Prager University: How the War in Vietnam was Won and Lost

Status
Not open for further replies.
.....so it's 5, 6, 7, open up those pearly gates.... it ain't no time to wonder why, WHOOPEE we're gonna die!!!!


Congress and America turned it's back on a helpless nation and let it be taken by the North. The military never lost Vietnam, politicians and cowards did.
 
It's a sad but true commentary. Few people realize what pansies the politicians who waged the war were. Obviously punting for reelection and pandering to the lying bastards of the press. And my family wonders why I'm reclusive. Cause things haven't changed one bit since then. Professional politicians who could give a shit less.
 
Thanks Dustoff.......for posting what I always knew and most americans won't face up to.....the truth!

You notice I didn't capitalize the word "americans".......because that time in our history was when I started to despise my fellow americans,

and became ashamed to be an american!

I still despise those americans today....not only for what they did to us, but for what they did to the Vietnamese people.

(Noticed that I capitalized Vietnamese....because I cared more about those folks than the spineless hippy bastards back here in the states!)

To tell you the truth, I would rather live in Vietnam today, with the people I cared about and fought for, than live here with the spineless americans in this country!
 
Last edited:
The spineless pieces of crap back then are the spineless pieces of crap making up most of Washington . Nothing has changed. It's just gotting worse.
 
Vietnam war was lost because South Vietnamese didn't fight as hard as North Vietnamese. Nothing more, nothing less. When Jefferson said of the blood of patriots, he meant the patriots of native citizens, not foreign military shipped from half a world away.

Nobody else is going to fight for your freedom as hard as you do. South Vietnamese thought otherwise.
 
Vietnam war was lost because South Vietnamese didn't fight as hard as North Vietnamese. Nothing more, nothing less.

Really? Do you know the meaning of the word "logistics"? Tell me, where were the munitions factories in South Vietnam? Do you suppose North Vietnam could have accomplished what it did had China and Russia cut off their LOGISTICS?

You know not of what you speak. Rocks and sticks did not suffice.
 
Speaking of logistics, NVA didn't have much of air support. Their logistics meant bicycles loading up with supplies trotting down Ho Chi Minh trail. Look at what the South had.

We can debate details, but the South had advantages in almost all categories: man power, weaponry and technology, but they didn't have their sh*t in order (coup, discipline and politicsl etc.) The North had 3+ times the casualties but ended up annihilated the South.
 
While you look up "logistics", why don't you look up "annihilate" at the same time. The North did not have their logistics cut off as did the South. They were very industrious in their delivery system for sure but congress dropped the ball on the South. In the end, the weaponry and technology went dry for the South because it was not supported (logistically). As said before, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The South was not annihilated, it was simply taken over by a force more adequately supported against a force that was deserted by its primary benefactor. What is so difficult to grasp about that?
 
IMO the US lost that war because we didn't understand the nature of it. The US is #1 in the world in force on force conflicts - See 1st and 2nd Iraq wars, WWII, WWI - When it comes to us putting our might against another force we can't be beaten; we excel at 3rd generation warfare.

4th generation warfare such as insurgencies and guerrilla style hit-and-run combat is something we've been slow to adapt to. People act like what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan is something new but it's not; the Vietnamese did it to us in Vietnam. The US was looking for the force on force confrontation and it didn't exist. We also didn't understand that what we saw as winning because of a 20-1 (or whatever it was) kill to death ratio, they also saw as a win for them; culturally they were willing to outlast us in a war of attrition until the political ramifications caught up to us and they could use politics instead of force to win the war.

Col. Hammes wrote an excellent book on 4GW entitled The Sling and The Stone. It's an excellent read on the current state of warfare.
 
IMO the US lost that war because we didn't understand the nature of it. The US is #1 in the world in force on force conflicts - See 1st and 2nd Iraq wars, WWII, WWI - When it comes to us putting our might against another force we can't be beaten; we excel at 3rd generation warfare.

4th generation warfare such as insurgencies and guerrilla style hit-and-run combat is something we've been slow to adapt to. People act like what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan is something new but it's not; the Vietnamese did it to us in Vietnam. The US was looking for the force on force confrontation and it didn't exist. We also didn't understand that what we saw as winning because of a 20-1 (or whatever it was) kill to death ratio, they also saw as a win for them; culturally they were willing to outlast us in a war of attrition until the political ramifications caught up to us and they could use politics instead of force to win the war.

Col. Hammes wrote an excellent book on 4GW entitled The Sling and The Stone. It's an excellent read on the current state of warfare.

I respectfully can't agree with that. I was in the Infantry in Vietnam both in 67-68, and again in 70-71. The methods and tactics evolved greatly during time frame, and the troops adapted
and learned how to fight an insurgency!
 
I certainly can't argue with firsthand experience from someone in the field, but perhaps I can clarify my comments.

The soldiers on the ground, or in the air (like my father) adapted quickly to the conditions they were in, and understood far better than the higher ranks what the Vietnam war was going to be. It was the upper echelon of our military that has been slow to adapt. I'm sure you can agree than when a baby faced butterbar or 1st Looey listens to his SGTs in combat, he's probably better off. Their experience on the ground is worth more in many cases than his learning from the classroom. In support of my belief I offer up the last 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan; the expectation is that we would go in, kick ass, and win. We went in, kicked ass, and almost 10 years later are still fighting an insurgency. Although we've gotten much, much better at fighting 4GW warfare, it isn't something we excel at yet, and we won't for the near future.

4GW is measured in decades not months or years, and our society as a whole has not adapted to this type of warfare. In WWI and WWII we had total war - one country (and its people) against another. Gas and food rationing, victory gardens, women in the workplace, etc were all part of the war effort - the lives of civilians in the US was directly affected by the war. This is no longer the case. Generally speaking, my life is the same today whether we're at war in Iraq or not, outside of higher gas prices I'm really not affected, this leads to stagnation.

I hope you didn't think I was disparaging our troops because that wasn't my intent, I merely want to express that our currently military leadership believes in technology above everything else, unfortunately technology works best in force-on-force battles. When fighting transnational guerrilla and insurgent groups, intelligence (and cultural understanding of the enemy) is what we should be seeking.

I would recommend anyone pickup a copy of The Sling and The Stone (or I'll lend you mine) as Colonel Hammes puts it better into words than I can.
 
Last edited:
In the words of General Giap:

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it.

But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"


BradM, I agree with you in some respects. For example, when I attended the Command and General Staff College in the early 80's we were taught a preponderance of WW2 tactics with very, very little attention to insurgency warfare despite just having ended Vietnam a short time before.

What you fail to mention is not just the malaise of the American people but the downright traitorous activities of high profile people like Jane Fonda, John Kerry, Walter Conkite, and the media in general. The genuine story of Vietnam and its people never really reached the man on the street. The morale problem caused our already spineless politicians to take the easy way out.

We could have made them surrender had our politicians had the balls to let the military do the job it was very well trained to do.
 
I certainly can't argue with firsthand experience from someone in the field, but perhaps I can clarify my comments.

The soldiers on the ground, or in the air (like my father) adapted quickly to the conditions they were in, and understood far better than the higher ranks what the Vietnam war was going to be. It was the upper echelon of our military that has been slow to adapt. I'm sure you can agree than when a baby faced butterbar or 1st Looey listens to his SGTs in combat, he's probably better off. Their experience on the ground is worth more in many cases than his learning from the classroom. In support of my belief I offer up the last 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan; the expectation is that we would go in, kick ass, and win. We went in, kicked ass, and almost 10 years later are still fighting an insurgency. Although we've gotten much, much better at fighting 4GW warfare, it isn't something we excel at yet, and we won't for the near future.

4GW is measured in decades not months or years, and our society as a whole has not adapted to this type of warfare. In WWI and WWII we had total war - one country (and its people) against another. Gas and food rationing, victory gardens, women in the workplace, etc were all part of the war effort - the lives of civilians in the US was directly affected by the war. This is no longer the case. Generally speaking, my life is the same today whether we're at war in Iraq or not, outside of higher gas prices I'm really not affected, this leads to stagnation.

I hope you didn't think I was disparaging our troops because that wasn't my intent, I merely want to express that our currently military leadership believes in technology above everything else, unfortunately technology works best in force-on-force battles. When fighting transnational guerrilla and insurgent groups, intelligence (and cultural understanding of the enemy) is what we should be seeking.

I would recommend anyone pickup a copy of The Sling and The Stone (or I'll lend you mine) as Colonel Hammes puts it better into words than I can.

I didn't think you were disparaging the troops...if I did think that I would be calling you names![rofl][rofl]

I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the efforts the real ground troops made in Vietnam regarding dealing with guerilla warfare.

I would like to read that book.

In return, I will send you a book about the LRP/LRRP/LRS
and Rangers in Vietnam and the lessons and tactics they learned from that war which
are used today.

Cheers!
 
I just wanted to add that the overiding experience I had in Vietnam was that we were helping those people stay alive. And they knew it and appreciated it!

And then we pulled out and left them stranded.....and I have been ashamed of my country ever since.[sad]
 
We should of never got in that war in the 1st place, never mind prop it up after we left.

I respectfully disagree on this.....I think our intentions were honorable.......our actions were not.

I am also curious as to wether you served in Vietnam...and in what capacity.

Don't get me wrong....I am not challenging your service Dench. I was just wondering where your perspective comes from.

I fought in the villages......and remember entering villages where the Vietcong the night before had killed the village leaders children. I remember how much distress there was. and how the villagers looked at us for help...(begged us for help), and were willing to tell us where the bastards were that did these atrocities.

What was your experience like that makes you think we wrong for being there?
 
Last edited:
Oh really? Can you remind me why we sent troops in for the 1st place?

I never knew we had interests in Vietnam.

You seriously don't know why we got involved there?....or you just don't want to know?
 
Last edited:
I was in Kosovo, which is a low risk deployment. On average 1-2 US Servicemen out of about 1,400 are killed each year there, and Its been all by accidents as far as I know for the past decade. I was never in Vietnam. I'm 26.

I dont think the US should be in high risk operations in order to fight wars that have little to no strategic value to America. Way to many people died in Vietnam on both sides.

The North ended up winning in the long run, and Vietnam is a very nice place in relation to some of its neighbors in the modern era. If we propped up South Vietnam there could of been a 2nd major war there with who the hell knows what consequences and a lot more people would of died.

Communism is its own worse enemy. The only hardcore communists country around is North Korea, and they are a joke.
 
I was in Kosovo, which is a low risk deployment. On average 1-2 US Servicemen out of about 1,400 are killed each year there, and Its been all by accidents as far as I know for the past decade. I was never in Vietnam. I'm 26.

I dont think the US should be in high risk operations in order to fight wars that have little to no strategic value to America. Way to many people died in Vietnam on both sides.

The North ended up winning in the long run, and Vietnam is a very nice place in relation to some of its neighbors in the modern era. If we propped up South Vietnam there could of been a 2nd major war there with who the hell knows what consequences and a lot more people would of died.

Communism is its own worse enemy. The only hardcore communists country around is North Korea, and they are a joke.

JEESUS CHRIST!.......I thought you might be a Vietnam Veteran.......and was ready to respect your viewpoint about Vietnam and maybe learn something from your viewpoint!

With all due respect for your service, (and I really mean that)...please stay the hell out of threads you don't know a GODDAMN thing about!
 
Last edited:
Sky, you got a deal on the book.

My dad flew hueys, but never talked much about it other than a couple of training things.
 
Good points also dustoff.

I think Clausewitz made a good point about politicians overseeing the military, but I also agree that we should only be sending troops in to fight and once done, they should be turned loose to complete their objectives ( more or less)
 
I'm still trying to get over a Kosovo Veteran who is 26 years old questioning our motivations in Vietnam

Shit, my son is 26 years old!....[rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl]

I guess I can't hold it against him......he had all those f'ing hippie teachers like my son did.....and it ain't his fault he is ignorant about Vietnam.

Hell, this whole country is ignorant when it comes to Vietnam!
 
Last edited:
JEESUS CHRIST!.......I thought you might be a Vietnam Veteran.......and was ready to respect your viewpoint about Vietnam and maybe learn something from your viewpoint!

With all due respect for your service, (and I really mean that)...please stay the hell out of threads you don't know a GODDAMN thing about!

Eh, sound like another bitter Vietnam Vet to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom