4 ms·

The US spend 20 years in Afgan fighting to remove the Taliban from power only to hand power to the Taliban. The US spent years fighting north Vietnamese forces

The US spend 20 years in Afgan fighting to remove the Taliban from power only to hand power to the Taliban. The US spent years fighting north Vietnamese forces only to sign a peace treaty, leave south Vietnam and then 2 years later have North Vietnam take over South Vietnam and unify the country. You don't consider completely failing your objectives failure?

firesteelrain 2mo ago
No. Both cases were wins. Saigon fell 2 years after US combat forces left for example. In both cases, Washington chose to stop sustaining a local government that could not survive on its own. Saigon fell on April 30, 1975, which was a little over two years after the last US combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973. US did not lose Afghanistan on the battlefield. US military overthrew the Taliban government, dismantled al-Qaeda’s sanctuary, killed Osama bin Laden, and prevented another major foreign-directed terrorist attack from Afghan soil for nearly twenty years. American forces were not defeated or driven out; they left because elected political leaders decided the mission was no longer worth continuing. In both cases, the threats were eliminated. Hanoi is now friendly to the US. Iraq is friendly to the US. Syria is friendly to the US.
- orwin 2mo ago
  Bac Ho took back the country he liberated from the french, renamed the capital city, instituted a communist regime that held its own against china.
  - firesteelrain 2mo ago
    That establishes that North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam. It doesn’t establish that North Vietnam defeated the US military.
    - orwin 2mo ago
      It wasn't a win for the US military. They spent 20 years in south Vietnam, trying to keep it independent, and ultimately failed. Their stated goal was south Vietnam independence and stopping the spread of communism. Both were failed goals. War is a continuation of politics, and here, the US lost politically (in Laos first) even if they didn't loose strategically. But let's be honest, multiple times they got their asses kicked on the field too (Unless you think logistics don't matter for an army).
      - firesteelrain 2mo ago
        It was a win for the US military. I agree the political objective ultimately failed. My point is that political failure is not the same thing as military defeat. The US withdrew; South Vietnam was defeated two years later.
        orwin 2mo ago
        Which military objective did the US accomplish in their "win"? Did they won on the battlefield? Do you consider the Korea war a win for the US military too? And if not, what is the difference with the vietnam war? I'm pretty sure we have different definition of what a win is, but i would like to understand your point of view, genuinely.
        firesteelrain 2mo ago
        [dead]

firesteelrain 2mo ago

No. Both cases were wins. Saigon fell 2 years after US combat forces left for example. In both cases, Washington chose to stop sustaining a local government that could not survive on its own. Saigon fell on April 30, 1975, which was a little over two years after the last US combat troops left Vietnam on March 29, 1973. US did not lose Afghanistan on the battlefield. US military overthrew the Taliban government, dismantled al-Qaeda’s sanctuary, killed Osama bin Laden, and prevented another major foreign-directed terrorist attack from Afghan soil for nearly twenty years. American forces were not defeated or driven out; they left because elected political leaders decided the mission was no longer worth continuing. In both cases, the threats were eliminated. Hanoi is now friendly to the US. Iraq is friendly to the US. Syria is friendly to the US.

orwin 2mo ago
Bac Ho took back the country he liberated from the french, renamed the capital city, instituted a communist regime that held its own against china.
- firesteelrain 2mo ago
  That establishes that North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam. It doesn’t establish that North Vietnam defeated the US military.
  - orwin 2mo ago
    It wasn't a win for the US military. They spent 20 years in south Vietnam, trying to keep it independent, and ultimately failed. Their stated goal was south Vietnam independence and stopping the spread of communism. Both were failed goals. War is a continuation of politics, and here, the US lost politically (in Laos first) even if they didn't loose strategically. But let's be honest, multiple times they got their asses kicked on the field too (Unless you think logistics don't matter for an army).
    - firesteelrain 2mo ago
      It was a win for the US military. I agree the political objective ultimately failed. My point is that political failure is not the same thing as military defeat. The US withdrew; South Vietnam was defeated two years later.
      - orwin 2mo ago
        Which military objective did the US accomplish in their "win"? Did they won on the battlefield? Do you consider the Korea war a win for the US military too? And if not, what is the difference with the vietnam war? I'm pretty sure we have different definition of what a win is, but i would like to understand your point of view, genuinely.
        firesteelrain 2mo ago
        [dead]