Did we win in Viet Nam?

How many think we won in Viet Nam?Lost?

"Lisakbernacchia" wrote in message
...
How many think we won in Viet Nam?Lost?

Who is 'we'?

John

How many think we won in Viet Nam?Lost?


What was the score in Vietnam? If you can tell me what the final score was,
then I'll tell you if we won or lost. Don't forget to tell me what metrics and
methodology you employed to determine that score. eg. national objectives,
political objectives, military objectives, etcetera.

Can you reply with this information by tomorrow?



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

sharkone wrote:

How many think we won in Viet Nam?Lost?


What was the score in Vietnam? If you can tell me what the final score was,
then I'll tell you if we won or lost. Don't forget to tell me what metrics
and
methodology you employed to determine that score. eg. national objectives,
political objectives, military objectives, etcetera.

Can you reply with this information by tomorrow?

According to people in both the Kennedy and Johnson aministrations, the reason
we fought in SE Asia (initially espoused by Kennedy in our support for the
Laotian government) was to prevent all of South Asia from coming under
communist rule and seriously threatening our position in the Pacific. We wound
up "losing" South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, but interestingly enough none of
these "losses" had any direct impact on our position in the Pacific. The
tragedy of Cambodia combined with the mistrust between communist nations
prevented the "domino effect" from taking over more than SE Asia, and then only
temporarily in the case of Laos and Cambodia. Can we attribute U.S. military
involvement in SE Asia to the failure of the "domino effect"? Tough question.
Surely the damage inflicted by the US on North Vietnamese and VC forces had an
impact on their ability to project power beyond its borders circa 1974, but
sociological factors contributed as well. Vietnam had border conflicts with all
its neighboring (and fellow communist) nations in the years immediately
following its victory so a "pan communist Asian revolution" seemed unlikely.
The question posed here is a tough one and one that probably doesn't have an
answer that can be explained on a single (or dozen) usenet posts.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

ietnam had border conflicts with all
its neighboring (and fellow communist) nations in the years immediately
following its victory so a "pan communist Asian revolution" seemed unlikely.
The question posed here is a tough one and one that probably doesn't have an
answer that can be explained on a single (or dozen) usenet posts.


On the other hand, capital ism is rampant in the north and the south. tourism
is one of the biggest industries there, people travel arounf more or less
freely, there was no clear winner, and NVN's patron, the Soviet Union,
collapsed 15 years later so who really lost?

SteveM8597 wrote:

here was no clear winner, and NVN's patron, the Soviet Union,
collapsed 15 years later so who really lost?

That is a very good argument itself. Like I said, not an easy question to
answer.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

The question posed here is a tough one and one that probably doesn't have an
answer that can be explained on a single (or dozen) usenet posts.


Bufdrvr,

After viewing the original poster's personal website, I attempted to illustrate
this point in a manner that I perceived might impact her thinking. You say
that the question is a tough one. You, I, and many of the other frequent
contributors and visitors to this newsgroup understand this. I don't think
that she understands this. Hence, my response.



Kurt Todoroff


Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
Consent, not compulsion.

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
sharkone wrote:

How many think we won in Viet Nam?Lost?


What was the score in Vietnam? If you can tell me what the final score
was,
then I'll tell you if we won or lost. Don't forget to tell me what
metrics
and
methodology you employed to determine that score. eg. national
objectives,
political objectives, military objectives, etcetera.

Can you reply with this information by tomorrow?

According to people in both the Kennedy and Johnson aministrations, the
reason
we fought in SE Asia (initially espoused by Kennedy in our support for the
Laotian government) was to prevent all of South Asia from coming under
communist rule and seriously threatening our position in the Pacific.

You're recollection on the stated reasons for the U.S. involvement in SEA
are correct but you're pinning it on the wrong administrations.
The "domino theory" that fomented the U.S.'s involvement originated in the
Eisenhower/Nixon administration. In fact, the first public use of the
"dominos falling" terminology to defend involvement in SEA was in a
presidential news conference in April 1954. Troops and the CIA were there in
'53.
Kennedy inherited the failed foreign policy and Johnson ran with it.

Kennedy inherited the failed foreign policy and Johnson ran with it.

The first president to support that war was Harry Truman. He provided a US
airlift to move French troops back into "French Indo China" when the Japanese
lost the war and moved out. Every subsequent president escalated that
miserable goddam war -- some lots, some less. The biggest escalator was Nixon
-- but who conversely and eventually got our ass out of there.

(Apparently the French blackmailed HST to get the support. "If the USA won't
help us retake our colony, we won't join NATO.")

Quent

On 12 Jun 2004 19:28:28 GMT, (QDurham) wrote:

Kennedy inherited the failed foreign policy and Johnson ran with it.

The first president to support that war was Harry Truman. He provided a US
airlift to move French troops back into "French Indo China" when the Japanese
lost the war and moved out. Every subsequent president escalated that
miserable goddam war -- some lots, some less. The biggest escalator was Nixon
-- but who conversely and eventually got our ass out of there.

(Apparently the French blackmailed HST to get the support. "If the USA won't
help us retake our colony, we won't join NATO.")

Quent

Some fact so far, and some chronological inaccuracies.

First, while John F. Dulles, SecState to Eisenhower, ennunciated the
"Domino Theory", it was simply a continuation of the policy of
containment. Containment originated with George F. Kennan's "Mister X"
dispatches back to Harry Truman after the end of WW II. He postulated
(correctly) that communism was an inherently faulty system and would
eventually collapse of its own problems. All we needed to do was
contain it rather than confront it. This idea led to the Truman
Doctrine which was that the US would oppose the expansion of communist
regimes anywhere in the world.

To achieve containment, the US established alliances around the world
to oppose communism. Among them were SEATO, CENTO and the longest
lasting, NATO. The problem, of course, was that in resisting communism
we inevitably wound up supporting dictators, corrupt democracies,
monarchs, etc.

As for France "blackmailing" HST. Let's note that NATO was formed in
1949 and the French didn't withdraw until after Dien Bien Phu in
1954!!! Truman left the White House in '52. France had already been in
NATO for a lot of years before they withdrew let alone harbored
aspirations to retake Indochina. The Geneva Accord that led to the
breakup of Indochina into Laos, Cambodia, N & S Vietnam was 1954.

As for Nixon being the "biggest escalator"--He was elected in 1968,
taking office in Jan '69. The highest troop numbers came in '68 and
bombing of the N. was halted in the fall of '68 by Johnson. Nixon's
initial policy upon taking office was to commence Vietnamization--the
drawdown of US troops. By his election to a second term in '72, we
were down to about 150,000 troops remaining in-country.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8