A naive type you are. Wars are not isolated incidents, wars have political ends. Clausewitz said that war is an extension of diplomacy. By going into Vietnam the Americans were trying to stem the tide against communism and prevent south Vietnam from falling to the various communist/North Vietnemese forces. Did they suceed in this? Most of the experts say no, but I guess since Vietnam is now a unified, capitalist and democratic society I guess you're right.
In terms of the overall Cold War, some might say that Vietnam is one battle that we lost, while still ultimately winning the overall struggle against communism.
I was rather young during the Vietnam War, and while I was growing up in America at the time, I didn't even know there was a war. There were no bombings from the North Vietnamese air force. I didn't see any NVA invasion forces coming into America. I felt pretty safe and secure. Of course, that doesn't make America "invincible," but barring any kind of nuclear attack, America was pretty safe from its enemies. That's no myth. America has not had a war fought on its soil since the Civil War. The last foreign invader we had to deal with was the British in the War of 1812.
And that was a large part of the reason the war was opposed by Americans, since we were perfectly safe and in no danger of any invasion from Vietnam. People couldn't understand what we were doing there or why American blood was being shed for these people living 10,000 miles away. (Americans were mostly isolationists 30 years earlier, so much of what was going on seemed way out of kilter.)
We didn't really "lose" anything from that war, especially since Vietnam was never our colony to begin with. It was probably France which lost most of all. All we were trying to do was correct a French mistake. But I think we know now that when the French screw something up, it's beyond fixing.
In any case, the Americans inflicted far more damage upon the Vietnamese than they inflicted upon us. The real tragedy is that the Vietnamese could have enjoyed complete independence after World War II and might have even become an important partner with the West due to its strategic location. Their economy would be much better, too. Unfortunately for all concerned (and especially the Vietnamese), Ho Chi Minh was a son of a bitch. He had the blue balls, crabs, and the seven-year itch.
Its possible to win a war militarily and lose politically, this is what happened in Vietnam because they were fighting an unwinnable war and because there were no clear political ends. As soon as Nixon signalled that he wanted out of Vietnam, he had in effect lost the war. How would you feel as a soldier serving a war when your president and CIC says he doesn't want you there? That you're fighting for nothing?
Americans lost Vietnam, they lost in 1812, they'll probably lose in Afghanistan and who knows about Iraq. There's no shame in this. When Britain ruled the world they lost the odd war here and there. As did the Romans and all the other great powers of history. By refusing to acknolwedge you've lost, you refuse to learn the lessons and adapt, and thus hasten your own downfall.
I already commented about the War of 1812, but as for Vietnam and the larger Cold War of which it was part, we're still trying to sort out just what in the heck happened. A lot of information is still kept secret, even though some classified information has been released since the end of the Cold War. Conspiracy theories about what our government was doing still abound.
Another thing about Vietnam was that we were bound by international treaties which meant (among other things) that we weren't really supposed to fight any kind of aggressive war. We had already (foolishly) ceded North Vietnam to the communists, so we put ourselves into a box, geopolitically speaking. There were fears that a U.S. invasion of North Vietnam would escalate the Cold War to dangerous proportions, and
that's what really made the difference. The British never had to worry about that, nor did the Romans. If Napoleon or Nicholas I had nuclear weapons, I'm sure the British would have taken that into consideration when formulating their geopolitical agenda.
Nixon ran on the platform of "peace with honor," so he wasn't signaling a U.S. loss or surrender. Many wars have been concluded honorably by mutual agreement, without a declared "winner" or "loser." Both sides decide they don't want to fight anymore, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Nixon was looking at the big picture which involved the USSR and Red China. By recognizing China, Nixon established a foundation for friendship and cooperation which was vital in our overall Cold War strategy against the Soviet Union. If that meant pulling out of Vietnam, then that's what had to be done. Considering that we had gained a powerful ally of convenience against the Soviets - and that we didn't lead ourselves into a nuclear war - it's probably the best decision that could have been made under the circumstances.
When North Vietnam broke the agreement and continued its war against South Vietnam, that may be where the "loss" occurred, since we didn't send our forces back and continue our military operations. But by that time, Nixon had already resigned in disgrace, inflation was out of control, OPEC quadrupled oil prices, and Ford was politically weak and embattled. Carter was even weaker than Ford, but even then, it would have been too late to try to do anything about Vietnam anyway. U.S. attentions had shifted towards the Middle East at that point.
reply
share