4 ms·

> the Viet Cong were crushed even with substantial outside support I'm as pro-US as they come, but The Tet Offensive, of which the Viet Cong played a crucial r

> the Viet Cong were crushed even with substantial outside support I'm as pro-US as they come, but The Tet Offensive, of which the Viet Cong played a crucial role, was crucial in breaking the will of the American populace to support the war leading to its end. I'd call that a pretty successful insurgent group. Would they have won as quickly, or as soon as they did without the NVA? Who knows, maybe they would have broken the will or maybe it would have been the United States' Afghanistan.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> I'm as pro-US as they come, Being pro-US has nothing to do with it; as you might note in my other comments, I've made a similar argument against the US revolution being an example of an insurgent group being independently successful against a well-equipped national force. > but The Tet Offensive, of which the Viet Cong played a crucial role, was crucial in breaking the will of the American populace to support the war leading to its end. I'd call that a pretty successful insurgent group. They had massive outside support the whole time, even before Tet, and the VC was essentially gone after the Tet Offensive. Sure, it was important in breaking US will to continue the war, but without the NVA taking up the main battle after Tet, there would have been no war to continue. Yes, for an insurgent group, the VC was relatively successful; that underscores that insurgent groups almost invariably succeed, if at all, with either massive defection from the military of the regime they are fighting or massive outside support, or both.
- mieseratte 9y ago
  > Being pro-US has nothing to do with it; I'm noting that as to avoid the assertion that I'm somehow being revisionist to make a favorable point as is en vogue. > They had massive outside support the whole time, even before Tet Being ignorant of the details, what level of support did they receive? Training? Small arms? Heavy ordnance? > Yes, for an insurgent group, the VC was relatively successful; that underscores that insurgent groups almost invariably succeed, if at all, with either massive defection from the military of the regime they are fighting or massive outside support, or both. Ultimately and per my original point, this is all an apples-oranges-comparison taken past the point of relevance. The common thread to both is the question, can you bleed an army to the point of withdrawl / end of conflict in your favor? The answer is yes, but the question then becomes can we and what would be required? You assert this is only possible with external assistance, but to my original point the widespread proliferation of arms, ammunition, and military training the United States would position an insurgent force to not require external supply or training. The exception to this may be the category of "destructive devices."

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I'm as pro-US as they come, Being pro-US has nothing to do with it; as you might note in my other comments, I've made a similar argument against the US revolution being an example of an insurgent group being independently successful against a well-equipped national force. > but The Tet Offensive, of which the Viet Cong played a crucial role, was crucial in breaking the will of the American populace to support the war leading to its end. I'd call that a pretty successful insurgent group. They had massive outside support the whole time, even before Tet, and the VC was essentially gone after the Tet Offensive. Sure, it was important in breaking US will to continue the war, but without the NVA taking up the main battle after Tet, there would have been no war to continue. Yes, for an insurgent group, the VC was relatively successful; that underscores that insurgent groups almost invariably succeed, if at all, with either massive defection from the military of the regime they are fighting or massive outside support, or both.

mieseratte 9y ago
> Being pro-US has nothing to do with it; I'm noting that as to avoid the assertion that I'm somehow being revisionist to make a favorable point as is en vogue. > They had massive outside support the whole time, even before Tet Being ignorant of the details, what level of support did they receive? Training? Small arms? Heavy ordnance? > Yes, for an insurgent group, the VC was relatively successful; that underscores that insurgent groups almost invariably succeed, if at all, with either massive defection from the military of the regime they are fighting or massive outside support, or both. Ultimately and per my original point, this is all an apples-oranges-comparison taken past the point of relevance. The common thread to both is the question, can you bleed an army to the point of withdrawl / end of conflict in your favor? The answer is yes, but the question then becomes can we and what would be required? You assert this is only possible with external assistance, but to my original point the widespread proliferation of arms, ammunition, and military training the United States would position an insurgent force to not require external supply or training. The exception to this may be the category of "destructive devices."