Did we win in Viet Nam?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
There apparently is a significant distinction between
how we left Vietnam and how the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan.

The US tried to support South Vietnam, eventually withdrew, and it
collapsed and was taken over by North Vietnam within a few years.

The USSR tried to support Najibullah in Afghanistan, eventually
withdrew, and Najibullah was murdered and the country riven by civil war
between the _jombesh_ until the Taliban took over.

Wasn't Najibullah executed by the Taliban in 1996.

There are serious differences, but there are still some similarities.

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

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

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:07:19 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

He's trying to make something out of the Russians pulling out under
fire and
he seems to be under the impression that while Kissinger was
negotiating
with the NVs in Paris in '73, none of our guys were shooting at any of
their
guys and vice versa. At any rate, agreement was reached in January '73
and
by the end of March, all US combat troops were out of there.

The negotiation in Paris ran from '68 to '72. You are right that
bombing the N. ended in January '73, but way off on "by the end of
March, all US combat troops were out of there."

I flew combat until the end of my one year tour in July of '73 with
missions in SVN, Laos and Cambodia. US Marines were still in ground
combat as well as US Army. Small numbers, yes. But definitely not "all
US combat troops." The sieges of An Loc, Hue and Khe Sanh were still
ongoing.

Your memory is little better than mine, apparently. I took the trouble to
read
up a little bit about the siege of An Loc and learned that the NV launched
an
all-out attack on An Loc in mid-April 1972. Take a look at this and please
try
to refrain from quibbling about what constitutes "all US combat troops":

"The North Vietnamese could not have picked a better time to attack in MR
III.
Since the drawdown of American troops began in 1969, the region had seen
U.S.
combat units dwindle to almost nothing. Between February and April 1972
alone,
58,000 troops and advisors returned to the U.S. This was the single
largest
troop reduction of the war and it came precisely when the NVA was building
up
for the Easter Offensive.

Those advisors that did remain in III Corps operated within the Third
Regional
Assistance Command (TRAC), headquartered at Long Binh outside of Saigon."

Further on, the narrative added:

"By 1972, the advisory system in MR III, and in the rest of South Vietnam,
was
primarily a skeleton team sprinkled throughout the top of the ARVN officer
corps. In combat units, advisors now interacted with their ARVN
counterparts
only at corps, division, and regimental levels. In elite units, such as
airborne, rangers, and marines, advisors were still used down to the
battalion
level."

From 'Strategy for Defeat', U.S.G. Sharp__"The Hanoi/Haiphong area was the
obvious focus of the bombing effort. In the fields of logistics,
communications, electric power and air bases, most of the lucrative targets
were centered within ten or fifteen miles of those two cities.
Transportation related targets and military supplies had high priority. A
brief assessment showed the following results:
a.. the entire railroad complex of North Vietnam was severely
crippled-to include damage to 383 rail cars, fourteen steam locomotives, 191
storage warehouse buildings, and two railroad bridges.
b.. the important railroad yard in downtown Hanoi was struck and badly
damaged by laser-guided bombs. (This yard had been used by the North
Vietnamese for years as a sanctuary, since they were able to bring railroad
cars into the "off limits" middle of Hanoi. USAF had only been allowed to
attack it once or twice during the whole war, and then it was quickly
repaired.) The railroad shops and the warehouse area were also hit with
laser-guided bombs, all of which went directly into the target area.
c.. the railroad yard at Gia Lam, two miles across the river from Hanoi
and jammed at the time with loaded rail cars, was hit hard and extensively
damaged.
d.. the Haiphong railroad siding was fairly well broken up and
interdicted almost completely.
e.. the Kinh No complex, where the railroad from Thai Nguyen, and the
northwest railroad come together to serve as the largest logistics grouping
in North Vietnam, was well cleaned out. It was being used to assemble and
redistribute cargo and contained many large warehouses packed with military
supplies.
f.. the Yen Vien military complex and the Kep railroad yard were also
hit heavily, and the Hanoi railroad highway bridge over the Rapides Canal
interdicted.
"In addition, nine major supply storage areas - seven in the Hanoi area
and two near Haiphong - were struck with excellent results. Vehicle repair
facilities (the North Vietnamese used trucks by the thousands) received
considerable damage, as did the nine port and waterway targets on the strike
list. Furthermore, the electric power grid of North Vietnam was sharply
compromised by the combined effect of the Hanoi power plant being hit by
smart bombs . . . the Hanoi transformer station being rendered inoperative,
and the Viet Tri thermal power plant and two other big power plants (one at
Uong Bi and one just northwest of Hanoi) all being successfully struck. The
main control buildings of the Hanoi radio communications center (where the
transmitters were located) were also damaged. Finally, ten airfields, mostly
around the Hanoi area, were struck in order to ensure that aircraft
operations from these fields would be interdicted, and a number of surface
to air missile sites were put out of commission. Most importantly, all of
this damage was done in eleven days of concentrated attacks. There was no
respite for the North Vietnamese the shock effect was tremendous. Aerial
bombardment had worked."__

Brett wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

"Brett" wrote in message
...

(big snip)

So, comparable with Nam then?

No, the Soviets never came to any agreement with the actual "troops"
fighting them in Afghanistan. So while it might be considered an
orderly withdrawal it was a withdrawal made under enemy fire. North
Vietnam was bombed into accepting a peace agreement and the US
withdrawal wasn't under fire and North Vietnam returned the US POW's
they admitted or we knew they had.

If you cared to reword this I might be able to make sense of it. As it
stands I cannot.

He's trying to make something out of the Russians pulling out under fire
and he seems to be under the impression that while Kissinger was
negotiating with the NVs in Paris in '73, none of our guys were shooting
at any of their guys

Where do you get the idea that I believe "none of our guys were shooting
at any of their guys" when my comment was "North Vietnam bombed into
accepting"

and vice versa. At any rate, agreement was reached in January '73 and
by the end of March, all US combat troops were out of there.
Personally, withdrawal is withdrawal, whether as a result of enemy fire
or negotiations.....it still signifies defeat.

Based upon that comment the US must have lost the War of 1812 -
negotiations between the parties concerned did afterall end that War.

There's definitely a case for arguing that we did lose the War of 1812.

We failed to conquer Canada (yes, we invaded Canada, thinking that the
Brits wouldn't notice, being pre-occupied with Napoleon.). Had a few
victories at sea and on the Great Lakes, nothing decisive. Land battles
were distinctly mixed with only the Battle of New Orleans (fought after
the Treaty of Ghent ended the war) being a decisive American victory.
And the Brits only stopped impressing seamen from our ships because they
defeated the French and drew down the Royal Navy.

Oh, and of course, the Brits burned Washington (but that may have been
retaliation for us burning the capital of colonial Canada, York
(Ontario), in 1813.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

In message , Brett
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
The US tried to support South Vietnam, eventually withdrew, and it
collapsed and was taken over by North Vietnam within a few years.

The USSR tried to support Najibullah in Afghanistan, eventually
withdrew, and Najibullah was murdered and the country riven by civil war
between the _jombesh_ until the Taliban took over.

Wasn't Najibullah executed by the Taliban in 1996.

Thereabouts; so he hung on for, oh, eight years after the Soviets left?

So, obviously, the Soviets won in Afghanistan...


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

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

"Marc Reeve" wrote:
Brett wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

"Brett" wrote in message
...

(big snip)

So, comparable with Nam then?

No, the Soviets never came to any agreement with the actual
"troops"
fighting them in Afghanistan. So while it might be considered an
orderly withdrawal it was a withdrawal made under enemy fire.
North
Vietnam was bombed into accepting a peace agreement and the US
withdrawal wasn't under fire and North Vietnam returned the US
POW's
they admitted or we knew they had.

If you cared to reword this I might be able to make sense of it. As
it
stands I cannot.

He's trying to make something out of the Russians pulling out under
fire
and he seems to be under the impression that while Kissinger was
negotiating with the NVs in Paris in '73, none of our guys were
shooting
at any of their guys

Where do you get the idea that I believe "none of our guys were shooting
at any of their guys" when my comment was "North Vietnam bombed into
accepting"

and vice versa. At any rate, agreement was reached in January '73 and
by the end of March, all US combat troops were out of there.
Personally, withdrawal is withdrawal, whether as a result of enemy
fire
or negotiations.....it still signifies defeat.

Based upon that comment the US must have lost the War of 1812 -
negotiations between the parties concerned did afterall end that War.

There's definitely a case for arguing that we did lose the War of 1812.

Perhaps, but the argument is stronger for the position that nobody won the
War, and the only real losers were the Indian tribes who had allied
themselves with the British.

We failed to conquer Canada (yes, we invaded Canada, thinking that the
Brits wouldn't notice, being pre-occupied with Napoleon.). Had a few
victories at sea and on the Great Lakes, nothing decisive. Land battles
were distinctly mixed with only the Battle of New Orleans (fought after
the Treaty of Ghent ended the war) being a decisive American victory.
And the Brits only stopped impressing seamen from our ships because they
defeated the French and drew down the Royal Navy.

Oh, and of course, the Brits burned Washington (but that may have been
retaliation for us burning the capital of colonial Canada, York
(Ontario), in 1813.

Brett wrote:
"Marc Reeve" wrote:
Brett wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Where do you get the idea that I believe "none of our guys were
shooting at any of their guys" when my comment was "North Vietnam
bombed into accepting"

and vice versa. At any rate, agreement was reached in January '73
and by the end of March, all US combat troops were out of there.
Personally, withdrawal is withdrawal, whether as a result of enemy
fire or negotiations.....it still signifies defeat.

Based upon that comment the US must have lost the War of 1812 -
negotiations between the parties concerned did afterall end that War.

There's definitely a case for arguing that we did lose the War of 1812.

Perhaps, but the argument is stronger for the position that nobody won the
War, and the only real losers were the Indian tribes who had allied
themselves with the British.

True enough. The natives had a knack for picking the wrong side - siding
with the French during the French and Indian War, and then with the
Brits during the Revolution and the War of 1812.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Brett
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
The US tried to support South Vietnam, eventually withdrew, and it
collapsed and was taken over by North Vietnam within a few years.

The USSR tried to support Najibullah in Afghanistan, eventually
withdrew, and Najibullah was murdered and the country riven by civil
war
between the _jombesh_ until the Taliban took over.

Wasn't Najibullah executed by the Taliban in 1996.

Thereabouts; so he hung on for, oh, eight years after the Soviets left?

No, the majority of that time he spent hiding in a UN compound in Kabul
hoping that Sevan's (of the later oil for food scandal) guarantees for his
safety were worth something. He found out in 1996 that a UN
promise/guarantee was worthless when the Taliban dragged him from the UN
compound tortured and then hanged him.

So, obviously, the Soviets won in Afghanistan...

If Najibullah's survival as a hunted man for 8 years before his violent
death at the hands of the Taliban in 1996 demonstrates winning, Thieu's
death of natural causes (a stroke) in September 2001 after living in comfort
for many years in London and Boston must have some meaning.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:28:34 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:07:19 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

At any rate, agreement was reached in January '73 and
by the end of March, all US combat troops were out of there.

The negotiation in Paris ran from '68 to '72. You are right that
bombing the N. ended in January '73, but way off on "by the end of
March, all US combat troops were out of there."

I flew combat until the end of my one year tour in July of '73 with
missions in SVN, Laos and Cambodia. US Marines were still in ground
combat as well as US Army. Small numbers, yes. But definitely not "all
US combat troops." The sieges of An Loc, Hue and Khe Sanh were still
ongoing.

Your memory is little better than mine, apparently. I took the trouble to read
up a little bit about the siege of An Loc and learned that the NV launched an
all-out attack on An Loc in mid-April 1972. Take a look at this and please try
to refrain from quibbling about what constitutes "all US combat troops":

While the siege of An Loc started in April of '72 as did Linebacker,
"all US combat troops" weren't out. I was flying "An Loc trip turns"
in March and April of '73. One sortie out of Korat, drop at An Loc,
recover to Bien Hoa. Reload and drop on An Loc, return to Bien Hoa.
Reload, drop on An Loc and RTB to Korat. One Marine A-4 squadron still
at Bien Hoa, lots of USAF ground personnel and a brigade of US Army
still on station. Deployed A-1 Sandy unit from Nakhon Phanom for
possible SAR use.

Up at Khe Sanh, Marines were still on the ground and we were still
pounding the surrounding hillsides. At Danang, we had move the AF
flying units out, but were still turning fighter sorties for CAS
missions in MR I and II. Did your reading mention that?


I didn't bother doing any further research since I'd satisfied myself that the
information I was able to find was at least as reliable as yours, if not better.

I'm glad you didn't read any further. I've found that history is a lot
like a man with two watches. If you've got one watch, you know what
time it is. If you've got two, you're never sure.

Stop reading while you're ahead.



Personally, withdrawal is withdrawal, whether as a result of enemy fire or
negotiations.....it still signifies defeat.

Withdrawal of US troops started almost immediately after Nixon took
office in Jan of '69. His Vietnamization policy was designed to be an
orderly transition of defensive responsibilities to the Vietnamese. By
April of '72, the drawdown was very close to complete with in-country
numbers down from more than 500,000 at the peak in '68 to around
100,000.

From what I've been able to learn, the withdrawal by mid-1972 was so complete
that what we had left there constituted only advisors to the SVA and little
else. That leads me to wonder why you took issue with my previous statement to
that effect.

Three squadrons of F-4s from Seymour Johnson returned to SEA in August
of '72. A squadron of F-111s arrived at Takhli in Sept or Oct. A full
wing of A-7Ds from Myrtle Beach arrived at Korat in October of '72.
Additional F-105Gs from the States arrived in September as well as the
F-4C Weasels from Kadena and the 35th TFS from Korea. And, that's just
some of the additional forces arriving while you contend there was no
one left.

Key to the failure of the policy was the lack of cultural
understanding of the Vietnamese. We never quite "got it." A good book
on the cultural issues is "Fire in the Lake" by Frances Fitzgerald.

By your definition of "withdrawal, whether a result of enemy fire or
negotiations = defeat", we must have lost WW I, WW II as well. We did
withdraw our forces both times after negotiations.

You can't be serious!!! On both occasions, we withdrew our troops AFTER our
enemy had been vanquished, AFTER they had surrendered, and AFTER they had
ceased fighting. There is NO parallel between our withdrawal from VN and either
WWI or WWII.

Your statement (still intact above) was "withdrawal whether as a
result of enemy fire or negotiation"--it's ridiculous statement on its
face. America always withdraws after conflicts end--we aren't a very
imperialist country. By your definition, we always lose.

I still don't understand why you are so eager to be defeated. You also
apparently seek to grasp defeat from modifications to policy as time
passes. If losing is so important to you, I'll be happy to declare you
a loser and credit NVN as well as Saddam Hussein with victory.

I hate to differ with you, but 40 years after cessation of the war with NVN,
only an idiot who has become totally delusional or is seriously committed to
rewriting the history of that particular war to satisfy his own need to avoid
acknowledging reality would claim that we won that war.

I didn't claim victory at the end of hostilities. I said I didn't
lose.

You can call me whatever you like, but it won't change the reality that we left
with the names of 58,000+ of our dead troops on a black wall in Washington, DC,
and to this day, there is not a single cemetary in VN that contains any of their
remains, while such cemetaries abound in various parts of Europe.

When we are winners, we inter many of our fallen where they fell, and we weren't
able to do that in VN as we had in Europe for the simple reason that we didn't
have anything to say about what went on in VN after we pulled out. Winners can
make such arrangements......losers never can. We didn't.

It has long been the preference of America to bring as many of our
fallen home as possible. Interring where they fell is not the desired
option. It was only done when the losses were so great that handling
of the casualties was not otherwise practical.

Losing isn't important to me any more than it is to you, but it's what happened.
Your crediting NVN with a victory is really redundent, since the world has known
for years that they achieved precisely that and they hardly needed your
declaration in order to make it so.

You cite the 58,000 names on the Wall. The NVN lost (depending upon
your source) between one and three million. Since you like to only
use one source pick whichever one you want. That sort of loss ratio
doesn't imply a great victory.

As for your throwing Saddam Hussein into the pot, that was a cheap
shot.....neither his name nor his country had entered into any part of this
discussion and I can only conclude that you did so only to try to change the
subject to one that you might do better at. Just take a look at the subject
title if you've forgotten what we were talking about.

I was refuting your assertion that when America withdraws, we lost.

You might want to consider the economy of Vietnam today. You might
want to look at their trade and tourism. You might even ask if they
are truly the great communist society that Marx envisioned, or if they
don't look a bit more like Adam Smith country.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:28:34 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:07:19 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

At any rate, agreement was reached in January '73 and
by the end of March, all US combat troops were out of there.

The negotiation in Paris ran from '68 to '72. You are right that
bombing the N. ended in January '73, but way off on "by the end of
March, all US combat troops were out of there."

I flew combat until the end of my one year tour in July of '73 with
missions in SVN, Laos and Cambodia. US Marines were still in ground
combat as well as US Army. Small numbers, yes. But definitely not "all
US combat troops." The sieges of An Loc, Hue and Khe Sanh were still
ongoing.

Your memory is little better than mine, apparently. I took the trouble to
read up a little bit about the siege of An Loc and learned that the NV
launched an all-out attack on An Loc in mid-April 1972. Take a look at this
and please try to refrain from quibbling about what constitutes "all US
combat troops":

While the siege of An Loc started in April of '72 as did Linebacker,
"all US combat troops" weren't out. I was flying "An Loc trip turns"
in March and April of '73. One sortie out of Korat, drop at An Loc,
recover to Bien Hoa. Reload and drop on An Loc, return to Bien Hoa.
Reload, drop on An Loc and RTB to Korat. One Marine A-4 squadron still
at Bien Hoa, lots of USAF ground personnel and a brigade of US Army
still on station. Deployed A-1 Sandy unit from Nakhon Phanom for
possible SAR use.

Up at Khe Sanh, Marines were still on the ground and we were still
pounding the surrounding hillsides. At Danang, we had move the AF
flying units out, but were still turning fighter sorties for CAS
missions in MR I and II. Did your reading mention that?

Yep. It seems to boil down to a difference of opinion as to what constitutes
"US combat troops". The sources I used referred to the remaining US ground
components as advisors to the S. Vietnamese forces, not as forces involved in
combat as units with unique assigned missions. If you don't want to accept that
definition, and it looks like you don't, go argue with them. I merely reported
what they said. Neither of us were there on the ground, so we're each entitled
to our own opinions.


I didn't bother doing any further research since I'd satisfied myself that
the information I was able to find was at least as reliable as yours, if not
better.

I'm glad you didn't read any further. I've found that history is a lot
like a man with two watches. If you've got one watch, you know what
time it is. If you've got two, you're never sure.

Stop reading while you're ahead.

Quick with a quip, as always, even when it doesn't prove anything.



Personally, withdrawal is withdrawal, whether as a result of enemy fire or
negotiations.....it still signifies defeat.

Withdrawal of US troops started almost immediately after Nixon took
office in Jan of '69. His Vietnamization policy was designed to be an
orderly transition of defensive responsibilities to the Vietnamese. By
April of '72, the drawdown was very close to complete with in-country
numbers down from more than 500,000 at the peak in '68 to around
100,000.

From what I've been able to learn, the withdrawal by mid-1972 was so complete
that what we had left there constituted only advisors to the SVA and little
else. That leads me to wonder why you took issue with my previous statement
to that effect.

Three squadrons of F-4s from Seymour Johnson returned to SEA in August
of '72. A squadron of F-111s arrived at Takhli in Sept or Oct. A full
wing of A-7Ds from Myrtle Beach arrived at Korat in October of '72.
Additional F-105Gs from the States arrived in September as well as the
F-4C Weasels from Kadena and the 35th TFS from Korea. And, that's just
some of the additional forces arriving while you contend there was no
one left.

Please don't change my words. What I said was that the sources I used
identified the remaining US ground forces as advisors. Unless the squadrons you
reported on were committed to ground combat at the siege location, they weren't
part of the conversation and there was no reason to add them to the mix. I have
no reason to question but that they arrived as you reported and that they may
have provided the combat air support you alluded to. I had never even mentioned
the aerial component of the siege and don't understand why you even brought it
up, since it was never questioned or mentioned. I was talking about grunts.

Key to the failure of the policy was the lack of cultural
understanding of the Vietnamese. We never quite "got it." A good book
on the cultural issues is "Fire in the Lake" by Frances Fitzgerald.

By your definition of "withdrawal, whether a result of enemy fire or
negotiations = defeat", we must have lost WW I, WW II as well. We did
withdraw our forces both times after negotiations.

You can't be serious!!! On both occasions, we withdrew our troops AFTER our
enemy had been vanquished, AFTER they had surrendered, and AFTER they had
ceased fighting. There is NO parallel between our withdrawal from VN and
either WWI or WWII.

Your statement (still intact above) was "withdrawal whether as a
result of enemy fire or negotiation"--it's ridiculous statement on its
face. America always withdraws after conflicts end--we aren't a very
imperialist country. By your definition, we always lose.

Arguing with that kind of stupid logic is beyond me. If you're bound and
determined to twist my words into something I can't even recognize as my own, I
can't prevent it. All I can do is shake my head in bewildered wonderment as I
gain a little more understanding of how we could manage to screw up our own
effort by relying on people with your thought processes for its success.

I still don't understand why you are so eager to be defeated. You also
apparently seek to grasp defeat from modifications to policy as time
passes. If losing is so important to you, I'll be happy to declare you
a loser and credit NVN as well as Saddam Hussein with victory.

I hate to differ with you, but 40 years after cessation of the war with NVN,
only an idiot who has become totally delusional or is seriously committed to
rewriting the history of that particular war to satisfy his own need to avoid
acknowledging reality would claim that we won that war.

I didn't claim victory at the end of hostilities. I said I didn't
lose.

I, for one, say that if you didn't win what you started out after, you lost.
You can call it whatever it takes to make you feel better about your part in it,
but I'm satisfied that "loser" is a reasonably accurate label all of us who had
any part in it earned. I'm neither proud nor happy about that, but there's
little point in trying to kid ourselves much less the general public that it
ended up amounting to much else. Denial may be your thing, but it's not mine.

You can call me whatever you like, but it won't change the reality that we
left with the names of 58,000+ of our dead troops on a black wall in
Washington, DC, and to this day, there is not a single cemetary in VN that
contains any of their remains, while such cemetaries abound in various parts
of Europe.

When we are winners, we inter many of our fallen where they fell, and we
weren't able to do that in VN as we had in Europe for the simple reason that
we didn't have anything to say about what went on in VN after we pulled out.
Winners can make such arrangements......losers never can. We didn't.

It has long been the preference of America to bring as many of our
fallen home as possible. Interring where they fell is not the desired
option. It was only done when the losses were so great that handling
of the casualties was not otherwise practical.

Losing isn't important to me any more than it is to you, but it's what
happened. Your crediting NVN with a victory is really redundent, since the
world has known for years that they achieved precisely that and they hardly
needed your declaration in order to make it so.

You cite the 58,000 names on the Wall. The NVN lost (depending upon
your source) between one and three million. Since you like to only
use one source pick whichever one you want. That sort of loss ratio
doesn't imply a great victory.

As for your throwing Saddam Hussein into the pot, that was a cheap
shot.....neither his name nor his country had entered into any part of this
discussion and I can only conclude that you did so only to try to change the
subject to one that you might do better at. Just take a look at the subject
title if you've forgotten what we were talking about.

I was refuting your assertion that when America withdraws, we lost.

You might want to consider the economy of Vietnam today. You might
want to look at their trade and tourism. You might even ask if they
are truly the great communist society that Marx envisioned, or if they
don't look a bit more like Adam Smith country.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:28:34 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

You cite the 58,000 names on the Wall. The NVN lost (depending upon
your source) between one and three million. Since you like to only
use one source pick whichever one you want. That sort of loss ratio
doesn't imply a great victory.

Ed,, from http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

"The Hanoi government revealed on April 4 [1995] that the true civilian casualties of
the Vietnam War were 2,000,000 in the north, and 2,000,000 in the south. Military
casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war. These
figures were deliberately falsified during the war by the North Vietnamese Communists
to avoid demoralizing the population. "

A chart on the same page shows 1.1 million NVA/VC dead versus about 276,000 US/ARVN
and allied itroops in combat. So, we've got 3.1 million North Vietnamese killed
during the war, vs. 2.24 million south Vietnamese. The majority of SVN civilian
deaths would have been due to allied firepower, especially US. So assuming
reasonably accurate numbers, the US and its allies killed somewhere between 2 and 4
million civilians, plus the 1.1 million combatants. Were you claiming the deaths of
civilians, those of both our allies and our enemies, represented a great triumph of
american arms, Ed? Killing civilians in a war is easy, as was repeatedly
demonstrated in the 20th Century (and every other one, for that matter).

Of course, all of this is really moot, and smacks of McNamara's numbers war. If you
wish to claim that the number of dead on each side defines which side won and lost,
then you must believe that the Axis powers won World War 2, because they killed far
more of the citizens of the allied powers than vice versa. The DRVN achieved their
goals at a cost they were both willing and able to pay, i.e. they won. The US didn't
achieve its goals because we ultimately decided the cost was too high for any benefit
we might get, i.e. we lost.

snip

I was refuting your assertion that when America withdraws, we lost.

You might want to consider the economy of Vietnam today. You might
want to look at their trade and tourism. You might even ask if they
are truly the great communist society that Marx envisioned, or if they
don't look a bit more like Adam Smith country.

Are you claiming that the war is what made that happen? If so, how do you explain
the same thing happening in all the former communist states in Europe and Asia,
including all the ones where we didn't kill several million of their people?
Communism was a dreary failure, and nobody needed several million dead to tell them
that some form of market economy with a private sector, with all its faults, provides
a better quality of life for the average person. Vietnam would be moving the way it
is now regardless of the war; perhaps the only thing the war did was delay that
movement (after all, people would be getting tired of communist inefficiency,
corruption and brutality that much sooner, if it had started earlier). Vietnam
probably would have been an Asian version of Tito's Yugoslavia in the '60s and '70s,
if we had recognized Ho Chi Minh back in 1945 (or even 1954) and the war hadn't been
fought. But we blew it, and blew it repeatedly, for what no doubt seemed like
compelling reasons (or at least, politically expedient ones) at the time.

Guy