How did we lose Vietnam?

J Andy A

Vietnam was a L-O-N-G convoluted war. It was also being conducted by the Politicians (Henry Kissenger, etc) who were dictating gains and losses from the Paris Peace Talks (ie: Take that Hill... now give it back... now take it again.) How is ANY casualty rate an "acceptable" casualty rate ?

When the American People began learning the truth about the lives being sacrificed for political gain; when the news began to publish daily the number of American lives lost; when photo coverage began showing the plane-loads of body-bags being delivered to the Bases back home, and the atrocities being practiced in this "gorilla warfare"... the politicians began to fear for their million-dollar livelihoods.

It was basically the politicians who tied-the-hands of the American Military... and the American people who demanded that our soldiers and sailors either be allowed to "fight for victory"... or... to get the heck OUT.

raviet31

It really came down to this. For every 100 soldiers we killed, they killed 1 of ours. We got tired of seeing our soldiers being killed before they did.

Doc

We lost it because the big decision maker (Johnson) didn't trust his military commanders in the field to make the right call of what was and was not a viable target.

We lost it because Johnson made it a war of attrition instead of a war for real estate. See the hill, take the hill, give the hill back and then take the hill again was VERY demoralizing for the troops.

We lost it because the "News" media sold the people a bad bill of goods and was able to convince the masses that we were losing the war. Even Gen. Giap, who commanded the North Vietnamese Army was shocked after the Tet Offensive. He has stated that they believed they'd lost the war and were shocked that the U.S. "News" media had said the the U.S. was defeated and was able to convince the leaders of the U.S. to pursue peace. Gen. Giap, was ready to throw in the towel.

Sadly, the people of the U.S. STILL listen to their "news" media and believe them to be reliable and unbiased in their reporting.

rotorhead

Books have been written.

But in a nutshell, we didn't have the political will to win.

If we had bombed N Vietnam like we bombed Germany, we would have won.

Joyful

Politics. The government decided it was time to quit so they just started pulling the troops out.

Ethan

technically we did win in a way we destroyed there citys and populations we would have won if we had stayed around for longer

Seraya S

Shouldn't have been there in the first place

They had millions of men, compared to the US, we were literally outnumbered. They also dug VERY deep holes and the US only was able to smoke out/bomb only a little portion of their entrances/exits from in the ground.

''Letters from Iwo Jima'' movie would explain this all to you better then we could.

rich k

We had no military objective. The function of the military is to kill people and destroy property, that is the sole reason it exists. It is the responsibility of the Civilian Leadership to ensure that before the military is sent in they have a clearly defined objective that can be achieved by killing and destruction, that didn't happen in Nam. The supposed goals in Nam, like Iraq, "Spreading Democracy" or "Opposing Tyranny" were political rather than military objectives, and as such they couldn't be achieved by military means. Since our civilian government refused to acknowledge this and continued to push it's failed policy out military sat over their piling up casualties on both sides until the voters got sick of it and called it off. You can't win win unless you have a clear definition of victory, Nam was like a race with no course and no finish line, there wasn't any way TO win.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: