More Proof that the conservative movement is based on being pissed off about the 60s and 70s

Wingnuts • March 2013 • Views: 1,890

One of my operating thesis is that the conservative movement is really more about trying to ignore their losses from social revolutions of the 60s and 70s.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/03/14/video-louis-gohmert-at-cpac-vietnam-was-winnable-but-people-in-washington-decided-we-would-not-win-it/

Video- Louis Gohmert At CPAC: “Vietnam Was Winnable But People In Washington Decided We Would Not Win It” and we should have invaded Iran in 1979 over hostage crisis.

Conservatives

Recent Pages by Destro (Destro):
Louis C.K. explains environmentalism to Christians Obama thanks Putin for help in Boston FBI investigated older Boston terrorist 2 years ago at the request of a foreign govt Captured terrorist will not be Mirandized (He will not be advised of his rights) Dedicated to Boston: The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - The Impression That I Get

Jump to bottom

42 comments

sauceruney Thu, Mar 14, 2013 5:38:03pm

If not for those damned hippies and liberal media siding with those damned hippies, we’d have won it for sure.

(doesn’t know how to make that fancy purple text)

sauceruney Thu, Mar 14, 2013 5:41:34pm

re: #1 sauceruney

And those damned birth control pill popping feminists, their wanton abortion-having free-love open-legsism, and those bare-ass titty-flapping, LSD tripping woodstockers.

(again, purple text)

EPR-radar Thu, Mar 14, 2013 5:42:23pm

re: #1 sauceruney

Tags.

[ wingnut] Wingnut wonderthought (TM) [ /wingnut]

becomes

Wingnut wonderthought (TM)

when the leading spaces inside the [] are removed.

sauceruney Thu, Mar 14, 2013 5:49:52pm

re: #3 EPR-radar

lol! it’s built-in

So wonderful. Thanks for pointing this out :)

EPR-radar Thu, Mar 14, 2013 5:55:48pm

re: #4 sauceruney

lol! it’s built-in

So wonderful. Thanks for pointing this out :)

I’m rather fond of this feature, although it is difficult for the sentient to simulate authentic RW gibberish.

Aligarr Thu, Mar 14, 2013 6:38:35pm

The standard screed for teebaggers/a.k.a. “conservatives ” is , those hippies are the cause of all that is wrong in the country today . [and yesterday] The Vietnam War could have been won if said hippies ,commies and lefties didn’t protest against it . I’ve heard all this shit before , back in the 60’s and 70’s right up to Nixon’s “Peace with Honor ” withdrawal/retreat . The S.O.B.’s of those days seem to have imparted their genes on the present day crop of chicken hawks and right wing idiots .

EPR-radar Thu, Mar 14, 2013 6:42:29pm

re: #6 Aligarr

The standard screed for teebaggers/a.k.a. “conservatives ” is , those hippies are the cause of all that is wrong in the country today . [and yesterday] The Vietnam War could have been won if said hippies ,commies and lefties didn’t protest against it . I’ve heard all this shit before , back in the 60’s and 70’s right up to Nixon’s “Peace with Honor ” withdrawal/retreat . The S.O.B.’s of those days seem to have imparted their genes on the present day crop of chicken hawks and right wing idiots .

According to conservative dogma, conservatism can never fail.

Unfortunately, reality tends to not comply with this principle, and has provided many examples of conservative fail.

The usual RW response these days is feverish devotion to fake history.

Dr Lizardo Thu, Mar 14, 2013 7:17:00pm

You know, if only we’d had Dr. Manhattan, Vietnam would’ve been a piece of cake.

*headdesk*

jaunte Thu, Mar 14, 2013 7:17:16pm

I’d be happy to drop Louie in on Khe Sanh for another go.

Dr Lizardo Thu, Mar 14, 2013 7:20:11pm

re: #6 Aligarr

The standard screed for teebaggers/a.k.a. “conservatives ” is , those hippies are the cause of all that is wrong in the country today . [and yesterday] The Vietnam War could have been won if said hippies ,commies and lefties didn’t protest against it . I’ve heard all this shit before , back in the 60’s and 70’s right up to Nixon’s “Peace with Honor ” withdrawal/retreat . The S.O.B.’s of those days seem to have imparted their genes on the present day crop of chicken hawks and right wing idiots .

Regarding the hippies and commies losing us the war in Vietnam, that shit’s a lot older, and has an analog in history. It goes waaaaayy back.

All the way back to the Dolchstosslegende of post World War One Germany.

en.wikipedia.org

Dark_Falcon Thu, Mar 14, 2013 7:29:51pm

re: #8 Dr Lizardo

You know, if only we’d had Dr. Manhattan, Vietnam would’ve been a piece of cake.

*headdesk*

There were in fact ways we could have gotten a win, but they would have involved greater understanding of the enemy (our focus on NVA/VC body counts was folly, given that the North Vietnamese government had both the will and social control to endure massive losses.) and most cases greater willingness to take chances and escalate things to gain advantage.

Bottom Line: The Vietnam War was a war America lost because the great majority of the American government, military, and general public did not understand the war, and most Americans still do not understand the Vietnam War today.

Destro Thu, Mar 14, 2013 7:30:21pm

re: #10 Dr Lizardo

Regarding the hippies and commies losing us the war in Vietnam, that shit’s a lot older, and has an analog in history. It goes waaaaayy back.

All the way back to the Dolchstosslegende of post World War One Germany.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

You know who was behind the sexual revolution and the hippies? The Jews. It’s kind of forgotten now (well not by me) that the right wing was blaming urban Jews and their liberal ways for spreading hippiedom and sexual liberation. I spent 3 years of my life reading magazine editorial pages for almost all types of magazines from 1966 to 1975 when I was in school.

EPR-radar Thu, Mar 14, 2013 7:33:18pm

re: #11 Dark_Falcon

There were in fact ways we could have gotten a win, but they would have involved greater understanding of the enemy (our focus on NVA/VC body counts was folly, given that the North Vietnamese government had both the will and social control to endure massive losses.) and most cases greater willingness to take chances and escalate things to gain advantage.

Bottom Line: The Vietnam War was a war America lost because the great majority of the American government, military, and general public did not understand the war, and most Americans still do not understand the Vietnam War today.

My understanding of Vietnam is that the North was motivated by anti-colonialism and self-determination to an extent that we could never match in the South with a doctrinaire application of cold war ideology.

Dark_Falcon Thu, Mar 14, 2013 7:45:09pm

re: #13 EPR-radar

My understanding of Vietnam is that the North was motivated by anti-colonialism and self-determination to an extent that we could never match in the South with a doctrinaire application of cold war ideology.

Anti-colonialism, yes. But you should replace “self-determination” with “imposition of Communism” for the North sought to impose its system upon the whole of Vietnam, regardless of the wishes of those in the South who did not want a totalitarian system. Remember that the North’s final offensive was not a popular uprising, it was a crushing conventional attack spearheaded by Soviet-provided T-55s tanks.

EPR-radar Thu, Mar 14, 2013 7:51:31pm

re: #14 Dark_Falcon

Anti-colonialism, yes. But you should replace “self-determination” with “imposition of Communism” for the North sought to impose its system upon the whole of Vietnam, regardless of the wishes of those in the South who did not want a totalitarian system. Remember that the North’s final offensive was not a popular uprising, it was a crushing conventional attack spearheaded by Soviet-provided T-55s tanks.

As I recall, Ho did not start out as a Soviet puppet. Instead, he took aid where he could find it, first to fight against the French, then against the US. Decades of war hardened the ideological lines such that the eventual victory of the North meant a full dose of totalitarian communism for the South.

To win, the US would have had to wage a war of extermination, and there was never the political will (or moral justification) for that.

Dark_Falcon Thu, Mar 14, 2013 7:59:00pm

re: #15 EPR-radar

As I recall, Ho did not start out as a Soviet puppet. Instead, he took aid where he could find it, first to fight against the French, then against the US. Decades of war hardened the ideological lines such that the eventual victory of the North meant a full dose of totalitarian communism for the South.

To win, the US would have had to wage a war of extermination, and there was never the political will (or moral justification) for that.

No, Ho was always Communist. And he actually started out fighting the Japanese during WWII, truth to tell.

We wouldn’t have needed extermination, though. Things like earlier mining of Haiphong Harbor coupled with a amphibious invasion of the North a short ways North of the DMZ would likely have forced the North to back off for a time, thus giving South Vietnam time to blunt the popular grievances that fed the growth of the VC. It might not have worked ultimately, but such a strategy would have had a good chance and it would have actually cost far fewer lives on all sides in the long run.

Joanne Thu, Mar 14, 2013 8:03:28pm

re: #7 EPR-radar

According to conservative dogma, conservatism can never fail.

I don’t know about that, but conservatism certainly never goes away.

goddamnedfrank Thu, Mar 14, 2013 8:08:02pm

re: #14 Dark_Falcon

Anti-colonialism, yes. But you should replace “self-determination” with “imposition of Communism” for the North sought to impose its system upon the whole of Vietnam, regardless of the wishes of those in the South who did not want a totalitarian system.

It’s not like the South ever had free and fair elections either though. Diem’s government was unbelievably corrupt. The proposed 1956 Geneva negotiated reunification elections that he cancelled almost certainly wouldn’t have been free and fair either, but let’s not pretend that we were defending some bastion of democracy.

EPR-radar Thu, Mar 14, 2013 8:13:44pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

No, Ho was always Communist. And he actually started out fighting the Japanese during WWII, truth to tell.

We wouldn’t have needed extermination, though. Things like earlier mining of Haiphong Harbor coupled with a amphibious invasion of the North a short ways North of the DMZ would likely have forced the North to back off for a time, thus giving South Vietnam time to blunt the popular grievances that fed the growth of the VC. It might not have worked ultimately, but such a strategy would have had a good chance and it would have actually cost far fewer lives on all sides in the long run.

Thanks for the corrections about Ho, although the part about Ho not being a puppet is still true. Ho had serious nationalism credibility by the time he had fought the Japanese and French, and dealt with Chinese encroachment. There weren’t really any South Vietnamese leaders of comparable significance —- in fact the usual corruption and abuses associated with colonial rule and puppet regimes were always a problem in the South.

Dark_Falcon Thu, Mar 14, 2013 8:17:42pm

re: #19 EPR-radar

Thanks for the corrections about Ho, although the part about Ho not being a puppet is still true. Ho had serious nationalism credibility by the time he had fought the Japanese and French, and dealt with Chinese encroachment. There weren’t really any South Vietnamese leaders of comparable significance —- in fact the usual corruption and abuses associated with colonial rule and puppet regimes were always a problem in the South.

That is true, although some of that simply had to due with which parts of the Country was the critical battlefield in the war against the French, and after Mao’s victory in China’s civil war in 1949 that area was the North. The Viet Minh’s own deployments reflect that, with all but two of their main force (Chuc Luac) divisions in the north of Vietnam.

EPR-radar Thu, Mar 14, 2013 8:21:23pm

re: #19 EPR-radar

Thanks for the corrections about Ho, although the part about Ho not being a puppet is still true. Ho had serious nationalism credibility by the time he had fought the Japanese and French, and dealt with Chinese encroachment. There weren’t really any South Vietnamese leaders of comparable significance —- in fact the usual corruption and abuses associated with colonial rule and puppet regimes were always a problem in the South.

So, to complete my thought, Ho was an authentic Vietnamese nationalist who was Communist and was supported by China and Russia as part of the cold war.

By the time the US got into this mess, we were propping up a corrupt colonialist regime in the South, apparently out of mindless reflex.

Not a good strategic situation, regardless of how individual military exercises might have been done more competently.

goddamnedfrank Thu, Mar 14, 2013 8:25:14pm

re: #21 EPR-radar

So, to complete my thought, Ho was an authentic Vietnamese nationalist who was Communist and was supported by China and Russia as part of the cold war.

By the time the US got into this mess, we were propping up a corrupt colonialist regime in the South, apparently out of mindless reflex.

Not a good strategic situation, regardless of how individual military exercises might have been done more competently.

And by the end our involvement would lead directly to the destabilization of Cambodia, the rise of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, Year Zero and the killing fields. The whole affair was an epic level cluster fuck.

Dark_Falcon Thu, Mar 14, 2013 8:31:47pm

re: #22 goddamnedfrank

And by the end our involvement would lead directly to the destabilization of Cambodia, the rise of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, Year Zero and the killing fields. The whole affair was an epic level cluster fuck.

Though had the entirety of Vietnam become Communist earlier, the Vietnamese likely would have overthrown Sihanouk anyways, given the predatory nature of of Soviet-supported Communism. But the ‘Killing Fields’ might not have happened. Things still likely would have gone worse in Cambodia, though, as the backwardness of the country relative to its neighbors had engendered an very large amount of butthurt in Cambodia’s Communist leaders.

EPR-radar Thu, Mar 14, 2013 8:36:54pm

re: #11 Dark_Falcon

There were in fact ways we could have gotten a win, but they would have involved greater understanding of the enemy (our focus on NVA/VC body counts was folly, given that the North Vietnamese government had both the will and social control to endure massive losses.) and most cases greater willingness to take chances and escalate things to gain advantage.

Bottom Line: The Vietnam War was a war America lost because the great majority of the American government, military, and general public did not understand the war, and most Americans still do not understand the Vietnam War today.

To come back to your first point, by greater understanding did you mean military actions to give the South enough time to reform its corruption, or something else?

If the Vietnam War is understood as legit nationalist regime (our enemy) vs. colonialist puppet regime (our ally), it is hard to make a case for the US prosecuting such a war.

Dark_Falcon Thu, Mar 14, 2013 8:53:07pm

re: #24 EPR-radar

To come back to your first point, by greater understanding did you mean military actions to give the South enough time to reform its corruption, or something else?

If the Vietnam War is understood as legit nationalist regime (our enemy) vs. colonialist puppet regime (our ally), it is hard to make a case for the US prosecuting such a war.

“Greater understanding” meant a better understanding of methods and mentality of the Vietnamese communists. It would have meant understanding how determined they were and that they were not going to be deterred by battle casualties alone; more aggressive action was needed.

The purpose of military actions informed by that greater understanding would have been to damage the Communist ability to wage the war badly enough to force the North to back off and give South Vietnam a breathing space in which to repair the political failings that left the South vulnerable to insurgency in the first place.

Destro Thu, Mar 14, 2013 9:37:58pm

re: #22 goddamnedfrank

re: #23 Dark_Falcon

re: #24 EPR-radar

The Khmer Rouge were for a time supported by the USA because they were anti-Vietnamese and the Khmer were allied with China and Vietnam had just defeated a Red Chinese invasion and the Vietnamese were allied with the USSR which had fallen out with China and China was now allied with the USA.

When the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and destroyed the Khmer Rouge the USA condemned the Vietnamese.

www.pbs.org

The Khmer Rouge would likely not have survived without the support of its old patron China and a surprising new ally: the United States. Norodom Sihanouk, now in exile after briefly serving as head of state under the Khmer Rouge, formed a loose coalition with the guerillas to expel the Vietnamese from Cambodia. The United States gave the Sihanouk-Khmer Rouge coalition millions of dollars in aid while enforcing an economic embargo against the Vietnamese-backed Cambodian government. The Carter administration helped the Khmer Rouge keep its seat at the United Nations, tacitly implying that they were still the country’s legitimate rulers.
The U.S. government’s refusal to recognize the new Cambodian government and its unwillingness to distance itself from the Khmer Rouge was motivated by several factors, primarily animosity toward its former foe, Vietnam, and Vietnam’s Soviet backers. Additionally, the United States did not want to sour its improving relations with the Khmer Rouge’s longtime patron, China. What started as a diplomatic decision to manipulate the Sino-Soviet split and isolate and punish Vietnam became a moral blunder that ensured the survival of the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

The USA was not the good guy in Indochina.

Dark_Falcon Thu, Mar 14, 2013 9:48:33pm

re: #26 Destro

Jimmy Carter could fuck things up with the best of ‘em.

Destro Thu, Mar 14, 2013 10:19:45pm

re: #27 Dark_Falcon

Jimmy Carter could fuck things up with the best of ‘em.

It’s America. The State Dept is run by careerists who stay in office no matter the administration.

The same State Dept that backed jihadis in Afghanistan against the USSR (which led to 9/11 blowback and worse) and backed the Khmer Rouge against the USSR’s allies the Vietnamese in Cambodia.

When you ask again why I view the USA’s foreign policy in such disdain (anti-Americanism as you have labeled it) that is one of the reasons (killing a million (at least) Vietnamese is another).

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Mar 15, 2013 12:13:26am

Destro, you are conflating events that happened years apart. The conflict between China and Vietnam, and the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge, happened in 1979, 4 years after the collapse of South Vietnam and the simultaneous collapse of the US backed Cambodian government of Marshal Lon Nol (of whom few Americans have ever heard), and 6 years after the treaty that ended US involvement in the war.

The US did not back the Khmer Rouge in the Indochina War, we fought tooth and clawnail against them from 1970 to 1973. They campaigned against Lon Nol’s Cambodian government just as the North Vietnamese campaigned against the government of South Vietnam. While Americans were there, the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese were allies, cooperating closely to protect the NVA sanctuaries in Cambodia. The Lon Nol government had come to power in the first place in an effort by Cambodians to eliminate the sanctuaries and end the foreign occupation of eastern Cambodia by the Vietnamese. In order to do this, Lon Nol had overthrown none other than Prince Norodom Sihanouk, future Khmer Rouge ally, who had encouraged and tolerated the sanctuaries since the 50s. This is the truth that is obscured by self-serving media and politicians to the present day. The facts themselves are not in doubt but they are widely ignored.

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Mar 15, 2013 12:39:03am

For his part, Gohmert seems to have picked up his view from the noted right-wing historian historian John Rambo, just as lefties quote their prophet Hawkeye Pierce on the same subject (even though Hawkeye was nominally talking about the Korean War, and a wholly fictitious version of that conflict at that).

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Mar 15, 2013 1:10:46am

It will be a hundred years before the average American has a coherent understanding of the Indochina war, if it ever happens at all. Some issues have not really even been touched, even now. One of these is the malfeasance and incompetence of the US military command through much of the war. Most of the senior officers had started their careers in World War 2, and many of them seemed stuck there mentally. They were great admirers of George Patton and German generals like Guderian, men whose ideas and style could not have been less suited to the conflict at hand. A peace time career system prevailed during the war. For all but the senior generals, a one year rotation through a command or staff position at the luxurious headquarters in Saigon was just a rung in the ladder, along with Japan, Korea, the War College, and the holy grail of careerism in those days, NATO headquarters in Brussels. They rotated in and out just like the grunts in the field. Obvious facts and real intelligence were ignored. Liberated prisoners say B-52 strikes are ineffective because the thousands of small bombs cannot penetrate the enemy’s dirt tunnels? Can’t be, doctrine says saturate the largest area possible and the enemy will disappear, and a lot of small bombs will saturate a much larger area than a few big ones. The Vietnamese themselves were a burdensome collection of east Asian stereotypes, their history and culture either impenetrably obscure or of no concern at all.

The role of the military industrial complex in promoting the war through their influence over Congress is another. Lefties have howled about this for decades, but with no real effort to address the details, while the right ignores it entirely (for the most obvious of reasons).

The desire to maintain the illusion of Laotian neutrality is another, even after much of that country had been occupied by the North Vietnamese and its government was openly allied with the US.

Aligarr Fri, Mar 15, 2013 4:56:38am

Ho Chi Minh was our ally in WW2 , he fought against the Japanese . His goal to remove all occupiers from Vietnam , which included the French , didn’t end with Japans defeat . We supported the French and eventually replaced them . One can’t help but wonder , how history would have been if we just left it alone and allowed the French to get kicked out of their colony .

Destro Fri, Mar 15, 2013 6:11:38am

re: #29 Shiplord Kirel

Only an American can conceive of an event that spans 4 years “a long time”.
apart. 9/11? That was a looooong time ago.

In the end the USA, the so called “good guy” decided it should back the Khmer Rouge and fight for their seat at the UN.

wheat-dogghazi Fri, Mar 15, 2013 6:22:20am

Looking into Rep. Gohmert’s bio at Wikipedia, I see that he is three years older than I am, meaning he turned 18 in 1971 while there was still a draft. However, he did not serve in ‘Nam, but was a JAG attorney at Fort Benning beginning in 1978.

That is to say, I believe his remarks would care some more weight if he had served in combat in that very war, or at least while it was going on. Considering his track record of saying some of the world’s most ignorant remarks, his comments about the “winnability” of the Vietnam War can be easily ignored.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Fri, Mar 15, 2013 6:35:49am

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

. Things like earlier mining of Haiphong Harbor coupled with a amphibious invasion of the North a short ways North of the DMZ would likely have forced the North to back off for a time, thus giving South Vietnam time to blunt the popular grievances that fed the growth of the VC. It might not have worked ultimately, but such a strategy would have had a good chance and it would have actually cost far fewer lives on all sides in the long run.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the corrupt South Vietnamese government could have or would have done that. None.

Romantic Heretic Fri, Mar 15, 2013 7:22:52am

My understanding is the first country that Ho Chi Min went to for help after kicking out the French was the U.S. Who turned him down because he was a Commie.

So instead of, at least, a minion in the Far East for a cheap price, the U.S. threw away a ton of money and a shit load of lives because they have a Manichaean mindset where “Communist=orcs”.

Aligarr Fri, Mar 15, 2013 8:47:05am

re: #34 wheat-dogghazi

You’re right .I was there during the Tet Offensive …..Proof Positive ,we were going no where and we controlled nothing . .Although THAT was a lesson to the US at home , we knew before TET , the war was useless . Viet Cong were everywhere striking at will , living right besides us . One poster here says we lost because we “did not understand the enemy ” ….that is the understatement of the century , but the FAULT of that argument IS to assume , that if we did , victory was possible . This same wrong thinking got us into the 2nd Iraq war and led us to stay way too longer in Afghanistan than was necessarry . No lessons learned .

HappyWarrior Fri, Mar 15, 2013 8:53:59am

re: #34 wheat-dogghazi

Looking into Rep. Gohmert’s bio at Wikipedia, I see that he is three years older than I am, meaning he turned 18 in 1971 while there was still a draft. However, he did not serve in ‘Nam, but was a JAG attorney at Fort Benning beginning in 1978.

That is to say, I believe his remarks would care some more weight if he had served in combat in that very war, or at least while it was going on. Considering his track record of saying some of the world’s most ignorant remarks, his comments about the “winnability” of the Vietnam War can be easily ignored.

Yeah I noticed that too when I saw that he was saying this crap. Awfully convenient that he entered the military well after conflict was over. I am sick of this crap. People had every right to protest the Vietnam War and people in government had every right to feel skeptical about it too.

EPR-radar Fri, Mar 15, 2013 6:59:40pm

re: #25 Dark_Falcon

“Greater understanding” meant a better understanding of methods and mentality of the Vietnamese communists. It would have meant understanding how determined they were and that they were not going to be deterred by battle casualties alone; more aggressive action was needed.

The purpose of military actions informed by that greater understanding would have been to damage the Communist ability to wage the war badly enough to force the North to back off and give South Vietnam a breathing space in which to repair the political failings that left the South vulnerable to insurgency in the first place.

So, even if the most favorable assumptions are made (such as no intervention by China), this scenario envisions near-total warfare against North Vietnam, pretty much to the unconditional surrender level in order to end to support of insurgents in the South by the North.

After that, 10+ years of nation building in adverse circumstances.

One has to be a most dedicated cold warrior indeed for that to look like a reasonable use of US power.

Dark_Falcon Fri, Mar 15, 2013 7:44:10pm

re: #39 EPR-radar

So, even if the most favorable assumptions are made (such as no intervention by China), this scenario envisions near-total warfare against North Vietnam, pretty much to the unconditional surrender level in order to end to support of insurgents in the South by the North.

After that, 10+ years of nation building in adverse circumstances.

One has to be a most dedicated cold warrior indeed for that to look like a reasonable use of US power.

No, sir. A limited amphibious assault north of the DMZ would have been used to eliminate NVA artillery positions and troop concentrations. The NVA forces in that region did not have to elaborate concealment and defense positions that force inside South Vietnam had; Caught in the open, they would have been smashed by superior American firepower. This would also have put us in position to use ground raids to interdict the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Logistics routes are very vulnerable to group attacks unless heavily guarded, which is why the Vietnamese communists used convoy ambush as a tactic against the French (with great success) and against the US (with initial success, but thereafter largely in failure due to US adaptations). Employing the tactic against them would have either choked off their units in the South or force the NVA to fight more mobile engagements along the Trail, engagements it was not well suited for.

Couple that sort of tactic with the mining of Haiphong, and the resultant logistical damage would likely have forced the North to back off. Surrender would neither be needed nor sought, nor would attacks on the major population centers of the North be made, save in limited fashion directed at legitimate military targets. There would be no bloodbath.

EPR-radar Fri, Mar 15, 2013 7:53:08pm

re: #40 Dark_Falcon

No, sir. A limited amphibious assault north of the DMZ would have been used to eliminate NVA artillery positions and troop concentrations. The NVA forces in that region did not have to elaborate concealment and defense positions that force inside South Vietnam had; Caught in the open, they would have been smashed by superior American firepower. This would also have put us in position to use ground raids to interdict the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Logistics routes are very vulnerable to group attacks unless heavily guarded, which is why the Vietnamese communists used convoy ambush as a tactic against the French (with great success) and against the US (with initial success, but thereafter largely in failure due to US adaptations). Employing the tactic against them would have either choked off their units in the South or force the NVA to fight more mobile engagements along the Trail, engagements it was not well suited for.

Couple that sort of tactic with the mining of Haiphong, and the resultant logistical damage would likely have forced the North to back off. Surrender would neither be needed nor sought, nor would attacks on the major population centers of the North be made, save in limited fashion directed at legitimate military targets. There would be no bloodbath.

This is starting to look like evidence of gross incompetence of US military strategy during the Vietnam War. Since I’m clueless about military strategy, I’ll end my commentary here.

Dark_Falcon Fri, Mar 15, 2013 8:21:02pm

re: #41 EPR-radar

This is starting to look like evidence of gross incompetence of US military strategy during the Vietnam War. Since I’m clueless about military strategy, I’ll end my commentary here.

That’s pretty much it right there. General William Westmoreland pretty much screwed up by the numbers in his approach to fighting the war. By the time a better leader arrived in Gen. Creighton Abrams, the American will to employ aggressive ground strategies was gone. (‘Vietnamization’ as a policy to give the South a chance is another topic, and one best left for another thread.)

EPR-radar, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful questions. I hope I was able to sketch my point out to your satisfaction.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!