3 ms·

When the enemy has limited personnel and equipment - targets such as body count, vehicles destroyed etc. are very good measures of progress. And FYI the US han

When the enemy has limited personnel and equipment - targets such as body count, vehicles destroyed etc. are very good measures of progress. And FYI the US handily and clearly won the Vietnam war; the South Vietnamese insurgency was defeated and the North Korean Army was obliterated. Due to political pressure at home, the US withdrew after the war, and a short while later the North Vietnamese were able to rebuild their army and waltz in and topple the fragile S. Vietnamese government. The Communists then murdered 10's of thousands of people in the streets and imprisoned 100's of thousands and of course enforced totalitarian rule which kept millions in fear and poverty. Were the Americans to have simply left a contingent of soldiers in the South, thereby keeping the legitimate threat of violence, it's unlikely the South would have fallen and might very well look like S. Korea today. To your point, 'body count' is not a very good number to use when you're fighting an insurgency where there are a lot of irregular forces who can come in and out of fighting, or where soldiers can be replenished (i.e. North Vietnam can recruit willy nilly on their turf). But it's still a valid measure and though you don't hear about it these days (for PR reasons) you can absolutely be assured that all NATO forces meticulously con't how many enemy forces are destroyed, and that it is a 'target' on many missions.

Semirhage 8y ago
And FYI the US handily and clearly won the Vietnam war; the South Vietnamese insurgency was defeated and the North Korean Army was obliterated. That’s a serious, if delusional claim that requires a loooooot of support. “Handily” in particular seems like a ridiculous way to state it, even if you only look at US casualties.
- cwmma 8y ago
  There's a quote to the extent of "the US never lost a battle in the Vietnam, but still lost the war" which is probably what they were getting at, which just honestly proves the point that America was really optimizing for the wrong measure in that war.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    I very well understand there were challenges in the war - and that 'body count' and 'battles won' was not going to be a good metric. This is a valid point: we though it was going great because hey - look at the 'battles won' and 'body' count, but really it wasn't. But the US did not remotely lose the war. There is no rational basis for suggesting this - it doesn't even make sense. This is the weird delusional pop culture response that is the problem: misquotes, lies, exaggerations, political statements - all of this about this war specifically that lends reasonable people to think something happened ... that did not happen. It got a little ugly but the US won on fairly hard terms: South Vietnamese insurgency was wiped out, and the North Vietnamese Army was in tatters. This only after a few short years of heavy fighting, with limited engagement by the US, an something like 10-1 casualty rates favouring the Americans. It's ironic because the Americans actually did kind of 'lose' in a way in Korea and we don't look at it the same way due to the different political nature of the war.
    - philipkglass 8y ago
      National Security Action Memoranda number 52, May 1961: https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-330-002.aspx https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-330-... Subject: Program of Action to Prevent Communist Domination of South Viet Nam The US Objective: to prevent Communist domination of South Vietnam and to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society. The US had not achieved those objectives 12 years later. The communists won control over the whole country a few years after US withdrawal finished. Vietnam's government is still communist today. This is basically what I learned browsing through encyclopedias when I was a kid. I did a quick fact-check just now in case I had been misled or misremembered. I can sort-of understand saying that the communists didn't achieve victory over the USA either (because they also didn't manage to install an allied government in the territory of the USA), but claiming that the US won is weird.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        "The US had not achieved those objectives 12 years later." Yes. They did. The US did achieve those objectives in the early 1970s'. The US vanquished the South Vietnamese forces, and did considerably damage to North Vietnamese forces using air power - to the point where North Vietnamese did not have a capable fighting force. Communism was basically gone in the South, in the North, inoperable, at least militarily. Then the US left. A few years later, the North built up their armies and waltzed into the South. It's really crazy, strategically that the US withdrew - all they had to do was leave about 50K soldiers, sitting 'behind the wire' not really fighting, maybe an aircraft carrier, i.e. 'the threat of violence' and S. Vietnam would be as free today as S. Korea. The Americans withdrew because of populist political pressure back home i.e teens protesting. I don't believe the US should have necessarily gone to war in Vietnam, but after they did, they should have stayed - it would have cost very little. Anyhow - as per the article - 'points of measure' can be misleading, as it was with 'bodycount' in Vietnam, but they're not entirely misleading. Number of enemy combatants, civilians, allies killed or wounded is a very important metric in every conflict. It's just not 'the' metric.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  No, it's not remotely delusional. What's delusional and troubling is the degree to which this war is completely misunderstood in pop culture. The US handily won the Vietnam war, full stop. In classical terms is was a clear and unambiguous outright victory. Think of Korea for example: a stalemate, whereas the US obliterated their oppponents in Vietnam. The US hardly lost a single battle and losses in the war are consistent with the losses forces have in a 'regular war' - it's just that they seem large today's because the US hasn't fought against capable forces. Losses were consistent with Korean war, just a decade previous. The Vietnam experience is often misunderstood because the US technically did spend a very long time there, they had trouble initially with the South Vietnamese insurgency, because the US eventually resorted to heavy bombing campaigns with too many civilian casualties, and because of complex political issues such as North Vietnamese forces hiding out in Cambodia etc.. But really the 'hard war' was not very long - you can see the troop buildup and then withdrawal here [1] The US 'under committed' to the effort early on, and then did a slower build up to defeat the insurgency, and relatively handily defeated them after the buildup and then withdrew after a major air campaign. The length of direct engagement by US forces in Vietnam is shorter than for Iraq and Afghanistan, and roughly on par with Korea. The number of US casualties was roughly on par with Korea as well. The Vietnam war is understood by most people via Hollywood films and very poorly conceived documentaries. It was a turning point in some ways because it's the first time that American citizens were given insight into how horrible war actually is (i.e. reporters on the front lines etc.). [1] http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm
  - ranger207 8y ago
    >The US handily won the Vietnam war, full stop. >In classical terms is was a clear and unambiguous outright victory. The only measure of success is whether or not you accomplish your objectives. The US did not accomplish its objectives in Vietnam of keeping a US-friendly government in power. Regardless of tactical measures of success, the US failed in its strategic objectives. I agree that popular culture has not accurately portrayed the Vietnam conflict, but saying that the US won in Vietnam is completely untrue.
    - 8y ago
mikeash 8y ago
If “progress” means murdering civilians by the thousand as part of a vain attempt to maintain a vestige of colonialism, count me out.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "If “progress” means murdering civilians by the thousand as part of a vain attempt to maintain a vestige of colonialism, count me out." Progress was defeating a ruthless and murderous North Korean Communist regime who, upon victory, mass murdered 10's of thousands of their own citizens, put 100's of thousands in concentration camps and ruthless oppressed their population for decades. My homework partner in high school was a child of Vietnamese immigrants - literally 'boat people'. Also my first boss in the Valley was Vietnamese from that era. They have some stories.
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    “Progress was defeating a ruthless and murderous North Korean Communist regime...” “Who, upon victory, mass murdered 10's of thousands of their own citizens...” Proofread! Or at the very least, try not to include outright contradictions in your outlandish claims. Claiming that the US won in one sentence, and in the very next declaring the opposite is baffling.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      I'm not making any contradictions. The Americans defeated the Viet Kong insurgency and the North Vietnamese, and then withdrew shortly thereafter. After a few years, the North Vietnamese were able to rebuild their Army. They invaded and toppled South Vietnam. Again, my point: people don't seem to have any idea of what actually happened.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        I think Goodhart's law gives us a good insight. If the actual goal was to ensure the long term viability of a democratic South Vietnam, the endeavor failed. So what happened, is that the US government "gamed" it by targeting "Body Count" and "winning all the battles." In doing so, it failed to achieve the actual goal in its long term interest.

Semirhage 8y ago

And FYI the US handily and clearly won the Vietnam war; the South Vietnamese insurgency was defeated and the North Korean Army was obliterated. That’s a serious, if delusional claim that requires a loooooot of support. “Handily” in particular seems like a ridiculous way to state it, even if you only look at US casualties.

cwmma 8y ago
There's a quote to the extent of "the US never lost a battle in the Vietnam, but still lost the war" which is probably what they were getting at, which just honestly proves the point that America was really optimizing for the wrong measure in that war.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  I very well understand there were challenges in the war - and that 'body count' and 'battles won' was not going to be a good metric. This is a valid point: we though it was going great because hey - look at the 'battles won' and 'body' count, but really it wasn't. But the US did not remotely lose the war. There is no rational basis for suggesting this - it doesn't even make sense. This is the weird delusional pop culture response that is the problem: misquotes, lies, exaggerations, political statements - all of this about this war specifically that lends reasonable people to think something happened ... that did not happen. It got a little ugly but the US won on fairly hard terms: South Vietnamese insurgency was wiped out, and the North Vietnamese Army was in tatters. This only after a few short years of heavy fighting, with limited engagement by the US, an something like 10-1 casualty rates favouring the Americans. It's ironic because the Americans actually did kind of 'lose' in a way in Korea and we don't look at it the same way due to the different political nature of the war.
  - philipkglass 8y ago
    National Security Action Memoranda number 52, May 1961: https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-330-002.aspx https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-330-... Subject: Program of Action to Prevent Communist Domination of South Viet Nam The US Objective: to prevent Communist domination of South Vietnam and to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society. The US had not achieved those objectives 12 years later. The communists won control over the whole country a few years after US withdrawal finished. Vietnam's government is still communist today. This is basically what I learned browsing through encyclopedias when I was a kid. I did a quick fact-check just now in case I had been misled or misremembered. I can sort-of understand saying that the communists didn't achieve victory over the USA either (because they also didn't manage to install an allied government in the territory of the USA), but claiming that the US won is weird.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      "The US had not achieved those objectives 12 years later." Yes. They did. The US did achieve those objectives in the early 1970s'. The US vanquished the South Vietnamese forces, and did considerably damage to North Vietnamese forces using air power - to the point where North Vietnamese did not have a capable fighting force. Communism was basically gone in the South, in the North, inoperable, at least militarily. Then the US left. A few years later, the North built up their armies and waltzed into the South. It's really crazy, strategically that the US withdrew - all they had to do was leave about 50K soldiers, sitting 'behind the wire' not really fighting, maybe an aircraft carrier, i.e. 'the threat of violence' and S. Vietnam would be as free today as S. Korea. The Americans withdrew because of populist political pressure back home i.e teens protesting. I don't believe the US should have necessarily gone to war in Vietnam, but after they did, they should have stayed - it would have cost very little. Anyhow - as per the article - 'points of measure' can be misleading, as it was with 'bodycount' in Vietnam, but they're not entirely misleading. Number of enemy combatants, civilians, allies killed or wounded is a very important metric in every conflict. It's just not 'the' metric.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
No, it's not remotely delusional. What's delusional and troubling is the degree to which this war is completely misunderstood in pop culture. The US handily won the Vietnam war, full stop. In classical terms is was a clear and unambiguous outright victory. Think of Korea for example: a stalemate, whereas the US obliterated their oppponents in Vietnam. The US hardly lost a single battle and losses in the war are consistent with the losses forces have in a 'regular war' - it's just that they seem large today's because the US hasn't fought against capable forces. Losses were consistent with Korean war, just a decade previous. The Vietnam experience is often misunderstood because the US technically did spend a very long time there, they had trouble initially with the South Vietnamese insurgency, because the US eventually resorted to heavy bombing campaigns with too many civilian casualties, and because of complex political issues such as North Vietnamese forces hiding out in Cambodia etc.. But really the 'hard war' was not very long - you can see the troop buildup and then withdrawal here [1] The US 'under committed' to the effort early on, and then did a slower build up to defeat the insurgency, and relatively handily defeated them after the buildup and then withdrew after a major air campaign. The length of direct engagement by US forces in Vietnam is shorter than for Iraq and Afghanistan, and roughly on par with Korea. The number of US casualties was roughly on par with Korea as well. The Vietnam war is understood by most people via Hollywood films and very poorly conceived documentaries. It was a turning point in some ways because it's the first time that American citizens were given insight into how horrible war actually is (i.e. reporters on the front lines etc.). [1] http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm
- ranger207 8y ago
  >The US handily won the Vietnam war, full stop. >In classical terms is was a clear and unambiguous outright victory. The only measure of success is whether or not you accomplish your objectives. The US did not accomplish its objectives in Vietnam of keeping a US-friendly government in power. Regardless of tactical measures of success, the US failed in its strategic objectives. I agree that popular culture has not accurately portrayed the Vietnam conflict, but saying that the US won in Vietnam is completely untrue.
  - 8y ago

mikeash 8y ago

If “progress” means murdering civilians by the thousand as part of a vain attempt to maintain a vestige of colonialism, count me out.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"If “progress” means murdering civilians by the thousand as part of a vain attempt to maintain a vestige of colonialism, count me out." Progress was defeating a ruthless and murderous North Korean Communist regime who, upon victory, mass murdered 10's of thousands of their own citizens, put 100's of thousands in concentration camps and ruthless oppressed their population for decades. My homework partner in high school was a child of Vietnamese immigrants - literally 'boat people'. Also my first boss in the Valley was Vietnamese from that era. They have some stories.
- Semirhage 8y ago
  “Progress was defeating a ruthless and murderous North Korean Communist regime...” “Who, upon victory, mass murdered 10's of thousands of their own citizens...” Proofread! Or at the very least, try not to include outright contradictions in your outlandish claims. Claiming that the US won in one sentence, and in the very next declaring the opposite is baffling.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    I'm not making any contradictions. The Americans defeated the Viet Kong insurgency and the North Vietnamese, and then withdrew shortly thereafter. After a few years, the North Vietnamese were able to rebuild their Army. They invaded and toppled South Vietnam. Again, my point: people don't seem to have any idea of what actually happened.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I think Goodhart's law gives us a good insight. If the actual goal was to ensure the long term viability of a democratic South Vietnam, the endeavor failed. So what happened, is that the US government "gamed" it by targeting "Body Count" and "winning all the battles." In doing so, it failed to achieve the actual goal in its long term interest.