What Went Wrong In Vietnam?

[Dari]

Aside from the fact that the war was unpopular here in the States, I find it hard to believe that a bunch of rag-tag foot-soldiers beat the most professional army in history. While I'm not looking for any conspiracy theories, I just find it hard to believe why we didn't do a massive invasion of the North. Can anyone explain this? Or why we never sent soldiers across a certain threshold? Or why we never captured any of their formal political leaders?

What went wrong?

 

[gopunk]

well it was a type of warfare that i think we were unprepared for.... much like why the british lost to the rebels in the revolutionary war.

that and there were simply more of them... logistics... etc etc

 

[Orsorum]

They fought a geurilla war while we maintained a traditional stance - keep throwing men in until the enemy gets overwhelmed.

Only thing is, they never got overwhelmed.

We've fought three wars in asia, lost two and won the other only with the help of nuclear weapons.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
They fought a geurilla war while we maintained a traditional stance - keep throwing men in until the enemy gets overwhelmed.

Only thing is, they never got overwhelmed.

We've fought three wars in asia, lost two and won the other only with the help of nuclear weapons.

Well posted Zakath15.

 

[etech]

The politicians in Washington tried to control the war instead of giving the military a clear objective and then staying the fvck out of their way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Politics.

 

[rgwalt]

Another reason why we didn't go all out against the North is the fear that the Soviet Union would come to their aid. We didn't want the soviets involved in the conflict, so we strived to simply contain the North. If we could have or would have committed our military resources to the conflict fully, we could have won the war.

Ryan

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
They fought a geurilla war while we maintained a traditional stance - keep throwing men in until the enemy gets overwhelmed.

Only thing is, they never got overwhelmed.

We've fought three wars in asia, lost two and won the other only with the help of nuclear weapons.

You try telling my grandfather and the other tens of thousands of marines who fought in Korea that they lost.

 

[Dari]

But since it's guerilla warfare, then there must be available special target that are providing political as well as arms support. How come we couldn't cut this off. And there was clearly another country those viet-congs were coming from (North Vietnam)? Wouldn't a collapse of the echelon of power bring down the whole hierarchy (sic?)? Furthermore, if we installed a more legitimate (non-corrupt) leadership in Saigon, wouldn't it had made things better for the soldiers in the field? I mean, come on, not all vietnamese wanted to be enslaved to the soviet system. And they had soviet advisors in the north just as we had our own in the south? So, was the problem really just logistics?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

You try telling my grandfather and the other tens of thousands of marines who fought in Korea that they lost.

I will. I'll tell that to my grandfather's friends, too. I'll tell that to my father, who fought in Vietnam.

War sucks. We lose, too.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Dari
But since it's guerilla warfare, then there must be available special target that are providing political as well as arms support. How come we couldn't cut this off. And there was clearly another country those viet-congs were coming from (North Vietnam)? Wouldn't a collapse of the echelon of power bring down the whole hierarchy (sic?)? Furthermore, if we installed a more legitimate (non-corrupt) leadership in Saigon, wouldn't it had made things better for the soldiers in the field? I mean, come on, not all vietnamese wanted to be enslaved to the soviet system. And they had soviet advisors in the north just as we had our own in the south? So, was the problem really just logistics?

You could say the same about Al Queda, or drug trafficking, etc.

 

[Yomicron]

Primarily it was due to fighting an enemy that used tactics that we weren?t properly prepared to fight against. Plus we were playing defense the entire time, the war was a police action, we went there to protect, not invade and over through the north.


I believe we didn't launch an invasion of the North because it could have provoked China into retaliating. Having China supply weapons, training, etc... to the North is preferred to starting WWIII.

 

[amdforever2]

After the Tet Offensive we could have won in a matter of months. They were broken after that.

The problem was the Tet Offensive just absolutely killed support at home so we just gave up. It wasn't worth the few more months to us.

 

[Dari]

Another reason why we didn't go all out against the North is the fear that the Soviet Union would come to their aid. We didn't want the soviets involved in the conflict, so we strived to simply contain the North. If we could have or would have committed our military resources to the conflict fully, we could have won the war.

Ok. What was the relationship between North Vietnam and China and between China and the Soviet Union at the time? Obviously China would have to be the deciding factor if the Soviets wanted to join in.

 

[Gulzakar]

i think we adapted very well to the jungles...by the "end" of the conflict, I think we were finally getting our bearings straight. Too bad we left, it might have given the veterans a sense of purpose in a senseless war.

 

[Gulzakar]

missles, ak's, etc...

 

[b0mbrman]

Violated principles of warfare

No clear objective. Very limited war against people fighting an unlimited war.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: amdforever2
After the Tet Offensive we could have won in a matter of months. They were broken after that.

The problem was the Tet Offensive just absolutely killed support at home so we just gave up. It wasn't worth the few more months to us.

The funny thing is that the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the VC/NVA and a pretty big victory for the US...tactically at least

Still, how the press treated it turned it into a big strategic defeat...

 

[ilovefordranger]

well at least the treaty of paris was signed.... thus meaning the us won (success)
so i dont know wtf your talking about

EDIT: how about you research it Before you start making crap up heh

 

[ilovefordranger]

bump for the truth

 

[klah]

That would be the treaty where we agreed to completely withdraw and let the commies take over

 

[ilovefordranger]

Originally posted by: klah
That would be the treaty where we agreed to completely withdraw and let the commies take over

(the whole point or the war) again READ the part of my post that says EDIT: *some text here*

 

[Brutuskend]

Another often overlooked reason was since WAR was never declared (it was actually a Peace Keeping operation, Police Action) when a solder's tour was up, he was rotated stateside again. Because of that, just when a solder became proficient he went home. So there was a constant influx of under trained and un motivated people coming in the replace the "salty" solders that were going home. If war had been declared, a solder's tour of duty could have been extended. This didn't happen.

Another reason was that the Vietnamese were use to fighting. they had been doing it for off and on for hundreds of years, and they fought a different kind of war. Not only because it was a guerilla war, but because they didn't have to live up to the same morals we in this country did. They could do a LOT to demoralize and terrify us than we could not do to them. We had to answer to the folks back home, they didn't.

My EX-Brother in law was attached for a short time to the ROK Marines (Republic of Korea). THEY fought the same kind of war as the North Vietnamese did, and over all had better effect. They would use the same terror tactics as the enemy. If we could have fought that kind of war, and we had not been shoestringed by the politicians and the folks back home, it could have ended differently.

Vietnam was the first war aired LIVE on TV, it brought the true horror of war to everyone's living room on the 6 o'clock news. I think the government learned a lesson from that, and will never let THAT happen again. Look how much control they kept over the news media during Desert Storm. It disgusted me! People SHOULD know how ugly war is, then they would be less apt to want to start another one.
I know that broadcasting live can give away valuable information to the enemy, so I can understand not letting the news go out live. BUT there should be NO restrictions other than that IMO. People NEED to know that war isn't a pretty or glamorous thing!

 

[Staples]

I saw a show on the History Channel on the weekend called "Traitor Within." They said some Navel guy named John Walker (not the American Taliban) leaked all our communication codes to the Soviets and they in turn gave them to the Veitcong (sp) so they always could intercept our communications and always knew where we were planning to attack/be.

 

[odz]

Well, if you determine who won a war by body count, we won. The US lost about 50,000 troops and the NV lost about 500,000.