Guerilla Warfare
Top, actually, that was my point. They attempted to take the war from the guerilla stage to the conventional warfare stage, and were soundly defeated. Guerrilla warfare has ALWAYS relied on an agrarian uprising to shift the balance of power in their favor. And I agree wholeheartedly that it was a failure of American resolve and politics, not a military failure.
DTop
Active member
Jamoni, it is certainly true that any guerrilla movement relies heavily on support from their population. I think that Vietnam marked a significant deviation from that classic scenario in the sense that the communists came to rely on the support of their enemy's populace as well as that of their own, support, which is still questionable. My point however is that as a classic guerrilla force, the Viet Cong were not successful and were defeated. Their ultimate goal was never to defeat the Americans (and our allies) in a pitched open battle. The very concept of such a battle would have been the antithesis of guerrilla warfare. Their concept of victory encompassed skillful manipulation of the media and the liberal anti-war faction in America. At that they were ultimately successful.
I understand and agree with your comments about the media. But I'm confused: you don't feel Tet was an attempt at conventional tactics/victory by the VC/NVA? Please forgive me if I misunderstand you. I'm not a combat veteran myself, so most of my "knowledge" on this is theoretical at best. :?
DTop
Active member
You understood what I said. Keeping in mind that as with any military operation whether conventional or guerrilla, the first goal must be victory if at all possible. The VC and NVA would have loved to have been able to take and hold each and every city they attacked during Tet. There's no doubt about that. However, the military facts of life there were such that they were not able to defeat their enemy in large open operations. That is why a guerrilla force existed in the first place.
Even if they had taken every target they attacked, how could they possibly hope to hold them? As I mentioned before, they just didn't have the firepower to do it. The holding of territory is the ultimate definition of victory and this simply was not possible for them. So, not being stupid and realizing this, they tried to use Tet to demoralize the South Vietnamese people and the Americans back home. They gave the impression that they were stronger than they actually were. In so doing and as Giap said "America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of victory could be theirs." Militarily speaking, Tet was a crushing defeat for the VC and the NVA. At the end of the day they held no ground and suffered immense casualties. At least the people in command in N. Vietnam were willing to sacrifice those involved for their long range goals.
Just for something else to chew on, while I was in Vietnam there were peace talks in Paris, this feeling about America was apprently re-enforced for the N. Vietnamese thanks to people like John Kerry. This was in the Boston Globe just yesterday "WASHINGTON -- In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being "murdered by the United States of America" and said he had gone to Paris and "talked with both delegations at the peace talks" and met with communist representatives."
I wonder how many fewer names would be on that wall if it were not for the likes of Mr. Kerry. I truly suspect that the war could have been over before I and my friends had to go there.
In any event, I hope you can see my point about the goal of the Tet offensive.
Even if they had taken every target they attacked, how could they possibly hope to hold them? As I mentioned before, they just didn't have the firepower to do it. The holding of territory is the ultimate definition of victory and this simply was not possible for them. So, not being stupid and realizing this, they tried to use Tet to demoralize the South Vietnamese people and the Americans back home. They gave the impression that they were stronger than they actually were. In so doing and as Giap said "America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of victory could be theirs." Militarily speaking, Tet was a crushing defeat for the VC and the NVA. At the end of the day they held no ground and suffered immense casualties. At least the people in command in N. Vietnam were willing to sacrifice those involved for their long range goals.
Just for something else to chew on, while I was in Vietnam there were peace talks in Paris, this feeling about America was apprently re-enforced for the N. Vietnamese thanks to people like John Kerry. This was in the Boston Globe just yesterday "WASHINGTON -- In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being "murdered by the United States of America" and said he had gone to Paris and "talked with both delegations at the peace talks" and met with communist representatives."
I wonder how many fewer names would be on that wall if it were not for the likes of Mr. Kerry. I truly suspect that the war could have been over before I and my friends had to go there.
In any event, I hope you can see my point about the goal of the Tet offensive.
Top, how do you feel about the one year combat tours? I have heard it said that the mere fact that there WAS a way home other than victory prolonged the war. I don't know that I agree, but it does have a certain logic. Also, do you feel that the military command helped prolong the war through lack of a clear plan of action, or do you feel they performed well, considering the political situation?
BTW, thank you for discussing this with me. My father, step-father, several uncles, and several cousins served in Vietnam, but few of them were willing to discuss it.
BTW, thank you for discussing this with me. My father, step-father, several uncles, and several cousins served in Vietnam, but few of them were willing to discuss it.
DTop
Active member
Jamoni the biggest thing that prolonged the war was the opposition to it back home. I know Pres. Johnson wanted to escalate the bombing of the north. That would have certainly ended the war earlier. Pres. Nixon said "opposition to the war in this country is the greatest single weapon working against the U.S". I thnk I would agree with them.
Kill ratio didn't really play into the outcome of Vietnam. In the war on terror kill ratio really won't matter either. The islam mind set will not be defeated the only thing we can accomplish is making the terror cells so disrupted they have difficulty carrying out attacks. To hope we can stop all forms of attack is not realistc. Kill ratios? Twin towers VS all terrorists. I would rather have the twin towers any day.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, cryhavoc, (edited by Jamoni) Some Muslim are terrorists, some terrorists are muslim. But by NO MEANS are they the same thing. SOME terrorists are christian, for instance. I served with several muslim soldiers who were damn fine Americans, damn fine soldiers, and damn fine patriots. (edited by Jamoni)
cryhavoc said:
Islamic, they would be muslims then, islam is the religion, muslim is the person with the religion. To draw every muslim over one line isnt a good thing and it defenetly isnt right. Your nightbour can be a terrorist without you knowing it, its not only the arabic states that deal with terrorism. I hope you know that, i did read your post.
Redneck
Active member
Ok, I am not taking any sides here, but in cryhavoc's defense, he said that the TERRORISTS he was referring to were Islamic, not that all Muslims were terrorists. I, too, have several Muslim Arabic friends, but that doesn't mean that al-Qaida isn't a Muslim based organization. Just like the KKK CLAIMS to be Christian, that doesn't affect MY beliefs or my being a Christian, and it certainly does not make me a member of the Klan, does it?
No MERCY
Active member
careful
There are some instances that even the closest of friends might be your worst enemy. u have to learn and judge. Now, I'm not saying that everyone is an attacker. but some just play along and blend in. U have to be aware of everything that takes place. I have a bunch of muslim friends. Their pretty cool and smart.
There are some instances that even the closest of friends might be your worst enemy. u have to learn and judge. Now, I'm not saying that everyone is an attacker. but some just play along and blend in. U have to be aware of everything that takes place. I have a bunch of muslim friends. Their pretty cool and smart.
I will refer to it in a generic sense. If anyone thinks you have no reason to exist on earth the only way to defeat them is to wipe them off the face of the earth. That plain enough for you guys. Check around some of the hate chat rooms and you will find out there are many who just want to rid the world of certain people.
Cryhavoc, upon rereading your posts I see that you did not intend your remark the way it sounded. However, I hope you can see that the phrasing was ambiguous, and could be taken the way I took it. Being an atheist myself, I have run across more than my share of religious bigotry, and I suppose I'm touchy about it. Apologies if I jumped the gun.