
--
November 14th, 2004  
Kirill K
 
IMO the war was lost in the USA as Damien said, but also i think the US tactics were a little off. From what i know the US soldiers were dropped off at areas, and the were to walk and patrol areas that Viet Kong is hiddin in. I think it wasn't an organized tactics that cost US too many lives. Platoons were send out in different areas to sweep across a certain area for Viet Kong, plus the terrain played a factor in this too.
November 14th, 2004  
DTop
 
 
Krill, were you there? I was and the tactics were fine for the most part. There was nothing more demoralizing to the enemy that to wake up one morning and find an American firebase smack in the middle of his back yard.
Just for clarification, the Viet Cong were not a problem my friend. The Viet Cong were not even there. I saw NVA and Chinese but no VC, none.
The thing that kept this otherwise beaten enemy going was the opposition to war in the U.S., nothing else. That's what kept the peace talks stalled and that's what kept people dying. In all the years of America's involvement, the communist supplied and trained invaders from the north never won a single major battle against the American forces even though we were quite limited in our levels of response and the number of troops we were sent.
You talk about patrolling in enemy territory? Where else would you patrol? That made no sense to me.
March 31st, 2009  
jason_420
 
 
We broke Monty's rules.

Bernard Montgomery
"The U.S. has broken the second rule of war. That is, don't go fighting with your land army on the mainland of Asia. Rule One is don't march on Moscow. I developed these two rules myself."

"Victory in war requires, even more than arms, that the people who are making war believe in what they are doing to the degree that they will be prepared to sacrifice themselves and that others accept its legal and moral legitimacy to the extent that will guarantee their support."
March 31st, 2009  
Mark Conley
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_420
We broke Monty's rules.

Bernard Montgomery
"The U.S. has broken the second rule of war. That is, don't go fighting with your land army on the mainland of Asia. Rule One is don't march on Moscow. I developed these two rules myself."

"Victory in war requires, even more than arms, that the people who are making war believe in what they are doing to the degree that they will be prepared to sacrifice themselves and that others accept its legal and moral legitimacy to the extent that will guarantee their support."
Cute...kinda like in the move "The Princess Bride"..."The first is never get involved in a land war in southeast asia the second being engaged in a game of chance with a sicilin when death is on the line"

April 2nd, 2009  
LeEnfield
 
 
Would Malaya count as Asia, now we fought them their for 15 years years, but we did defeat the the buggers
April 2nd, 2009  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Would Malaya count as Asia, now we fought them their for 15 years years, but we did defeat the the buggers
The Malayan Emergency along with the "war" in Borneo are still held in high regard as the text book method of operations of this type.

There is an excellent book called "The Regiment" sub titled "The True Story of the SAS." The book tells the story of the formation of the SAS, but also gives quite a lot of details of SAS operations in Malaya and Borneo. Well worth a read.

However, to answer the original question, perhaps the blame can be laid at the feet of government, not at the feet of those who fought.
April 3rd, 2009  
Wallabies
 
Quote:
However, to answer the original question, perhaps the blame can be laid at the feet of government, not at the feet of those who fought.
I think that's a bit of a cop out for the generals. They did not have the right training and neither did their troops in this type of war. You can't blame the soldiers for what training they received though or what discipline they operated under.