What's delusional and troubling is the degree to which this war is completely misunderstood in pop culture.
The US handily won the Vietnam war, full stop.
In classical terms is was a clear and unambiguous outright victory.
Think of Korea for example: a stalemate, whereas the US obliterated their oppponents in Vietnam.
The US hardly lost a single battle and losses in the war are consistent with the losses forces have in a 'regular war' - it's just that they seem large today's because the US hasn't fought against capable forces. Losses were consistent with Korean war, just a decade previous.
The Vietnam experience is often misunderstood because the US technically did spend a very long time there, they had trouble initially with the South Vietnamese insurgency, because the US eventually resorted to heavy bombing campaigns with too many civilian casualties, and because of complex political issues such as North Vietnamese forces hiding out in Cambodia etc..
But really the 'hard war' was not very long - you can see the troop buildup and then withdrawal here [1]
The US 'under committed' to the effort early on, and then did a slower build up to defeat the insurgency, and relatively handily defeated them after the buildup and then withdrew after a major air campaign.
The length of direct engagement by US forces in Vietnam is shorter than for Iraq and Afghanistan, and roughly on par with Korea. The number of US casualties was roughly on par with Korea as well.
The Vietnam war is understood by most people via Hollywood films and very poorly conceived documentaries. It was a turning point in some ways because it's the first time that American citizens were given insight into how horrible war actually is (i.e. reporters on the front lines etc.).
>The US handily won the Vietnam war, full stop.
>In classical terms is was a clear and unambiguous outright victory.
The only measure of success is whether or not you accomplish your objectives. The US did not accomplish its objectives in Vietnam of keeping a US-friendly government in power. Regardless of tactical measures of success, the US failed in its strategic objectives. I agree that popular culture has not accurately portrayed the Vietnam conflict, but saying that the US won in Vietnam is completely untrue.
" The US did not accomplish its objectives in Vietnam of keeping a US-friendly government in power"
Yes. They did. While there was conflict.
Then they left, and effectively abandoned those objectives.
When the North Vietnamese rebuilt it's army and re-invaded the South - propping up the S. Vietnamese government was obviously no longer a military objective, and barely a political one.
So the US won a war, withdrew, and then abandoned their ally.
The US failed to achieve a South Vietnamese gov't that had reasonable support from the general populace, which was nominally on the list of US policy goals since the beginning, but was gamed at every step of the way.
Until such was achieved, we had _always_ lost the war. Winning battles, paid for with American blood, was only a means of temporarily staving off the likely collapse for another year or two.
As for "abandoned", what does that even mean? The South had: large material advantages in artillery, vehicles, and AFVs; a significant air force (2000 craft), plus >10 years of a huge US training effort.
So the US won a war, withdrew, and then abandoned their ally.
Which is crazy.
Sounds an awful lot like our government was gaming their "target" just to say they achieved it, even though hitting the target wasn't in everyone's best interests.
What's delusional and troubling is the degree to which this war is completely misunderstood in pop culture.
The US handily won the Vietnam war, full stop.
In classical terms is was a clear and unambiguous outright victory.
Think of Korea for example: a stalemate, whereas the US obliterated their oppponents in Vietnam.
The US hardly lost a single battle and losses in the war are consistent with the losses forces have in a 'regular war' - it's just that they seem large today's because the US hasn't fought against capable forces. Losses were consistent with Korean war, just a decade previous.
The Vietnam experience is often misunderstood because the US technically did spend a very long time there, they had trouble initially with the South Vietnamese insurgency, because the US eventually resorted to heavy bombing campaigns with too many civilian casualties, and because of complex political issues such as North Vietnamese forces hiding out in Cambodia etc..
But really the 'hard war' was not very long - you can see the troop buildup and then withdrawal here [1]
The US 'under committed' to the effort early on, and then did a slower build up to defeat the insurgency, and relatively handily defeated them after the buildup and then withdrew after a major air campaign.
The length of direct engagement by US forces in Vietnam is shorter than for Iraq and Afghanistan, and roughly on par with Korea. The number of US casualties was roughly on par with Korea as well.
The Vietnam war is understood by most people via Hollywood films and very poorly conceived documentaries. It was a turning point in some ways because it's the first time that American citizens were given insight into how horrible war actually is (i.e. reporters on the front lines etc.).
[1] http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm