Vietnam War

There were certainly lots of examples of political/civilian intrusion into the war, be it only the press Some politicals limitations were justified , others not. However not all military commanders were making the right decisions even when given a free hand.

For example, airforce commander Harkins advocated illimited use of aerial bombings to such a degree that he probably contributed to swell the ranks of the Viet nationalists better than uncle Ho could ever dream, a case of blindly contributing to loose the war while pretending to win it. The name of Harkins became a synonym for stupid actions ("to pull a Harkins") by the time he was called back to the US. At first Harkins appeared to be an exception, but later events showed that he was but one of the many supporters of a military thinking which was blatantly indifferent to civilian casualties.

The Vietnam War is something I don't know too well. That's why I'll not jump to comment too much.

Once I saw a very interesting British documentary regarding the American Independence War: 1775 - 1783. The British historian said that the war resembled a lot with the war in Vietnam: the same way the British won a lot of tactical victories, and put the American insurgents on the run so many times, but failed to break them into submission, the same way the Americans won a lot of tactical victories in Vietnam, put Viet Cong on the run so many times, but failed to break them into submission.

About the start of the massive American involvement, a pretext was the so called Tonkin Gulf incident, something which made the case in front of U.S. Congress to accelerate the American involvement.

I don't know what really happened in the Tonkin Gulf, but I saw in a very recent American documentary that the assertions made in front of the U.S. Congress 40 years ago were not only exaggerated, but worse, invented.

Considering the formidable economic, scientific and military power of the United States in the 60's, compared with the rest of the world, I feel that America involved less its might in Vietnam, than today in Iraq. In Vietnam there were as much as 500000 American soldiers at the peak of the involvement, compared with 140000 in today's Iraq. But as in the late 50's the United States produced alone 2 thirds (66%) of the planet's GDP, the economic burden was less than what we feel today. Maybe today the burden is heavier because the weaponry became more expensive. And of course, because our economic power is not as strong as it was in the 60's...70's, compared with the rest of the world.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 21, 2004 02:24 am

The French guys have a nice proverb. In English sounds like that:

What a bad and nasty animal:
He bites you, if you attack him!

In Romanian would sound like:

Ce animal rau, plin de draci:
Se apara, cand il ataci!

This post has been edited by Florin on November 21, 2004 07:25 am

Stephen, did u pay atention to my post? do u have any idea what u are talking about? did u compare the number of casualtis on each side? did u make a comparison between the military actions of that war? please tell me u did , because if not, it is sad to hear u talk bad about a army which was superior in almost any way ( except maybe demographics) to the vietnamese one. do u realise that if comitted and united, the us front would have wiped out each and everu Nvetnamese there? because they had the means. what they lacked is political strenght. and , of course, the weeping pussies back home which did a great job, as they will in irak, to lose the war. what did they expect? 0 casualties? come on...if u want to dance, make sure u do not cut to the half of the song because u have a toe ache....

my opinion about that war stays the same. the military had won it. whe politicians and the pussies turned it into a loss

Like the Communist regime is a true model of fairness and lack of corruption. Let's be serious.

Why would you consider the Vietnamese outnumbered? Many of the engagements were fought with the numerical advantage on their side. Also the equipment was pretty good, given the fact that this wasn't a WWII style war during the first part. The AK-47s were perfect for the infantry and the RPGs for bunker busting. The North Vietnamese AA defense network was one the best in the world at the time.

For the first question,there was a involvment for imperialistic reasons,against even the idea of democracy,to realize with force your interests,into a foreign country,against popular will,like URSS in Cehoslovacia,in same period,or Germany against Poland,in 1939(same idea like germans, with Tonkin incident).About military operation,US win the air superiority,and many ground battle,but vietnamese win the psihological war,and the guerila war.The US forces,especialy to the end period of war,even if was elite forces like airborne troops,was not able to fight if dont have the air suport,and even was win in large battle,or in the cities(Tet ofensive)was defeated constantly in guerila war in jungle,and south vietnamese govern lose constantly shes on people suport.You cannot win if you dont brake the will to fight of your enemy.Is a battle of will,and vietnamese was more determinated to fight and die for the country,than was the americans,who fight for other interests.About weapons,vietnamese have just one better than ultra sophisticated US technology(who use even chemical and other illegal weapons),the AK,who prouve was much better than M14 and M16.And other thing,vietnamese dominated night,and after this war,US army try to this,to dominate night.And i agree to idea the americans is soft than other,and try to reduce very much shes loses,and is not able to fight to much in hard codition(see the war against Iugoslavia,when she atack many civil targets,an illegal thing,just to put the iugoslavian govern in position to sign a peace treat want by US,and avoid a ground invasion,who never know how she ended).And i dont want to speak about atrocities against civilians,who is another sign of weakness.

It seems I've been talking for nothing

Okay I'm not going to rehearse the same points. So let's tackle this one :

American involvment in Vietnam is commonly understood as an ideological struggle taking place in a cold war frame.

Care to define in what way it would have been "imperialistic" ? Was the US going to turn South Vietnam into a protectorate or to colonize it or otherwise take away the rights of the population and exploit its ressources and bring them back to the metropole ?

I don't think so.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on November 21, 2004 03:35 pm

spoken like a true prodigy !
Looks like an quote from a cuban 6th grade history book.
imperialism, popular will, US economic intrests, americans are soft, and so on....

Very profound style, Indrid.
I am impressed.
I foresee for you the Pulitzer Prize. And, why not?... Even the Nobel Prize for Literature.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 21, 2004 07:35 pm

Like the Communist regime is a true model of fairness and lack of corruption. Let's be serious.

Good point, Victor.
In the next centuries, long after we will not be around any more, at least America will be remembered as the only force able to stop the expansion of the Communism in the 50's...80's.
I am optimistic it will be remembered as a good thing.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 21, 2004 08:02 pm

Using this logic, the North Vietnamese and the Viet-Cong would be the weakest, as they also committed attrocities against their own people, who chose to be less cooperant to the cause.

For the first,i will answher to Chandernagore.Is not necesary to turn a country into a protectorate or colony,its enough to put a leader staff who is subordonated to you,and execute your decision.Cold war was a battle for world domination betwen two empires,URSS and USA,helped by shes much little allies,and both want to conquest or maintain teritories in domination or influence.And for mg42,sorry i must tell you,but you ar just like a soviet comisar in `50,who atack anybody who tell even a word against comarade Stalin,or our "brothers",russians.How i dare to tell something wrong about light of democracy,the prince who come to a white horse and save the freedom of world,the greatest country of all,USA?USA was just an image in mirror of URSS,a country who wants the conquest how much she can(military,economically,politically).I dont want to say the USA is in entire a bad country,but lets to judge all with same measures.

This doesn't fly. One of the biggest problem of the US miltary and political leadership alike was that the damn south Vietnamese would not listen. They would do as they liked (inefficiently) and the US supervisors would then scratch their heads trying to find a way round the problem. The ARVN would at all stage retain control of their forces. Strange imperialistic policies, isns't it ?

Oh yes the US certainly wanted to spread influence, or prevent the communists from doing so. They never intended to achieve that by conquest. They exerted pressures, most of the time the south vietnamese would just wash their hands of it. Once they arranged for an incompetent leader to be replaced and that was the worst of it. From a principle point of vue it was baaaad. But it was that or the whole situation would have crumbled under everyone's nose in a matter of months. That would have benefited none.

Yes,mabe this doesn`t work anytime,but US dont have other people(better) to put on comand in south Vietnam.And this not change the fact the US interfere with force to put the things conform with shes interests.

whatever, florin..........................