Would the US have won Vietnam...?

Question

...if the politicians had stepped back and let the generals do their job?

Can the same be said of Afghanistan?

Answer 1

Yes and Yes



the biggest ball and chain on our soldiers is when politicians decide they know better than the experienced military leaders.



obama seems to wish to repeat this mistake

Answer 2

No, not really.



Generals have to have to work with in the confines that the politicians put on them.



Johnson should have been a lot less involved than he was. The idea that he consulted daily with the generals on where to bomb was ridiculous, but giving them free reign wasn't the answer either.



But the President has to offer direction. He can't leave the military leaders twisting in the wind.

Answer 3

No.



We could not win Vietnam because the Soviet Union was supporting North Vietnam just like we were supporting South Vietnam.



The LBJ administration feared that if they hit North Vietnam too hard, it might provoke a nuclear response from the Soviets.



That's why the commanders in the field in Vietnam were ordered to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.



We were afraid of winning and making the Soviets angry.



This was the best kept secret of the war, and most people still don't know today.



But many of the service members who fought there knew, and they were ordered never to tell anyone, even after the war was over. That's one reason why so many of them went nuts.



BTW, that means Vietnam was World War 3. And most Americans didn't even know it.

Answer 4

I'd like to say yes but it didn't make a difference in Vietnam. China was supplying troops to the North and Russia was supplying arms and equipment. I'm afraid that the good quality Russian arms and the nearly infinite supply of Chinese manpower would have eventually overwhelmed the US forces and pushed them out of Vietnam into Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.



I do agree however that the Generals should run the war, not the president. That includes Afghanistan.

Answer 5

no -heres why-

the international treaties after WW1 gave vietnam to france- a young ho chi minh was there, and thus began the wars in vet nam.

french gave up. we came in.

the cong had tunnel systems throughout the whole joint..and came to be known as sir charles- they were a formidable enemy. dedicated to their cause and knew " we do not have to win- we have only not to lose".

tell me- what would we have " won"?

what will we " win' in afganistan -" graveyard of empires"?

rather remarkable that both straddle opium fields isnt it?

- probably just a coincidence ,huh?

draft age up to 42, war with iran round the corner- good luck son.

generals are routinely replaced if they dont cater to the president in office. ask draft dodging bush/ cheney..

.

Answer 6

No. Vietnam was lost because the corrupt South Vietnamese government did not have the support of their people.



We should remember, even with the most superior benefactor in the world, the SOuth Vietnamese were unable to prevent the internal and external attacks on their country.

Answer 7

Yes and Yes



Going to go out on a limb and say that those in the military tend to be a little more likely to understand military matters than politicians sitting in their air conditioned buildings.

Answer 8

Actually, we won every battle and the one where the traitor Chronkite announced the end of the road "Tet" was a smashing victory for the USA. Add in the propaganda from the anti-war movement (funded with millions from the KGB) and our leaving Vietnam was political and not military.

Answer 9

There was no military solution to Vietnam. We sent over a million US soldiers to Vietnam, we could not defeat the insurgency.



A good general knows when to fight...and when to stop.

Answer 10

Yes, the Government would not let the military do it's job during Viet Nam, just as they won't let them do it now in Afghanistan. My husband was in VN, he could tell youthat the American soldiers were sold out.

Answer 11

No and no. The generals back then all the troops they asked for...over and over again.

Answer 12

Yep, we were months away from winning the war in Vietnam, the Vietcong was bankrupt and out of ammunition...we would have beat them had we stayed only a few months more....but no, we had to cow tow to public opinion and drag our troops back defeated...we will do the same in Afghanistan because politicians don't know how to fight wars, run a business or anything but live on the tax payer dole.

Answer 13

No, they didn't have George Bush to help them beat the enemy.

Answer 14

Yes & the media as well

Answer 15

Yes and Yes. What an "original" idea.

Answer 16

Ya of course and if people here at home would support them instead of rag on em. Saying crap like its for nothing whats the point, and they're takin oil. Stuff like that bull crap.

Answer 17

Aggressive war is wrong, why did you not learn from Nuremberg?

Answer 18

No and no

Answer 19

Yes and YES

Answer 20

What did we lose?

Answer 21

yes wtf was North Vietnam doing as a "off limits target" anyway

but Gen Westmoreland was a idiot too, so there was blame to go around.

Answer 22

No and no.

Answer 23

No and no.....

Answer 24

No and no.