4 ms·

I managed to get through the PDF and it certainly dances around the vietnam war. Stanfords shouldering the bulk of the wound-licking here as vietnam ended in f

I managed to get through the PDF and it certainly dances around the vietnam war. Stanfords shouldering the bulk of the wound-licking here as vietnam ended in futility in 1975, which is a little early for a comprehensive academic assessment if you ask me. the article also flogs 'asymmetry' to the point of using it to scapegoat US culpability of leadership. Congress and Senate couldnt agree on a daily basis what to target or when to attack, and insisted on the micromanagement of the entire affair in some cases to a deleterious objective of just "fighting the communism" and "winning" without any meaningful performance indication. conscripting americans resulted in desertion and decline of morale to the point most soldiers didnt care, and lying to the public about casualty and progress made it equally untenable at home. im sure after defeat it was comforting to consider it a small war, but it wasnt. vitenam had the full backing (albeit proxy) might of the soviet union. it killed or wounded nearly 200,000 US troops and at a surge point of 3.5 million enlisted troops spelled the precipitous decline of enlistment to less than half that number over the next five decades.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Agreed on the last point - Vietnam was no small war, at all. For comparison, the Ukraine war is not small either, and has around 1/10th as many troops on the attacking side!
Someone 5y ago
I only see him calling this a small war compared to what the USA could have brought to the battle field. At the peak, there were about 550,000 US troops in Vietnam. In World War Two, they eventually fielded 10 million persons (https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/06/26/us-involvement-in-wwii-how-the-military-grew/ https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/06/26/us-involvement-...). So, if the political will had been there at home, they could have sent a lot more. I also think what you describe in “Congress and Senate couldnt… made it equally untenable at home.” is precisely the argument this paper made: that war was lost in the USA, not in Vietnam.
gwbas1c 5y ago
> spelled the precipitous decline of enlistment to less than half that number over the next five decades That was why, as a teenager, I refused to consider any kind of military involvement. The whole Vietnam war appeared an abuse of the draft and the goodwill of people who joined voluntarily. I still lean towards a belief that militaries should be all voluntary.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  I think during wartimes political leaders and business leaders (especially defense company leaders) should be required to either go themselves to the front themselves or have their children fight in the war. It’s good for them to have “skin in the game” in wartime so they understand their decisions better. There are way too many examples of leaders and their families who live the good life during war while the military and civilian population are suffering.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    John McCain couldn't raise his hands because of his torture at the hand of the Vietcong. Then big-man draft-dodger Trump comes around and gets the Republican Nomination instead, all the while making fun of McCain's injuries as a POW. People like to pretend they care about leaders who have gone into war zones and personally risked their lives. But the politics of the past decade have taught me that all of that is just more political bluster. There's no actual power to going into war and risking yourself as a leader, the people will forget by the next election.
  - gwbas1c 5y ago
    I wouldn't force anyone into war, even the children of politicians.
cafard 5y ago
>> Congress and Senate couldnt agree on a daily basis what to target or when to attack, and insisted on the micromanagement of the entire affair in some cases to a deleterious objective of just "fighting the communism" and "winning" without any meaningful performance indication. Ultimately the administration needed Congressional backing, but the Pentagon reports directly to the president.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Agreed on the last point - Vietnam was no small war, at all. For comparison, the Ukraine war is not small either, and has around 1/10th as many troops on the attacking side!

Someone 5y ago

I only see him calling this a small war compared to what the USA could have brought to the battle field. At the peak, there were about 550,000 US troops in Vietnam. In World War Two, they eventually fielded 10 million persons (https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/06/26/us-involvement-in-wwii-how-the-military-grew/ https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2017/06/26/us-involvement-...). So, if the political will had been there at home, they could have sent a lot more. I also think what you describe in “Congress and Senate couldnt… made it equally untenable at home.” is precisely the argument this paper made: that war was lost in the USA, not in Vietnam.

gwbas1c 5y ago

> spelled the precipitous decline of enlistment to less than half that number over the next five decades That was why, as a teenager, I refused to consider any kind of military involvement. The whole Vietnam war appeared an abuse of the draft and the goodwill of people who joined voluntarily. I still lean towards a belief that militaries should be all voluntary.

spaetzleesser 5y ago
I think during wartimes political leaders and business leaders (especially defense company leaders) should be required to either go themselves to the front themselves or have their children fight in the war. It’s good for them to have “skin in the game” in wartime so they understand their decisions better. There are way too many examples of leaders and their families who live the good life during war while the military and civilian population are suffering.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  John McCain couldn't raise his hands because of his torture at the hand of the Vietcong. Then big-man draft-dodger Trump comes around and gets the Republican Nomination instead, all the while making fun of McCain's injuries as a POW. People like to pretend they care about leaders who have gone into war zones and personally risked their lives. But the politics of the past decade have taught me that all of that is just more political bluster. There's no actual power to going into war and risking yourself as a leader, the people will forget by the next election.
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  I wouldn't force anyone into war, even the children of politicians.

cafard 5y ago

>> Congress and Senate couldnt agree on a daily basis what to target or when to attack, and insisted on the micromanagement of the entire affair in some cases to a deleterious objective of just "fighting the communism" and "winning" without any meaningful performance indication. Ultimately the administration needed Congressional backing, but the Pentagon reports directly to the president.