5 ms·

Wikipedia is pretty unambiguous: "Following Vietnamese victory against the French in the First Indochina War, which ended in 1954, the nation was divided into t

Wikipedia is pretty unambiguous: "Following Vietnamese victory against the French in the First Indochina War, which ended in 1954, the nation was divided into two rival states: communist North and anti-communist South. Conflicts intensified in the Vietnam War, which saw extensive American intervention in support of South Vietnam, while the Soviets and the PRC supported the North, which ended with North Vietnamese victory in 1975. After North and South Vietnam were reunified as a communist state under a unitary socialist government in 1976"

jollybean 5y ago
I'm doubtful that this is really the best way to put it. The US escalated it's involvement until the early 1970's when via strategic bombing of the North (which the US was unwilling to do previously), decisively destroyed the North Vietnamese ability to fight. Then, the Americans left. A couple of years later, the North Vietnamese rehabilitated their forces, and invaded the South. The reality is such different perspective than 'North Vietnam Won' to the point wherein it's basically almost misinformation to just state it like that. Finally, the tactical and strategic advantage of the US bombing with Nixon was enormous. The US could have feasibly stayed for a long time - after shedding their fears of 'Bombing the North' and just 'doing it', they finally gained the 'obvious advantage' that a major power should have had. But Nixon ran on a platform of 'Getting out of Vietnam', and the folks back home lost interest in a miasma of populism. I think those nuances are important, because I think it demonstrates how tactics, politics and populism fuelled the outcome. The lessons of 'Fight to Win Only' and 'A long grinding war will turn your population against you' are straight out of the Art of War. Those lessons informed the 1st US invasion of Iraq (and 2cnd), which was led by Vietnam vets. 'Overwhelming Force and Boots on the Ground to Unambiguously Overwhelm Enemy Forces', though the 2cnd occupation didn't go quite as well. Finally, literally one day after Barack Obama ordered the last US units out of Baghdad, then Iraqi PM Malaki ordered a purge of Sunnis from his party and government. The Sunni Tribes, in fear of their lives from the then-emboldened Shia dominated Iraqi Army ... invited ISIS in. This very well could have been avoided by keeping a few units, neatly tucked away 'behind the wire' in Baghdad - just enough ongoing oversight and leverage to keep people like Malaki from self-destructing. It would have been better in hindsight to take a longer view of that situation as well. It's hard to say if there is a direct parallel with Vietnam but it kind of looks like that.
- akdor1154 5y ago
  I'll happily accept 'if the US didn't pull out before winning, they might have won', but this isn't the same as 'the US won'.
  - afterburner 5y ago
    The hilarious thing is, the entire time the US was in Vietnam, top leadership in the US admin was pretty much convinced they could never win, but had to put in a good show. So they were never even "winning" in the sense that the US leadership thought they were winning.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      I'm doubtful of your assertion that 'top leadership didn't think they could win' and especially in the context of 'put on a show'. Which elements of 'top leadership' believed this? For whom would that 'show' be for? You'll have to state which individuals took that position. "never even "winning" in the sense that the US leadership thought they were winning. " This directly contradicts your first statement. Did US leadership think they were winning or not? The data (i.e. 'body count') was initially misleading, but that lesson was learned quickly enough. By 1965 , at the start major escalation, The Pentagon wanted to do strategic bombing of the entirety of North Vietnam. US political leadership wanted to avoid Hanoi and other targets for political reasons i.e. 'Rolling Thunder'. Rolling Thunder failed. Later, with political limitations removed, Op. Linebacker I and II (in 1970's) successfully dismantled N. Vietnam's ability to fight. Imagine how history would have changed were, in 1965, the Pentagon were able to fight on it's own terms? The big rise in casualties to 1969 probably never would have happened, and the political repercussions would have been at least somewhat less. Even the populist miasma is affected: when people are dying, it's one thing if 'major progress' is being made (think sicily and european campaigns against Hitler, once they started and were winning, it'd be impossible to bring them back until it was over), but altogether another if there's a stalemate or there isn't evidence of material progress. But history is 20/20 and that's the whole point. In 2021 we're still not done politicizing this war, the PBS documentary had some very good elements, but was still only one lens and entirely ignored the geopolitical aspects. Macnamara v. Pentagon was realized 'All Over Again' with Maj. General Tommy Franks vs. Donald Rumsfeld. This time, the Army mostly go their 'Boots on the Ground and Overwhelming Power' to guarantee a fairly immediate collapse of the enemy. Too bad there was no plan for the occupation.

jollybean 5y ago

I'm doubtful that this is really the best way to put it. The US escalated it's involvement until the early 1970's when via strategic bombing of the North (which the US was unwilling to do previously), decisively destroyed the North Vietnamese ability to fight. Then, the Americans left. A couple of years later, the North Vietnamese rehabilitated their forces, and invaded the South. The reality is such different perspective than 'North Vietnam Won' to the point wherein it's basically almost misinformation to just state it like that. Finally, the tactical and strategic advantage of the US bombing with Nixon was enormous. The US could have feasibly stayed for a long time - after shedding their fears of 'Bombing the North' and just 'doing it', they finally gained the 'obvious advantage' that a major power should have had. But Nixon ran on a platform of 'Getting out of Vietnam', and the folks back home lost interest in a miasma of populism. I think those nuances are important, because I think it demonstrates how tactics, politics and populism fuelled the outcome. The lessons of 'Fight to Win Only' and 'A long grinding war will turn your population against you' are straight out of the Art of War. Those lessons informed the 1st US invasion of Iraq (and 2cnd), which was led by Vietnam vets. 'Overwhelming Force and Boots on the Ground to Unambiguously Overwhelm Enemy Forces', though the 2cnd occupation didn't go quite as well. Finally, literally one day after Barack Obama ordered the last US units out of Baghdad, then Iraqi PM Malaki ordered a purge of Sunnis from his party and government. The Sunni Tribes, in fear of their lives from the then-emboldened Shia dominated Iraqi Army ... invited ISIS in. This very well could have been avoided by keeping a few units, neatly tucked away 'behind the wire' in Baghdad - just enough ongoing oversight and leverage to keep people like Malaki from self-destructing. It would have been better in hindsight to take a longer view of that situation as well. It's hard to say if there is a direct parallel with Vietnam but it kind of looks like that.

akdor1154 5y ago
I'll happily accept 'if the US didn't pull out before winning, they might have won', but this isn't the same as 'the US won'.
- afterburner 5y ago
  The hilarious thing is, the entire time the US was in Vietnam, top leadership in the US admin was pretty much convinced they could never win, but had to put in a good show. So they were never even "winning" in the sense that the US leadership thought they were winning.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    I'm doubtful of your assertion that 'top leadership didn't think they could win' and especially in the context of 'put on a show'. Which elements of 'top leadership' believed this? For whom would that 'show' be for? You'll have to state which individuals took that position. "never even "winning" in the sense that the US leadership thought they were winning. " This directly contradicts your first statement. Did US leadership think they were winning or not? The data (i.e. 'body count') was initially misleading, but that lesson was learned quickly enough. By 1965 , at the start major escalation, The Pentagon wanted to do strategic bombing of the entirety of North Vietnam. US political leadership wanted to avoid Hanoi and other targets for political reasons i.e. 'Rolling Thunder'. Rolling Thunder failed. Later, with political limitations removed, Op. Linebacker I and II (in 1970's) successfully dismantled N. Vietnam's ability to fight. Imagine how history would have changed were, in 1965, the Pentagon were able to fight on it's own terms? The big rise in casualties to 1969 probably never would have happened, and the political repercussions would have been at least somewhat less. Even the populist miasma is affected: when people are dying, it's one thing if 'major progress' is being made (think sicily and european campaigns against Hitler, once they started and were winning, it'd be impossible to bring them back until it was over), but altogether another if there's a stalemate or there isn't evidence of material progress. But history is 20/20 and that's the whole point. In 2021 we're still not done politicizing this war, the PBS documentary had some very good elements, but was still only one lens and entirely ignored the geopolitical aspects. Macnamara v. Pentagon was realized 'All Over Again' with Maj. General Tommy Franks vs. Donald Rumsfeld. This time, the Army mostly go their 'Boots on the Ground and Overwhelming Power' to guarantee a fairly immediate collapse of the enemy. Too bad there was no plan for the occupation.