- This topic has 5 voices and 27 replies.
-
Posts
-
I know we didn't go wrong militarily since we beat back the Vietcong quite handily, but why did the Tet Offensive damage our war effort so badly at home? Why did it shake the faith of the American people against the war?
I think because large numbers of people began to suspect that perhaps we had a literal tiger by the tailand the war, despite our overwhelming superiority in planes, tanks, helicopters and equipment, wasquite possibly going to end in failure. In 1968, I was teaching on a college campus and remember thisevent quite well as I did Uncle Walter's comment about it. We blinked!
America lost the PR battle after Tet. The military had been saying the VC were almost defeated and then they pulled off Tet which led Cronkit to opine that the war was unwinnable and fed the perception in the states that he was right. We did not lose militarily, we lost in the court of Public opinion.
QuoteAmerica lost the PR battle after Tet. The military had been saying the VC were almost defeated and then they pulled off Tet which led Cronkit to opine that the war was unwinnable and fed the perception in the states that he was right. We did not lose militarily, we lost in the court of Public opinion.Report to moderator LoggedAs I said--we blinked!
We did not blink; we cringed and were unwilling to pay the price necessary to WIN. Militarily, we were never defeated and could not be defeated, the college students and liberals decided that winning was not enough. Make love not war, right. The Vietnam era marked the beginning of the descent of the modern American left into French surrender monekyism. The left decided that nothing was worth fighting for anywhere until America itself was perfect. I do not have a problem with civil rights and many so-called left-wing causes; I do have a problem with backing out and leaving things unfinished. We betrayed the South Vietnamese people; that is a black mark on America's honor that will always remain. Luckily we are not doing the same in Iraq or Afghanistan despite all the efforts of the left to make it happen there too. Sometimes the right thing is very hard to do.The left in my eyes often chooses to do what my father told me not to, which is "choose the easy wrong over the hard right". TET was only a defeat because we let it be. If the modern left had been as influential twenty-five years earlier, Europe would be speaking German now.
We did not blink; we cringed and were unwilling to pay the price necessary to WIN. Militarily, we were never defeated and could not be defeated, the college students and liberals decided that winning was not enough. Make love not war, right. The Vietnam era marked the beginning of the descent of the modern American left into French surrender monekyism. The left decided that nothing was worth fighting for anywhere until America itself was perfect. I do not have a problem with civil rights and many so-called left-wing causes; I do have a problem with backing out and leaving things unfinished. We betrayed the South Vietnamese people; that is a black mark on America's honor that will always remain. Luckily we are not doing the same in Iraq or Afghanistan despite all the efforts of the left to make it happen there too. Sometimes the right thing is very hard to do.The left in my eyes often chooses to do what my father told me not to, which is "choose the easy wrong over the hard right". TET was only a defeat because we let it be. If the modern left had been as influential twenty-five years earlier, Europe would be speaking German now.Blinked, cringed or shuddered at the potential cost in blood and treasure--have it whatever way you wish. Of course we could not be defeated--we bestrode the world, but on the other hand could we have won? That depends on what "win" means. Could we have convinced the North, through diplomatic or military means, that the country should be divided a la Korea. I do not see this as an acceptable solution for the North even if it were possible to create a viable democracy (sic) in the South. So how would you define "win"? I am at a loss to bury this beast.Also: I am of the opinion that concerning our successes in Iraq and Afghanistan--it is too soon to tell.Enjoy the remains of the day.WillyD
I will say that yes, I believe we could have won. I define winning as convincing the enemy that it is more painful to continue to fight than to submit. By my defintion, we lost because we convinced ourselves that winning was not worth the cost. I will not try to convince you that you are wrong, you are entitled to your own beliefs. Fact is, we did not lose Vietnam, we gave up.I only ask this, what is freedom worth, not personally to you, but freedom in general? A second one is is spreading freedom a worthy goal?
Freedom is a wonderful thing. I have had it all of my life except for the five years I served in the military,but that was my doing as I was no conscript and had accepted the limitations willingly.Freedom has not been the fate of most men throughout history. We were slaves, serfs, subjects ormerely "the great unwashed" for thousands of years and we lived without freedom as we would now define it. What is freedom worth? The pat answer is that its worth anything to achieve, but that answer is, in reality, untrue. For many of our species freedom would be willingly sacrificed for a full belly and a secure life. We are all not brave, we are all not interested in who or what governs us and we are all not willingto sacrifice the tangible reality of comfort for the theoretical benefits of freedom.Is spreading freedom a worthy goal? In 1788 you would have been deemed a radical for such a statementand dealt with harshly in some countries. A former president once said that freedom was a wonderful thing but:Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America?s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.Mr. Adams had a point. What right do we have to interfere with a government who may not be veryinterested in our concept of freedom. Is it possible that they might object if we send political missionaries to their little nations and tell the people to be unhappy with the staus quo, that womenought to have rights, that child brides are wrong, that their god is a false one, that their marriage laws are barbaric, that girls ought to go to school and that Walmart is their friend?Can you think of a situation where you would give up your freedom for security--thousands did as theRoman Empire slowly rotted and the Dark Ages and Feudalism emerged from the ruins--they were called serfs. Most of us are their descendants.I think you have to be might careful about spreading freedom--look what happened to Allende in Chileand Mossadegh in Iran in 1953.
.... Fact is, we did not lose Vietnam, we gave up.
Much as England gave up in the AmRev, according to my sources there.
...what is freedom worth, not personally to you, but freedom in general? A second one is is spreading freedom a worthy goal?
On the whole,for me, yes to both. Hard though to sell the concept to societies that have never had it or understand it in our terms... liberty.
....Can you think of a situation where you would give up your freedom for security--thousands did ...they were called serfs. Most of us are their descendants.
... and have freedom because some were willing to take the risk to try to have both.
I think you have to be might careful about spreading freedom--look what happened to Allende in Chileand Mossadegh in Iran in 1953.
So noted.
You are right Willy, having principles is hard. I should just take the easy oute and not have any, and furthermore I should not hold to ideals that are difficult but only go with what is popular at the moment.Now back to the Tet Offensive. ;DTactically, the VC and NVA had a great initial success, there principal military failure is that they had no reserves to exploit any initial successes. Another significant factor was the readiness with which the Americans and ARVN switched from counter-insurgency to conventional operations to defeat the offensive. Stategically Tet was a disaster for the VC & NVA. After the offensive the VC was spent as a fighting force and the NVA had to commit increasingly more troops to sustain the fight. Add to that that the Americans and ARVN had perfected counter-insurgency doctrine that was proven to work. They used it throughout 1968 and it was changed by political directive after Tet II in 1969. The military failuire of the war dates from the shift in strategy from one of prosecuting the war to force protection. Prior to Tet II, we were within at most 18 months of achieving military victory. Tet II was decisive because it convinced the political leadership that we could not win militarily, even though Tet II was only about 1/3 the size of Tet I.
I am familiar with this argument and cannot refute it. The point is that our military and political leadersdo what all leaders do when involved in a difficult situation--they fail to tell us the whole truth. We could both construct a valid argument that as the general populace is ignorant, emotional and clueless in termsof geography and international relations, this is the best way to deal with them--they way mushroom farmers raise their crops to use a crude analogy.This works for a while, but when the populace finds out that there is a wide disparity between what theywere told and what they now perceive, a gap of mistrust emerges and further statements from the "authorities" becomes suspect whether it is true or not.Surely we could have had a military victory in Viet Nam, but as you said--it was a political no go especiallyin light of Nixon's plight at the time. Here is a thought that haunts me. The Vietnamese always said andI believe they always believed that we, like the French and the Chinese, were a temporary affliction who,in time, would go away. I also believe that they would never give up--never--never--never. Did LBJ or Nixon have Historians who advised him of the tenacity of these people?
If I remember correctly, part of Nixon's platform was that he would extract America from Vietnam honorably. It was Johnson and his policies that made a military victory politically unfeasible. It was also a major reason why he (Johnson) chose not to seek re-election. If we are to apportion blame I will lay it directly at the feet of LBJ and his appointed leadership. The policy of not allowing hot pursuit into Laos and Cambodia was a political decision, so was the policy of not allowing ground troops into the North. Both could have considerably shortened the war. The key to winning any conflict is the right combination of will and doctrine. I am in agreement with Napoleon in that I also believe “that in war, the moral is to material as 3 is to 1”. There are two ways to win wars one is to convince the enemy that he cannot win, or two, kill enough enemy soldiers that you destroy their physical ability to continue the fight. Personally, I think two is the most decisive, while one is the cheapest and thus most desirable way. Generally a lot of friendly soldiers will die in the process of killing masses of the enemy and the kill ratio must stay in your favor. That last is one reason why the body count assumed such importance during the Vietnam conflict; it was a way to keep score when the conflict did not settle around taking and holding terrain but killing the enemy.
I am familiar with this argument and cannot refute it. The point is that our military and political leaders do what all leaders do when involved in a difficult situation--they fail to tell us the whole truth. We could both construct a valid argument that as the general populace is ignorant, emotional and clueless in terms of geography and international relations, this is the best way to deal with them--they way mushroom farmers raise their crops to use a crude analogy.This works for a while, but when the populace finds out that there is a wide disparity between what theywere told and what they now perceive, a gap of mistrust emerges and further statements from the "authorities" becomes suspect whether it is true or not.
Misinformation only works with those who won?t bother to inform themselves, especially in America. All the relevant information was available at the time, the people have no one but themselves to blame if they chose not to pursue it. This just adds to my assertion that the vast majority of Americans are easily led sheeple does it not? Willful ignorance is not the same as being force-fed lies and half-truths. It is possible to be lied to and not know in a totalitarian regime but not in a free society.
