4 ms·

That explains why the Republic of South Vietnam is doing so well these days, and why Iraq and Afghanistan are beacons of hope and democracy in the middle east.

by cstross 10y ago

That explains why the Republic of South Vietnam is doing so well these days, and why Iraq and Afghanistan are beacons of hope and democracy in the middle east. (The USA does lose wars; it's just career suicide for a politician -- and deeply unpopular for a media channel -- to admit it. And nobody has actually threatened to invade the CONUS since 1941, so the cost of losing a war is much lower than for most other nations.)

blfr 10y ago
It's pretty clear what he meant: the US never had to surrender like Germany or Japan, or even defend on their own soil, so they can shield their operatives indefinitely.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  And they didn't really lost in Vietnam, what happened in the end was that they had to pick between two alternatives: carpet bomb the place to hell and "win" or go home. That "win" would have been political suicide for the administration at the time as the majority of the US wanted to go home. In the end it was a victory of the will of the people so I'm glad they went home and I'm not even American so it's not like I care if they "lost" or not.
  - o0-0o 10y ago
    This. If anyone thinks that the US lost Vietnam, they are kiding themselves. The US chose to go home. Was at the Vietnam Verterans' Memorial yesterday, and they list of dead is astounding. Quite sad, really. Regardless of the reason, we paid a dear price for our beliefs.
  - willholloway 10y ago
    The US carpet bombed Vietnam and Cambodia and still didn't win. See Operation Rolling Thunder [1] The US sought to destroy all North Vietnamese infrastructure, rail, bridges, and communications. The North Vietnamese responded by decentralizing. They sent half the population of Hanoi to the country side. When a bridge was bombed, they rebuilt it with dirt or set up a ferry. When rail was bombed, they split it into smaller segments and only operated at night. They fully militarized their entire population, civilians carried messages, and relayed goods. They dug tunnels, set up in caves and got modern anti-aircraft guns and MIGs from Russia and China. Even though their planes were not as good, they were good enough to engage in hit and runs, all the MIGs had to do was show up and the American planes had to dump their payload of bombs to be maneuverable enough to be able to defend themselves. Cambodia was bombed even more harshly in Operation Menu and then Operation Freedom Deal, which was kept secret from the American public. "The United States dropped upwards of 2.7 million tons of bombs on Cambodia, exceeding the amount it had dropped on Japan during WWII (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) by almost a million tons." It didn't work. We could not subjugate Vietnam or Cambodia. One of the things it did accomplish was creating a civil war in Cambodia and a generation of crazies led by a Western educated leader, Pol Pot, that responded to their inability to feed their population with the killing fields. This stuff just doesn't work and we keep doing it over and over again, creating mass human misery and trauma, and destroying the economic surplus of our nation. The US projected all the "power" it had at Vietnam and Cambodia. It carpet bombed, it defoliated the jungle with agent orange. It used ground troops. It attacked the neighboring countries to deny sanctuary to the Viet Cong across borders. It killed three million Vietnamese. It still couldn't win. The only other weapon the US could have used was nuclear. The US could have annihilated Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with atomic weapons. Only those weapons are powerful enough to destroy as much as we think "carpet-bombing" with conventional explosives can accomplish. The land mass is too large, the number of planes that could get past Vietnamese air defenses too small, the power of conventional weapons also too small, and the ability of the Vietnamese to adapt and repair too great to achieve the effect of total destruction. The US tried. We really, really tried. The idea that we "kept the gloves on" is a myth. This idea of American omnipotence has to go. There are limits to air power, and limits to American power. It is the failure to learn this lesson that has created four failed states in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Afghanistan is another tragic example. After 15 years of war, counter insurgency, and surge the Taliban now controls more territory than it did in 2004-5. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal
    - chillacy 10y ago
      > The US could have annihilated Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with atomic weapons > The idea that we "kept the gloves on" is a myth Aren't these two statements contradictory? Anyways, I agree with your point in general. Guerrilla tactics are extremely effective against an enemy with superior funding attacking your home turf (hello American Revolutionary War).

by cstross 10y ago

blfr 10y ago

It's pretty clear what he meant: the US never had to surrender like Germany or Japan, or even defend on their own soil, so they can shield their operatives indefinitely.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
patrickaljord 10y ago
And they didn't really lost in Vietnam, what happened in the end was that they had to pick between two alternatives: carpet bomb the place to hell and "win" or go home. That "win" would have been political suicide for the administration at the time as the majority of the US wanted to go home. In the end it was a victory of the will of the people so I'm glad they went home and I'm not even American so it's not like I care if they "lost" or not.
- o0-0o 10y ago
  This. If anyone thinks that the US lost Vietnam, they are kiding themselves. The US chose to go home. Was at the Vietnam Verterans' Memorial yesterday, and they list of dead is astounding. Quite sad, really. Regardless of the reason, we paid a dear price for our beliefs.
- willholloway 10y ago
  The US carpet bombed Vietnam and Cambodia and still didn't win. See Operation Rolling Thunder [1] The US sought to destroy all North Vietnamese infrastructure, rail, bridges, and communications. The North Vietnamese responded by decentralizing. They sent half the population of Hanoi to the country side. When a bridge was bombed, they rebuilt it with dirt or set up a ferry. When rail was bombed, they split it into smaller segments and only operated at night. They fully militarized their entire population, civilians carried messages, and relayed goods. They dug tunnels, set up in caves and got modern anti-aircraft guns and MIGs from Russia and China. Even though their planes were not as good, they were good enough to engage in hit and runs, all the MIGs had to do was show up and the American planes had to dump their payload of bombs to be maneuverable enough to be able to defend themselves. Cambodia was bombed even more harshly in Operation Menu and then Operation Freedom Deal, which was kept secret from the American public. "The United States dropped upwards of 2.7 million tons of bombs on Cambodia, exceeding the amount it had dropped on Japan during WWII (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) by almost a million tons." It didn't work. We could not subjugate Vietnam or Cambodia. One of the things it did accomplish was creating a civil war in Cambodia and a generation of crazies led by a Western educated leader, Pol Pot, that responded to their inability to feed their population with the killing fields. This stuff just doesn't work and we keep doing it over and over again, creating mass human misery and trauma, and destroying the economic surplus of our nation. The US projected all the "power" it had at Vietnam and Cambodia. It carpet bombed, it defoliated the jungle with agent orange. It used ground troops. It attacked the neighboring countries to deny sanctuary to the Viet Cong across borders. It killed three million Vietnamese. It still couldn't win. The only other weapon the US could have used was nuclear. The US could have annihilated Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with atomic weapons. Only those weapons are powerful enough to destroy as much as we think "carpet-bombing" with conventional explosives can accomplish. The land mass is too large, the number of planes that could get past Vietnamese air defenses too small, the power of conventional weapons also too small, and the ability of the Vietnamese to adapt and repair too great to achieve the effect of total destruction. The US tried. We really, really tried. The idea that we "kept the gloves on" is a myth. This idea of American omnipotence has to go. There are limits to air power, and limits to American power. It is the failure to learn this lesson that has created four failed states in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Afghanistan is another tragic example. After 15 years of war, counter insurgency, and surge the Taliban now controls more territory than it did in 2004-5. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal
  - chillacy 10y ago
    > The US could have annihilated Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with atomic weapons > The idea that we "kept the gloves on" is a myth Aren't these two statements contradictory? Anyways, I agree with your point in general. Guerrilla tactics are extremely effective against an enemy with superior funding attacking your home turf (hello American Revolutionary War).