Who won Vietnam?!?

[drgondog]

Soapbox alert!

The winning formula against US is asymetrical/guerilla type warfare and enlist the sympathy of the left wing side of our political spectrum - at least the ones that apologise for our strength and assumed role of 'police/defender' - (unless its a cause embraced by the left like Kosovo..) - First true model = VietNam.

The left will let us stay so long as there is UN approval and support from other countries - so Afghanistan may end up in 'win' column.

We win today, and will win set piece war/battles for some time in the future but will not win Iraq/Afghanistan type conflicts requiring our troops in place against guerilla type warfare. Anytime we engage in a situation that does not have overwhelming popular and political support within the country.

Guerilla/insurgent/terrorist cells will hit and run, inflict casualties and absorb them, knowing we don't have the national will to fight that way for very long - not any more.

The 'war' in our face today (along with Europe, Malaysia, Pakistan and India) is fundamentalist Muslim extremists numbering in millions and organized by beliefs and network of subterranean funding - willing to kill all that oppose and willing to die for the cause. No center of gravity to strike.

If you look - whether Balkans, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, US, Lebanon, or Britain - the face of our foe, the face that seeks destruction of Western Civilization to be replaced with a Fundamentalist "Fourth Reich", is the Islamic Fundamentalist that hates all things Western.

It is easy to get WMD if you have the money to buy - there were a lot of Soviet 'entrepreneurs' at the regimental commander level that had access to weaponized anthrax, nerve gas and smallpox (and nuc's), it is easy to cross borders, it is easy to plant explosive devices that can unleash aerosols and powder - and efficiency of weaponized materials is not as important as fear.

You want to buy Nuc capability at a national level? see Khan or Putin.. You want weaponized WMD? break security in Russia, Ukraine, Cuba, NK, US, Syria, etc, etc.. or hire an out of work former Soviet WMD specialist - somebody always ready to risk all for fortune.

I see, in near future, a global conflict at the individual and local levels, societies and governments failing, vacuums of the rule of law being created and much conflict to regain some sense of control. In each case the primary rat will be one who sings praises to Allah (I know more than a few atrocities have been committed by those who praise God, Jehovah, etc- but the Rat today is Muslim). France is sitting on a powder keg, Britain to lesser extent but real. We are always a target. Russia also.

Some force or combinations of force will ultimately say 'F**k 'em, kill 'em (fill in 'em) all and let God (choose which God) sort it out"..depending on how badly the country is wounded - and it will make you think of a different holocast if we don't figure out a message to the average Muslim who doesn't approve of Terrorism as a means of preaching Allah's Will.

Often wrong, rarely uncertain...

Your thoughts?

- BTW - VietNam was the war that showed the way of the future for wars of 'small versus large' - so I voted NVA just because they stayed and we left... hard to declare victory when you pick up your marbles and quit playing.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by drgondog

hard to declare victory when you pick up your marbles and quit playing.

Good one!

South Vietnam did exist for almost 2 years - that was the extent of the "success."

[Stupid]

South Vietnam was taken over so the north won, although we (the US and allies) did take out a good %14 percent of there population.

[Erich]

nobody won after we left with our body bags, some of us stayed behind enemy lines and shot up individuals at our discretion until we received orders to move elsewhere and all that B.S. is recorded and stored in secret underground vaults for time to tell after we have left this planet ...........funny we all thought we were doing the right thing at least at the time. We haven't gotten any smarter/wiser since then, and for one, my brother in-law carries the ugly reminders daily every time he gets up out of bed and there are miniscule shrapnel bits lying on the sheets

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Stupid

South Vietnam was taken over so the north won, although we (the US and allies) did take out a good %14 percent of there population.

South Vietnam was taken over after we left and as you stated they lost 14% (about 1.2 million) of their population, we lost 56,000 soldiers. So who really won?

[trackend]

Those who command the ground are the victors the Russians lost 20million but I dont think theres any doubt who were the victors in WW2

[bomber]

Originally Posted by drgondog

- BTW - VietNam was the war that showed the way of the future for wars of 'small versus large' - so I voted NVA just because they stayed and we left... hard to declare victory when you pick up your marbles and quit playing.

Excuse me by I think the American war of independance showed the way...

Just that is was the first time it'd been used on the Americans

Simon

[ToughOmbre]

Originally Posted by bomber

Excuse me by I think the American war of independance showed the way...

Just that is was the first time it'd been used on the Americans

Simon

True, we employed, many say invented, guerrilla warfare tactics, but our biggest victories were in conventional battles.

As for Viet Nam, we can debate all day long on who won, but I will never agree that the US "lost". Losing assumes a failed MILITARY effort to win, and we never made that effort. Otherwise we would have carried the war to the North. How long do you think the NVA regulars would have been operating in the South if there was an American ground offensive north of the DMZ. I'm not saying we should have done that, just trying to define victory/defeat. And every major engagement of the war was won by the US; the Viet Cong and NVA, although a formidable foe and able to inflict major damage and casualties, lost every battle.