|
Post by Swampy on Jun 12, 2013 19:48:12 GMT -5
We in this forum have been talking about whether the US should have intervened in VN, with the no's saying that the US has no interest in VN, and the yesses saying that the US had an interest and a moral obligation.
Given what happened after Saigon fell, even the no's would admit that the yesses have moral authority on their side, as they supported a war to prevent genocide.
In any case, the question now is if the war was winnable. The communists knew they could not beat the Americans, so they concentrated on wearing them down. But this was the same strategy used by the Imperial Japanese Army, and yet they surrendered - and, if the Japanese can be beaten, the northern Vietnamese can be beaten.
As for the proper strategy, the Americans should have fought to win. This means ditching the silly idea of graduated bombing, as McNamara wanted, and going all out, as Nixon would do, to destroy the NVA entire economic and military structure. This would also mean going to Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and, of course, having division sized raids into the north to keep them off balance. Last, but perhaps not least, the ports should have been mined, so any foreign ships (read, Soviet ships) going in would be in danger of being sunk.
That's how I look at it. Let the debate begin.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Jun 12, 2013 20:25:18 GMT -5
Too bad David Fuhrman is not still with us. He and I still have not settled the question of cutting the Ho Chi Minh trail....
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Jun 12, 2013 20:33:15 GMT -5
What was his position?
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Jun 13, 2013 1:02:20 GMT -5
I think that most - if not all - wars have multiple layers and for each of these layers one can define targets and then set the conditions which define "success", "no success" and "failure". The complete war then is rated by correlating and weighting the results on the different layer. So it might be that you lose or stall on the pure military layer, but score on the geo-political layer. If you overweight the geo-political layer, a war military lost might be still a success.
I interpret you question as something you would like on the pure military-strategy-layer. The problem on this layer is that the political layer had set the target of the military war - defend SV without appearing too aggressive against NV. Because of the geo-political layer this war was fought with the confrontation with Russia in Europe in mind. It should assure the Western Europeans that the USA would be there and fight with them, that their alliance with the USA is right and strong and that there is no need to make arrangements with the Russians. The role of the defender also set the policy that they couldn't get too aggressive as the USA wanted to assure the Russians that they won't invade them (Russia's greatest fear and real motivator for the Cold War). The Invasion of North-Korea during the Korean War told the USA this lesson.
In this setup SV was in a siege situation with limited possibilities to strike out against those forces laying siege to SV. Sieges are only won by defenders when they manage to you keep their own territory safe and supplied. So the invasion of NV was never the military target, it was even ruled out as a means to defend SV and lift the siege. With the USA losing patience and will to continue to defend the sieged SV, the situation turned to un-winnable.
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Jun 13, 2013 8:02:15 GMT -5
David was firmly convinced that to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail would be an advantage to the North Vietnamese because it would shorten their supply lines by moving the battle closer to their home base of operations. I asked then why did we ever consider landing at Normandy which certainly shortened the Axis supply line. His answer was to complain to the SYSOP that I was using as hominum attacks and got me warned to play more nicely....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 8:10:20 GMT -5
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Jun 13, 2013 20:12:55 GMT -5
Shortening their supply lines is a sure sign they're retreating - that's true of all powers who were being pushed back.
If we had started with the Reagan Doctrine to begin with, the world would have been spared much tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Jun 14, 2013 2:31:20 GMT -5
Too bad David Fuhrman is not still with us. He and I still have not settled the question of cutting the Ho Chi Minh trail.... Who would they draft to get the extra manpower for the trail? Lower the draft age, draft women or what?
-Don- Reno, NV
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Jun 14, 2013 5:38:50 GMT -5
Too bad David Fuhrman is not still with us. He and I still have not settled the question of cutting the Ho Chi Minh trail.... Who would they draft to get the extra manpower for the trail? Lower the draft age, draft women or what?
-Don- Reno, NV Don = do you really believe that every available soldier was already committed in Vietnam?
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Jun 14, 2013 7:02:02 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly - the US had ample capability to cut the Trail. Come now, Don, do you think the US, Australia, and South Korea together didn't have the manpower???
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Jun 14, 2013 7:10:47 GMT -5
Don = do you really believe that every available soldier was already committed in Vietnam? If they didn't change something, yes! Who did you know who was 19-25 years of age or so who met the draft requirements in around 1968 to 1969 who did NOT get drafted? Seems to me there was none who got out from the draft other than those who went up to Canada or didn't meet the requirements.
Or perhaps they could have made Vietnam a two year tour. IAC, they would have to change something.
-Don- Reno, NV
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2013 17:56:42 GMT -5
Agree with Don America was stretched to limits on manpower , we had to maintain sizable forces in Europe to defend the Empire and Germany , in Vietnam at the peak we had a half a million in and around the Country and this was very static people rotating etc , then for the sake of argument the war was won at the end of Tet and again during the Christmas bombings in 1972 , South Vietnam was the reason South Vietnam lost the war , when the U.S. pulled out we left in place all the makings that an Army would need , the standard joke among Americans there , was we were fighting for the wrong Vietnam .
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Jun 14, 2013 18:20:12 GMT -5
According to the CIA Factbook, the USA has 2,161,727 men reaching military age every year.
That is 2010, so maybe in 1970 it was perhaps 1.5 million.
Halve that for physical fitness and you have 750,000 available every year. More than enough.
Given the basic economic and industrial capacity, ANY war should be "winnable", the only proviso is what the country is willing to put into it to succeed.
In 1970, the USA was not willing to do that, thanks to CNN etc.
JMO
SJ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2013 18:42:12 GMT -5
While we're busy counting up Americans available what was the rest of SEATO doing ? , do the math you had 500,000 rotating out every year and 500,000 rotating in every year and the vast majority of those rotating out were going home , then you had to keep a military presents at home and Europe and everywhere in between .
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Jun 15, 2013 6:22:22 GMT -5
According to the CIA Factbook, the USA has 2,161,727 men reaching military age every year. That is 2010, so maybe in 1970 it was perhaps 1.5 million. Halve that for physical fitness and you have 750,000 available every year. More than enough. Given the basic economic and industrial capacity, ANY war should be "winnable", the only proviso is what the country is willing to put into it to succeed. In 1970, the USA was not willing to do that, thanks to CNN etc. JMO SJ What percentage went to Vietnam compared to all other places in 1969? We could not send every troop to RVN.
-Don- Reno, NV
|
|