Vietnam - A Television History

Originally posted by FMF
You advocate the U.S. military NOT being under the command of the civilian government?

You are suggesting that if the U.S. military doesn't like its mission and doesn't like its orders, it is entitled to define its "loss" as a "police action"?

[b]"If war was declared it would of been over swiftly".

With less casualties on the Vietnamese side than the "police action" caused"?[/b]

I am not suggesting anything other than the facts.It was not technically a "war".That may not sound like much but it makes a world of difference.

And yes if "war" was declared it would have been swift w/ far less casualties on our side.There would of been Many more casualties on their side.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I am not suggesting anything other than the facts.It was not technically a "war".

Were the U.S. servicemen and women "illegal combatants" then?

Originally posted by phil3000
It's funny , but if you watched all the American Films , tv etc and you didn't know the out come of the war , you would be amazed to find that the Usa lost!!!
During that war , the Americans dropped more bombs than the Allies and Axis did in the entirity of the 2nd WW.
Lets hope they have learn't the "Hearts and minds "lesson!!!!

I don't know if you're implying that the US education and/or media and/or film industry preaches or teaches that the US won the Vietnam war. But if you are, you could not be more wrong.

That the US "lost" the Vietnam war was almost a given in my primary and high school history classes.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I am not suggesting anything other than the facts.It was not technically a "war".That may not sound like much but it makes a world of difference.

And yes if "war" was declared it would have been swift w/ far less casualties on our side.There would of been Many more casualties on their side.

You're still (still) not getting it.

Since the end of WWII, most warfare has taken an asymmetrical/unconventional form, and this, rather than your 'total war' nonsense, seems likely to be the pattern for the foreseeable future. You'd think somebody, somewhere would start to reorganise things in the face of this reality, rather than continuing to prepare for your 'total war' (which even Clauswitz realised was nonsense anyway.)

Whether the US military's woeful lack of preparedness for this empirical reality is the fault of the military leadership or their civilian masters matters not. The debacles in Korea, Vietnam and, latterly, Iraq are evidence for this lack of preparedness, and point towards a future (given the apparent unwillingness to learn from mistakes) where this will happen again.

Originally posted by DrKF
You're still (still) not getting it.

Since the end of WWII, most warfare has taken an asymmetrical/unconventional form, and this, rather than your 'total war' nonsense, seems likely to be the pattern for the foreseeable future. You'd think somebody, somewhere would start to reorganise things in the face of this reality, rather than continuing to prepare for ...[text shortened]... e (given the apparent unwillingness to learn from mistakes) where this will happen again.

How was Korea a "debacle"?

Was or was not South Korea annexed by Communist North Korea?

I guess I must have missed something, but last I checked, South Korea was not dominated by Communism.

Sorry, I meant only in respect of how it was militarily conducted. It's less obvious an example than Vietnam or Iraq (or, latterly, Afghanistan), perhaps, but maybe should have been an early warning that, after WWII, the rules of engagement had radically changed - that asymetric warfare in areas with high densities of unaligned civilians facing enemy forces comprised of irregulars/insurgents meant that WWI/WWII methods of conducting war were no longer relevant.

I'd always thought it ended in an ignominious 'draw' anyway...

EDIT: feel free to correct as you see fit; I'll happily admit the Korean 'policing action' (ahem) isn't my strongest suit.

Originally posted by DrKF
Sorry, I meant only in respect of how it was militarily conducted. It's less obvious an example than Vietnam or Iraq (or, latterly, Afghanistan), perhaps, but maybe should have been an early warning that, after WWII, the rules of engagement had radically changed - that asymetric warfare in areas with high densities of unaligned civilians facing enemy forces com see fit; I'll happily admit the Korean 'policing action' (ahem) isn't my strongest suit.

Well, militarily, it was a "draw" perhaps.

But to me, the way to determine whether a war is "won" or lost" is by whether you achieved your objectives in that war. Of course, often, the objectives are hard to pin down.

In Korea, the objective of the UN force was to defend SK from the NK invasion. As such, to me, it seems like that was a win.

In Vietnam, the goal was to prevent South Vietnam from being annexed by force by North Vietnam. Hence, it was ultimately a loss.

For example, militarily, Iraq II was most decidedly a win. But if the goal was establish a stable democracy in Iraq, only time will tell if that will be achieved.

Originally posted by DrKF
Sorry, I meant only in respect of how it was militarily conducted. It's less obvious an example than Vietnam or Iraq (or, latterly, Afghanistan), perhaps, but maybe should have been an early warning that, after WWII, the rules of engagement had radically changed - that asymetric warfare in areas with high densities of unaligned civilians facing enemy forces com ...[text shortened]... see fit; I'll happily admit the Korean 'policing action' (ahem) isn't my strongest suit.

The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification.

The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives.

There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. [b]How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S ...[text shortened]... e fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam.[/b]

We lost because we left the country in a position whereby NV was capable of invading and capturing SV that we were impotent to stop. Our intent in going in was to pummel the NV so hard that they were not capable of military action on that scale.

War is not like a football game where the final whistle is sounded and you can look up at the scoreboard and see who won (or a soccer game where you can look up at the scoreboard and see a 0-0 tie). But you have to look at wars through the prism of what was accomplished.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam.

What figure have you got for casualties inflicted on the Vietnamese people by the U.S. during the 10 years they were involved?

And does your figure for casualties in Cambodia 1975-1977 include the victims of U.S. aerial bombardment earlier in the decade?

If not, what figure do you have for victims of the U.S. bombing of Cambodia?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. [b]How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S ...[text shortened]... e fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam.[/b]

If you've seen the film A Fish Called Wanda, you'll know just how like the Kevin Kline character, Otto, you sound:

Otto: You know your problem? You don't like winners.
Archie: Winners?
Otto: Yeah. Winners.
Archie: Winners, like North Vietnam?
Otto: Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie!
Archie: [going into a cowboy-like drawl] I'm tellin' ya baby, they kicked your little ass there. Boy, they whooped yer hide REAL GOOD.

Originally posted by FMF
Thanks for not fobbing me off with a cut & paste of someone else's opinion. You talking about Stanley Karnow's book. I studied History at university and read it way back then. I am actually interested in what you, smw6869, Sam The Sham and others think, or - at the other extreme - whether any "irrational Europeans" take any comfort from the way it lays i ...[text shortened]... he War. Have you ever seen a documentary about it that you thought was distorting the truth?

So, you have cast your hook, but you have used dry fly for bait when everyone knows it's nymphs that are used at this time of the year in my neck of the woods. However, my daughter did buy me the PBS series years ago, but i have never watched it due to the extreme liberal slant PBS has always exhibited. I think i shall view it at this time however. See you at the popcorn machine.

GRANNY.

Originally posted by DrKF
Sorry, I meant only in respect of how it was militarily conducted. It's less obvious an example than Vietnam or Iraq (or, latterly, Afghanistan), perhaps, but maybe should have been an early warning that, after WWII, the rules of engagement had radically changed - that asymetric warfare in areas with high densities of unaligned civilians facing enemy forces com ...[text shortened]... see fit; I'll happily admit the Korean 'policing action' (ahem) isn't my strongest suit.

how were IRAQ or AFGHANISTAN debacles?

baathists still in power, i guess. and the taliban. i need to read google news more often!

Originally posted by FMF
Pretty much sums you up.

Have you watched the TV series?

If no, why are you posting to this thread?

If yes, having "no opinion other than what i draw from" the author of the book it was based on, is bizarre.

Have you watched it?

why should i waste time watching it?

presumably you've watched it.

why not just tell me whether the tenor of the series matches Karnow's quote, above?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
First of all,The U.S. did not loose the war,as you put it.
It was not a war.It was a police action. The two are not the same.Rules of engagement,etc are all different than in a actual "war". Did the U.S. stop the spread of communisim there? No. The objective was not met thanks to politicians in Washington. Body counts,destruction,mayhem? Which army c ...[text shortened]... ensive.
In actual "war",the U.S. military is unbeatable and is far superior than any other.

I must remark on this crazy notion about what war is about: the best army being the one causing most mayhem. I think we all concede the US can cause most mayhem. Cambodia is testament to its ability to bomb a nation (with which it was presumably not at war either) into the stone age and the outcome of that police action was the Khmer horrors, only terminated by - well, the Vietnamese actually, after they had defeated the US. The US failed to learn the lessons of the way the VietCong trashed the French at Dien Bien Phu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu ). An early warning of what the Americans would have to offer in Vietnam came in Graham Green's excellent novel, The Quiet American, published in 1955. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quiet_American) Vietnam was a disaster waiting to happen, the US was warned, and the US went right on in there to get defeated.

A model of how to do things entirely differently was provided by the British army in the Malaysian crisis, when British soldiers worked in the jungles alongside Malaysian villagers to protect against and then exclude communist insurgents.

The US army is not the best in the world. It is just the biggest, noisiest and has most toys (don't you just love those little helicopters they used to ride around Vietnam killing civilians from?). It works best when alongside other national forces and when it has political direction that is sensitive to other national interests than its own. You see we all need your expensive toys - just leave the direction to others please.