> It's usually centered around the idea that we were just about to win in Vietnam, with just a couple more months or a couple more thousand troops, and that it

> It's usually centered around the idea that we were just about to win in Vietnam, with just a couple more months or a couple more thousand troops, and that it was the cowardly liberals who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. After browsing through the article I have to say that I don't agree, or that the article comes close to suggest your interpretation. The article simply states that after the Tet offensive Westmoreland asked for reinforcements, and his request depleted the US's reserves. It points out all the reasons why that request was impossible to fulfill. More to the point, the sheer number of troops (over 200k) made it quite clear that the involvement was too great to justify. In short, the general fended off the Tet offensive and requested reinforcements to keep fighting. A general in any similar circumstamce has no option, as he has no power to simply call off a war, even if its too drawn out and with a heavy social toll. So as his forces weren't defeated then he did the only thing any general would do: petition for the reinforcements he felt were required to win (better yet, keep fighting) and kept up the fight as best as he could.