3 ms·

> The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the exist

> The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. This might be taught in US schools, but outside the US we have a rather different take on how the Vietnam war ended - the US-backed government fell and the North Vietnamese government took over the rest of the country. And we learned that the Korean war ended in some kind of stalemate, where the government structures on both sides exist largely intact today.

Gibbon1 3y ago
You're missing the forest for the trees. Reality is the US won it's war against communism by the early 1970's. There wasn't much reason to continue the war in Vietnam after that. Not the least because the communists in Vietnam had no intention of being a Russian or Chinese vassal state. Suited the US just fine.
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  The reason to commit so ferociously to Vietnam was to show our other strategic partners and allies how far USA was willing to go for seemingly small things; if we’ll dump endless troves of blood and treasure for a small country in Asia, what will we do if tanks push into Berlin?
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    Thats a benefit to the military response, but I dont believe the massive waste of political capital, manpower, and supplies looked impressive to other countries. Especially after the abrupt exit. The use of cruise missiles has been far more imoressive.
    - l33t7332273 3y ago
      > I dont believe the massive waste of political capital, manpower, and supplies looked impressive to other countries “If they would waste all that blood and treasure for a small country in east Asia, imagine what they would do if tanks rolled into Moscow?!”
    - Gibbon1 3y ago
      What was more impressive was the results of the US's cultural economic and soft power efforts. The cultural part can't be understated. By the 1960's young men world wide would rather be a rock star banging groupies than fight for the revolution. There is a reason the Khmer Rouge killed the pop stars in Cambodia. Notable Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Germany became wealthy by aligning closely to the US. Where commies and non aligned became poorer. Least impressive was the CIA's skullduggery and Kissinger's Real Politic.
nostrademons 3y ago
Sure, I agree with all of that. I'm arguing that this is the wrong litmus test for judging the winners of war, because war is an ineffective way of achieving regime change in the first place. Even in cases where it looks like a country "wins" a war by "defeating" their opponents, they usually collapse from the inside and then the true winners are those that either take advantage of the chaos to seize power, or stay out of the war entirely. The allies were victorious in WW1 - yet the government they wanted stayed in power for barely 10 years, and then we got Hitler and WW2. Russia was part of the victorious allies in WW1, but the country collapsed and the communists took over. The communists were the official victors of the Vietnam war, but Vietnam is now one of the most capitalist countries on earth, and so politically they were defeated by economics and not war.
l33t7332273 3y ago
It is not taught in US schools that the IS won Vietnam in the sense that the government we backed won. Why do you think it is? Also, the Korean war was clearly a victory for the US; we intended to defend SK and prevent the spread of Communism, and that’s what happened.
- Qwertious 3y ago
  >Also, the Korean war was clearly a victory for the US; we intended to defend SK and prevent the spread of Communism, and that’s what happened. Nonsense. A clear victory would be if South Korea held its frontline near the Chinese border, instead of being pushed back to the 38th parallel. The Korean war was a stalemate. It wasn't a loss, but it wasn't a win.
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    I think the meaning of clear victory is certainly murky, but to call it a stalemate is just incorrect; it was definitely a strategic victory.

Gibbon1 3y ago

You're missing the forest for the trees. Reality is the US won it's war against communism by the early 1970's. There wasn't much reason to continue the war in Vietnam after that. Not the least because the communists in Vietnam had no intention of being a Russian or Chinese vassal state. Suited the US just fine.

l33t7332273 3y ago
The reason to commit so ferociously to Vietnam was to show our other strategic partners and allies how far USA was willing to go for seemingly small things; if we’ll dump endless troves of blood and treasure for a small country in Asia, what will we do if tanks push into Berlin?
- Supermancho 3y ago
  Thats a benefit to the military response, but I dont believe the massive waste of political capital, manpower, and supplies looked impressive to other countries. Especially after the abrupt exit. The use of cruise missiles has been far more imoressive.
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    > I dont believe the massive waste of political capital, manpower, and supplies looked impressive to other countries “If they would waste all that blood and treasure for a small country in east Asia, imagine what they would do if tanks rolled into Moscow?!”
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    What was more impressive was the results of the US's cultural economic and soft power efforts. The cultural part can't be understated. By the 1960's young men world wide would rather be a rock star banging groupies than fight for the revolution. There is a reason the Khmer Rouge killed the pop stars in Cambodia. Notable Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Germany became wealthy by aligning closely to the US. Where commies and non aligned became poorer. Least impressive was the CIA's skullduggery and Kissinger's Real Politic.

nostrademons 3y ago

Sure, I agree with all of that. I'm arguing that this is the wrong litmus test for judging the winners of war, because war is an ineffective way of achieving regime change in the first place. Even in cases where it looks like a country "wins" a war by "defeating" their opponents, they usually collapse from the inside and then the true winners are those that either take advantage of the chaos to seize power, or stay out of the war entirely. The allies were victorious in WW1 - yet the government they wanted stayed in power for barely 10 years, and then we got Hitler and WW2. Russia was part of the victorious allies in WW1, but the country collapsed and the communists took over. The communists were the official victors of the Vietnam war, but Vietnam is now one of the most capitalist countries on earth, and so politically they were defeated by economics and not war.

l33t7332273 3y ago

It is not taught in US schools that the IS won Vietnam in the sense that the government we backed won. Why do you think it is? Also, the Korean war was clearly a victory for the US; we intended to defend SK and prevent the spread of Communism, and that’s what happened.

Qwertious 3y ago
>Also, the Korean war was clearly a victory for the US; we intended to defend SK and prevent the spread of Communism, and that’s what happened. Nonsense. A clear victory would be if South Korea held its frontline near the Chinese border, instead of being pushed back to the 38th parallel. The Korean war was a stalemate. It wasn't a loss, but it wasn't a win.
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  I think the meaning of clear victory is certainly murky, but to call it a stalemate is just incorrect; it was definitely a strategic victory.