Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:47:36 -0400, Vince wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:11:33 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
So we could still be there today, eh?
No, we would have been out by 1968. Review the effect on
"negotiations" of the period 18-29 December 1972 for a concrete
example.
Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and it
doesn't wash now.

No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
had the political will to do so.


You need to read up a bit
"The Dolchstoßlegende, (German "dagger-thrust legend", often translated
in English as "stab-in-the-back legend") refers to a social mythos and
persecution-propaganda theory popular in post-World War I Germany, which
claimed a direct link between Germany's defeat with German citizens who
nationalists claimed had sabotaged or otherwise lacked dedication to the
promoted cause of the war —ie. "to unify the German nation."

Der Dolchstoss is cited as a important factor in Adolf Hitler's later
rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base
largely from embittered WWI veterans and those sympathetic with the
Dolchstoss interpretation."

It's precisely on point to your claim that:

IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.

and

We had the military power to impose our will if we
had the political will to do so.

"Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders began to speak
critically about the peace and Weimar politicians, socialists,
communists, and Jews were viewed with suspicion due to their supposed
extra-national loyalties. It was rumored that they had not supported the
war and had played a role in selling-out Germany to its enemies. These
November Criminals, or those who seemed to benefit from the newly formed
Weimar Republic, were seen to have "stabbed them in the back" on the
home front, by either criticizing the cause of German nationalism,
instigating unrest and strikes in the critical military industries or
profiteering. In essence the accusation was that the accused committed
treason against the "benevolent and righteous" common cause."

"Other wars have been viewed as winnable but lost due to some sort of
homefront betrayal. For example, some believe this had happened to the
United States during the Vietnam War. However, some believe that the
so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" is also a myth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende

For whatever reason our proxies , the south Vietnamese
, would not fight with the same intensity as the Russian and Chinese
proxies, the north Vietnamese.

And, we were woefully ignorant of culture other than our own. The
agrarian south was not quite as easily mobilized as the industrialized
(and hence Marxist prone) north.

It was not able to fucntion at all, and in both countries the majority
of the population were farmers.


Yet we could have "contained" the
communist threat readily had we not gradually fell victim to political
posturing and pacifism at home.

Ah yes, more dolchstoss

The official birth of the term itself possibly can be dated to mid 1919,
when Ludendorff was having lunch with a British general Sir Neil
Malcolm. Malcolm asked Ludendorff why it was that he thought Germany
lost the war. Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses: The home
front failed us etc. Then, Sir Neil Malcolm said that "it sounds like
you were stabbed in the back then?" The phrase was to Ludendorff's
liking and he let it be known among the general staff that this was the
'official' version, then disseminated throughout German society. This
was picked up by right wing political factions and used as a form of
attack against the hated Weimar regime, who were the exponents of the
German Revolution.

great excuse when you've lost a war.



Throw in a draft, a Spock-raised generation with expectations of a
life of privilege, a rising expectation of equality for our
minorities, and a propensity increasingly for politicians to pander
for votes rather than doing what is arguably painful but better for
the nation in the long run.



Like avoiding 50,000 plus dead Americans?

Since both sides had nuclear weapons we
were constrained to fight a limited war. As a result "we" could not
win. Only the south Vietnamese could win and they did not want to fight.

Exactly the issue. We were still woefully uncertain of how to keep
wars "limited" and how to stem escalation.
This was obvious to the world in the late 60s.

Up until that line we had significant agreement. Not much of all of
this was obvious to the world in the late '60s. And, I would forecast
that in 2040, not much of what will be then obvious about jihadists
and dealing with them will have been known now.


I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War. I recall talking
to French paratroopers who had been at Dien Ben Phu. The duplicity of
the US government, the a lack of a meaningful game plan for
Vietnamization , The corruption of the south Vietnamese government , the
over estimation of the effect of bombing, the reduction in quality of
the conscript infantry and the political problem of bombing the North
and risking Russian nuclear attack were matters of daily conversation.
I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.