What could have been done to ensure victory in Vietnam ?
157123
I have uncles that fought on both sides of the war, and can write a book that will contradict most of the answers before me. Saving all the writing, I'll give a digested version.\n\nThe war was not just about Americans fighting communism. It was a common people fighting each other for how they though their country should be. It was very much a civil war, and lots of Vietnamese lost their lives on both sides fighting for what they thought was right.\n\nSaying that something could have been done to ensure victory for ARVN and American forces indicates a gross lack of knowledge about what was actually happening in Vietnam because victory over the communist forces was ALWAYS available at any time. \n\nThe South and Americans were never allowed to win the war. The VC base of Cu Chi (the tunnels) is a good example of this. Cu Chi is about 20 miles from downtown Saigon, and close enough to launch missles into Saigon every night. ARVN and American forces wre forbidden to enter the area eventhough every aspect of that VC base was known and more than enough resources was available to clear it at any time. You cannot win a war when it is fought like this.\n\nThe North NEVER had the ability to win the war. The NVA and VC forces never won a major battle and could not hold a position against ARVN or American forces. NVA and VC forces had a fraction of the armaments and equipment and easily overwhelmed by the resources and firepower available to ARVN and American forces. \n\nThe Tet offense was a military FAILURE for the NVA and VC forces. The VC forces was destroyed as a fighting force and the NVA exhausted most of their armaments during the Tet offense. The government and history book try to tell a different story tomake the NVA and VC forces as more formidable opponents.\n\nThe ARVN and American forces in Vietnam didn't loose the war. The American politicians did by deciding that the war not useful anymore.\n\nSo what can be done to win the Vietnam war? The war was never really lost. Communism is taking it's last breath in Vietnam after ruining the country for many years. Now, all the Vietnamese people want Americans back and not just the South. Instead of fighting to hold part of the country, we can now vacation and do business with the whole country. The communist politicians in Vietnam lost their war too.
626846
frustrating situation and rising resentment. I can't think of any other nations who supported the vietnam war, that was the problem. Drugs didn't have anything to do with vietnam, it was a domestic issue.
335412
Thats a loaded question ;) \n\nI think that we now must stay and finish the reconstruction and occupation of Iraq to avoid a messy withdrawl that will lead to a power vacuum and civil war in the heart of the middle east. Regardless of how you feel about the war before hand, It's important to realize that a US defeat or withdrawl could have dramatic and long lasting negative effects on the US.\n\nThe Vietnam comparison doesn't hold too much water for two reasons, 1) The US withdrawl from South Vietnam was followed by the North overruning the South. This prevented a power struggle or civil war and was, ironically, able to provide some order to a chaotic situation. 2) A large component of the insurgency (An estimated 1/3 ) is now Al Qaeda, I'm not saying that they were there before I'm simply saying they are there now and are working to force an American withdrawl. They even boast about this on propoganda tapes. They are, unlike the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army, an organization that is actively at war with the United States (was before the war in Iraq and will be after) and would like nothing better then to send a middle eastern nation into chaos so they can use it as a place to retrain, refurbish and catch their breath after losing a similiar base in Afghanistan that they had before the Taliban lost power.\n\nI personally think we need to establish a table for leaving Iraq based not on chronological deadlines (a poor plan that is inviting disaster the moment the deadline passes and US Troops leave) but instead on tangible results. Like for every 3 Iraqi Army Battalions to reach full operational ability we should withdrawl 1 US Battalion. \n\nThis avoids the dilemna of just saying "lets stay until we're through" which opens the door to a endless occupation but also makes success in Iraq a tangible thing that can be monitored and achieved in due time.
827667
Vietnam won the Vietnam war because of the Communist country support.they will still win because the communist will still support them during the war
42076
Basically, it was a failure (like today's war in Iraq) and many American soldiers' lives were lost.\n\nThe Vietnam War or Second Indochina War 1 was a conflict between the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN, or North Vietnam), allied with the National Liberation Front (NLF, or "Viet Cong") against the Republic of Vietnam (RVN, or South Vietnam), and its allies — notably the United States military in support of the South, with US combat troops involved from shortly after the Korean War until the official withdrawal in 1975.\n\nAfter France's attempted recolonization of Indochina was defeated in 1954 by the Viet Minh at the battle of Điện Biên Phủ, an agreement to temporarily partition the country in two with a de-militarized zone (DMZ) was reached at the Geneva Conference (1954). The "Vietnam War" ostensibly began as a civil war between feuding governments. Being Western-oriented and far less popular than Hồ Chí Minh's northern rebellion, the South Vietnam government fought largely to maintain its governing status within the partitioned entity, rather than to "unify the country" as was the goal of the North. Fighting began in 1957 and with U.S. and Soviet-Chinese involvement would steadily escalate and spill over into the neighboring Indochinese countries of Cambodia and Laos.\n\nThe Geneva partition was not a natural division of Vietnam and was not intended to create two separate countries. But the South government, with the support of the United States, blocked the Geneva scheduled elections for reunification. In the context of the Cold War, and with the recent Korean War as a precedent, the U.S. had feared that a reunified Vietnam would elect a Communist government under the popular Hồ Chí Minh. South Vietnam and its Western allies portrayed the conflict as based in a principled opposition to communism —to deter the expansion of Soviet-based control throughout Southeast Asia, and to set the tone for any likely future superpower conflicts. The North Vietnamese government and its Southern dissident allies (NLF) viewed the war as a struggle to reunite the country and to repel a foreign aggressor —a virtual continuation of the earlier war for independence against the French.\n\nAfter fifteen years of protracted fighting and massive civilian and military casualties, major direct U.S. involvement ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. Fighting between Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) forces against the dominant combined People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and NLF forces would soon bring an end to the RVN and the war. With the Northern victory, the country was unified as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) with a communist-controlled government based in the new capital Hanoi.\n\nThis is just a brief summary. For more information on the Vietnam War, go to:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
648177
I believe support is needed for good morale.  The louder the better!\n\nMost people don't recognize the best method of support, which is a letter and telephone call to your Congressman and Senators.\n\nI am a Vietnam War veteran, and remember the lack of support during that period.  To this day I greet the vision of Hanoi Jane Fonda on TV with a long diatribe of profanity!\n\nI once spoke with General Westmoreland, who said American soldiers never lost a battle of any significance during the Vietnam War - that Congress lost the war due to their indifference and lack of support.\n\nLastly, I firmly believe anti war rhetoric (by individual citizens and POLITICIANS) offers nothing more than encouragement and hope to our enemies.\n\nThe Wall Street Journal (August 3, 1995) published an interview with Bui Tin who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975.  During the interview  Mr. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory.  Mr. Tin responded "It was essential to our strategy"  referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets.  He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts "to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement." \nPS:  U.S. Army retired
165410
It was fought on the land, air, and lesser so, at sea.\nThe North Vietnamese had small airforce and navy. The N. Vietnamese fought a guerilla warfare the majority of the time. The French, and then the Americans had to adjust to jungle fighting that was sumwhat unique in their country.\nIt also became a phyalogical battle of stalemate and grueling conditions for the americans and their foes.
803789
How do you think the Vietnam war ended.
748031
I don't think saturation nuking will work, as that they won't penetrate the underground bunkers. The USA will just have to invade and risk yet another Vietnam. The invaders will all become junkies (20% of Iranians are on hard drugs) and when they lose they will have to admit millions of Iranian Shiite refugees into the USA. It's tough, I know, but there is really no alternative. The USA must stay the course. They can't let the terrorists claim victory.
524457
vietnam \nIndo-Pak war 1971
504324
~The only way that Germany could have won would have been with the support of the US and by tapping into US industrial might, just as was the case  with Britain and France.  The good thing about sitting on the sidelines until the fight is almost over is that the Johnny-(Sammy)-come-lately gets to pick the winner.  \n\nThus, the occupation of Moscow would have been shared by the US and Germany and the cold war would have been unnecessary.  Britain would have retained some semblance of its present self, but we wouldn't have had to suffer the Lady Di crap. Most likely, Britain would have pulled an Italy and switched sides.   The rest of Europe would be the non-entity it is and was, with US and German troops ever present to keep it that way.  Lech Walesa and Solidarity would never have happened.  The Berlin Wall would not have come down because it would have never been built.\n\nThe trip to the moon  would have happened sooner and much more efficiently.  Synthetic fuels would be the norm rather than the exception.  The Euro would have come into being 5 decades sooner.  The Common Market  would have come into being much sooner, under a different name.  Italy would still by a nice place to visit, but not much else.  The Soviet Union would have been an Anglo-American-German colonial protectorate.  Israel would not exist, Algeria would have gained independence much sooner and Nasser would not have had to, wanted to or needed to nationalize the Suez Canal.  Qaddafi and Idi Amin would have been tending camels rather than running puppet-governments for super powers.  Korea would have been left to the Koreans.\n\nIn exchange for a US alliance, or peace with the US, Germany would have terminated its treaties with Japan.  The Japanese markets and materials would have been replaced and exceeded by the products and profits from the west, with  whom the Germans were much more kindred.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still have the distinction of being the only places on earth to have been nuked, but Uncle will have his day.  Chiang may have stayed on the mainland, but, if not, Mao would have been even less significant than he was.  Nam would have been unnecessary.\n\nThe Middle East would have been subjugated and Sadam and the Shah would be meaningless footnotes in history.  We would still have pillaged Middle Eastern oil, but Opec wouldn't have been able to stop us.\n\nThere is a reason that one of the US's strongest allies today is Germany.  Hitler was an anomaly.  The US and Germany are as tight today as they were when Von Steuben trained the Troops at Valley Forge, and Britain and Germany share more history and monarchical families than any other two nations in European history.\n\nHitler would have been talked away from his racial policies, but not too quickly.  The rest of the world was never really too upset with the camps and the death of 6 million Jews and 9 million others who died in them anyways.  Certainly not the US, who had exercised similar policies with Native Americans and who was pondering what could be done to quash the  Afro-Americans, Eastern and Southern Europeans  and Asians who were making foolish noises about equality and justice and  whose backs were no longer needed in the mills,  in the fields, in the factories and on the railroads.\n\nIn short, not much would be different today.  The names and places of history might be different, but your life would be pretty much what it is.\n\nSo why do you ask?
1098602
They are two completely different scenarios.  Vietnam was an action to stop the North from invading the South.  America won every major battle in Vietnam, but arguably lost the war.  Why?  Because we would drive the North only so far and limited our actions against them.  They eventually signed a treaty, only to break it later after we pulled out.  Iraq is different in that we are fighting hostile Iraqi citizens in their own country, and not an opposing country tying to invade.  Vietnam actually had an end strategy, to supress the North into a treaty, which we accomplished momentarily anyway.  In Iraq, the heads of state have no idea what their exit stratigy is.
1000150
Gee i seem to understand that America had a few problems ourselves after the revolution.  I mean like a previous answerer stated Germany and Japan were not fixed overnight.  The biggest difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam the Democrats would not let the military fight to win, but were more interested in making money on our dead 58,000 American soldiers than doing what needed to be done to help democracy succeed, but now the Republicans, much to the anger of the liberals, have turned the conflict over to the military so that they can do what they need to in order to win.  In wartime someone always makes money, but something you need to keep in mind is that most of the major conflicts America has been involved in the Democrats have squarely planted us in them.  You are so concerned with getting us out of Iraq, and so worried about the soldiers dying there, because Bush got us there, but you have said nothing about the American, and allied troops that still get into firefights in Bosnia!!!  Clinton put us there 11 years ago, and we still rotate troops there, but no says anything about Clinton's screwup!!  If you are going to ask these kind of questions, then at least have the balls, and intestinal fortitude to ask about ALL the places AMERICAN troops are dying in!!!!!
1008329
Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong here - but I think one of the major differences is that the Iraqi people ARE indeed willing to change their way of life, adopting democracy, whereas the Vietnamese actually wanted to keep their communist government in tact so there was no will on their part to change. That's why we lost then. I mean, going back to the basics, in order for things to change, the will must come from both parties, otherwise it'll just be communist and dictatorship all over again. If we come in Iraq forcing our democratic ways on them, that wouldn't make us any different from Hitler. I think the Iraqis are actually willing to adjust.
330822
Try here:\n\nhttp://www.vietquoc.com/news2002/na020202.htm
465185
I am a Viet Nam veteran, serving with the First Cavalry Division in  the Central Highlands.  When I was there, in 1966-67, I supported what we were doing.  After I got home and studied the situation and what was happening in Viet Nam my mind was changed.  After Robert MacNamera apologized for the lies that got us into that war, I knew the US was wrong for going into the Nam.  The Domino Theory was a big fat lie.  We lost the war and I didn't see the whole area turning communist.  In fact Cambodia is a free nation know.  Viet Nam only wanted to be free from foreign domination which they finally achieved.  The US doesn't have the right to tell other countries what to do and how to live, but in todays world, might makes right so we interfer where we shouldn't
102675
Refer to Vietnam.  :D