> 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

> 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."