Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Jarg
writes
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

You lost no wars? I was under the impression that after we left that
sad,
unfortunate country, the only thing we had to show for our efforts was
that big,
black wall in Washington and a grievously divided nation that
apparently
exists
to this day. What was it that we supposedly won?

The United States certainly did not achieve our political objectives in
Vietnam. On the other hand, it is a stretch to say the US lost the war
since it won all the military actions, and left several years before
North
Vietnam overran the south.

But wasn't the whole point of the US presence to prevent the North
grabbing the South? They kept fighting until the US withdrew, then moved
on to achieve their goal. Sounds like a success to me, even if the end
result wasn't the Socialist Worker's Paradise they'd hoped for.


Well, you could make the arguement that the US objective changed at the end.




You're absolutely right on the military success side (though some of the
victories were expensive: on the other hand, there were lessons learned
and put to use) but the final objective - an independent non-communist
South Vietnam - was lost.


There's a supposed a quote I'd like to get a proper source for (and to
know it correctly) that goes along the lines of a senior North
Vietnamese being told that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam, and
replying that this is quite true, but also quite irrelevant. (It's got a
lot of resonance for current "effects-based" doctrine)



Yep, I've also seen the quote to which you are referring:

You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,' said the American
colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment.
'That may be so,' he replied, 'but it is also irrelevant.'-- (On Strategy,
Harry Summers, p. 21)

And from the point of view of the communist Vietnamese leadership, that view
was correct. They did achieve their political objectives, though
practically destroying themselves and S. Vietnam in the process.


Finally, if you have been to Vietnam recently,
as I have, you would be hard pressed to say they won, or it was a Pyrrhic
victory at best.

Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
applies, of course)




I never said the US won in Vietnam! But if that is victory, I'm not sure it
was worth winning. I'm certain Vietnam would be a far better place had the
North lost.


Anyone saying there's an easy simple answer to this discussion hasn't
studied it



Indeed.

Jarg

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Jarg
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
But wasn't the whole point of the US presence to prevent the North
grabbing the South? They kept fighting until the US withdrew, then moved
on to achieve their goal. Sounds like a success to me, even if the end
result wasn't the Socialist Worker's Paradise they'd hoped for.

Well, you could make the arguement that the US objective changed at the end.

So why change *at the end* if the original goal was so unimportant?

Perhaps: but by that argument, wouldn't the US victory be even greater
if back in the late 1940s it had told the French to get out of their
ex-colony and offered generous aid and support to Ho Chi Minh? Communist
or not, I'll bet he'd rather have sold rubber to Firestone and Goodyear
for hard dollars than to the USSR for roubles. (Fifty years of hindsight
applies, of course)

I never said the US won in Vietnam!

Sorry, Jarg - my comment was generic rather than particular and
certainly not aimed at you.

But if that is victory, I'm not sure it
was worth winning. I'm certain Vietnam would be a far better place had the
North lost.

The knee-jerk reaction is to insist you're wrong, of course. Which is
why it's rubbish. (Would a South Vietnam dependent on US supply and
still a proxy battlefield for the USSR and to lesser extent China, be
much more stable and prosperous?)



Thinking about it, the problem is getting support and consensus for what
'the national government of Vietnam' is doing. (Can't develop isolated
locations if you can't move supplies without dissident ambushes...) and
a clear win is needed for that - by either side, but one of them has to
show that There Is No Alternative.


It's too late and I'm too tired to put much more on that thought for the
moment. Willing to discuss it, but not right now. (Seriously, Jarg - if
it offends you, I'm sorry and let's leave it be. If you're interested in
it, very willing to debate)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk