Question for Viet Nam War Historians

The other similarities I see is the anti-American liberals protesting against their own country and aiding and comforting the enemy. It seems that sedition is just as ok today as it was back then.

Joseph Botwinick

 

LadyEagle--I can tell you what I have read and learned over the years. The Vietnam War was basically over the control of Communist aggression--it was an attempt to supress Communist aggression.

At the outbreak of WW2--the United States and Great Britian were willing to "lay aside" differences with Stalin and his Communist regime for the time being in order to squelch the Nazi's who rose up to the "Front Burner" along the same time--so they put the threat of Communism on the Back Burner in exchange for the possibility of a two front war against Hitler.

Captured German soldiers would tell US Troops--"When this war is over---you will join us in the real war against Communist!" Everybody goes in to a rage over Hitler's murder of those 6 million Jews---but not hardly a word is said over Stalin's murder of 22 million of his own "comrads!"

So---the US Navy was sent to begin patrols in the Gulf of Tonkin---where a Navy Destroyer was later fired upon by North Vietnamese patrol boats--the Destroyer sank the Patrol Boat in question---thus LBJ's "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution----committing US troops to South Vietnam---at first---a couple of battalions of US Marines headed out to guard certain air bases around Da Nang. Thus the escalation toward full scale Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine strength in South Vietnam.

Thats my take on understanding the war. You'll still get the usual anti-war folks in here who'll cry out that LBJ wanted "this and that" and so forth---all the McNamara junk---confessions from his death bed---stuff like that!

Hope it helps!

I've never read anywhere where the NVA had WMD--except if you want to call old worn out Russian assault rifles and a few bamboo sticks soaked in urine WMD---but in my eyes the Communist treat was there. Just like the Iraqi threat was real and was there!

Blackbird

 

blackbird
"except if you want to call old worn out Russian assault rifles "
Not WMD's by a long shot but much better weaponry than the assault rifles the US military tried to use at the time.

"and a few bamboo sticks soaked in urine"
That would have to be [human waste], pee is a sterile fluid.

"You'll still get the usual anti-war folks in here who'll cry out that LBJ wanted "this and that" and so forth"
LBJ didn't want to lose, fearing the political damage that would do to the Democratic party.

[edited by Frogman to remove inappropriate slang]

[ April 29, 2004, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

 

What kinds of 'system' problems did the U.S. face in Vietnam and now in Iraq that the 'enemy' {primarily terrorists in both wars} did not and do not face?

If I am not mistaken, the U.S. had military advisors to S. Vietnam as early as 1954; and these were increased by Kennedy; then combat troops were committed in 1965.

I think that is correct. I developed a Lesson plan a couple years ago on the war from both perspectives.

The real difference then and now is that the other side was and is fighting for deep seated philosophical and political beliefs.

Because of the liberal influence in this nation, we are too trusting of those who work both sides.

The systems theories prevents the U.S. from acting in the capacity available and perhaps necessary to meet the enemy in enough 'force' to result in their defeat.

Then we have the UN to keep an eye on us as well. When the other side recognizes no rules, casualties can mount on our side until Americans no longer support the war in any way. Even Hitler commented that the US was not a nation prepared to defend herself.

Ho Chi Mihn compared the war to a tiger and an elephant, by frontal assault the tiger is no match, but by stealth, getting up on the elephant, digging in and riding it out, the size of the elephant would operate to the favor of the tiger.

He said N. Vietnam could commit to losing 11 men to every US soldier and continue the war for an indefinite period, this strategy worked.

Bro. Dallas

 

Vietnam was gradual escalation over a number of years; Iraq began with a mass invasion. In Vietnam the causes of the war were primarily ideological from the US POV - combatting communism, the domino theory etc whereas with Iraq the start of the war was based on the premise that Saddam had WMDs; the Iraqi 'resistance' has a mixed ideolgical base whereas the VCs and NVA were nationalist-communists (no, not a contradiction - one of Ho Chi Minh's 'achievements' was to sucessfully weld the two ideologies - and thus trailblaze for the likes of Milosovic a generation later).

IMO the military situation is becoming more reminiscent of Afghanistan under the Soviets - successful invasion followed by disparate but increasingly effective resistance with even our old 'friend' Osama lurking in the background...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Want to see something realy interesting?? Check out THE ARTICLES ON THIS WEBSITE (scroll down to the dates). I have never seen a better example of contemporary commentary being vindicated by history.


HERE is a sample, written in 1965:

"...The most desirable way of carrying out the exhortation about Vietnam, of course, would be by winning the war quickly and completely, putting the very few remaining real anti-Communists of any stature in Vietnam firmly in power, to the great relief and happiness of the long suffering Vietnamese people, and coming home after issuing an ultimatum which would keep the red murderers of Hanoi and Peiping from even looking in the direction of Saigon. But we'll stake our reputation for fifteen years of "calling the shots" correctly on there being less chance of this Administration conducting an honest war in Vietnam, for honestly anti-Communist purposes, than there is of Khrushchev being elected President of the United States Chamber of Commerce."

 

Bro. Dallas
Prude.

 

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

I don't quite fit nevertheless, thank you for your kind words.

Bro. Dallas

 

Bro. Dallas
By that definition I'll never be a prude, come to think of it neither will you.

Frogman&Dr. Bob Griffin
The sensitivities of the American crowd (not to mention the complete lack of those same sensitivities in certain other areas) are at times very confusing.
Especially in this case considering that that 'human waste word' has been adopted as a loanword into the Dutch language.

 

Mioque,

"", "doo-doo" (Papa Bush's personal favorite), and "Number 2" are generally considered suitably coy.

For future reference.

 

This works, in some circles, also.




Roy

 

Hey, back to the discussion - I think that the Vietnam war had us duped. I supported it for two main reasons and that is that we had troops committed and dying there and Communism is Godless and would spread if left untreated. Someone was playing on those sentiments and had us locked into a no-win situation in which our national leaders were needlessly compromising the well-being of our own troops.

By having such a prolonged combat situation, someone was getting rich through sales of armament and whatever else was needed to keep troops in combat.

The similarity in the Iraq war is the fact that we are at war but instead of leaving the troops vulnerable to attack while having them tied down with mindless restrictions on the degree to which they can defend themselves (as was the case in Vietnam), it is the American public that is at risk. Hardly any immigration restrictions are in effect on mideastern immigrants, and our borders are wide open for illegal immigration. How much sense does this make?

Roy

 

From Solomon, King David's son, echoes this comment down the corridors of time and will echo on, till time is no more.