Should the United States be more like Europe?

[turinturambar]

I am no expert on the Vietnam war, but my view has always been that US troops were unprepared for a conventional war over there. In the sense that fighting in the jungles and the terrain was much harder for them than the VC. Do you mean to suggest that if they had well defined strategic goals then they would have done better?

This is true. It was an unconventional war and was difficult. However, we did have our hands tied in a way that made it impossible to win a "war". We were basically a huge defensive police force....kind of like Iraq but on a much larger scale.

Anyway, all this is threadjacking away from hovercar goodness.

I remember somebody a long time ago telling me that hover cars were just around the corner.

I'm still waiting, this would make my life much easier.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

But I still think anyone who claims America lost the war in Vietnam -- when the reality is clearly that the American people lost the will to fight -- is a fucking nutter.

Could you perhaps explain the difference between those two things?

Sure.

To lose a war implies that one was defeated militarily. Germany lost World War 2 to a superior military effort by the Allies. Japan lost the war in the Pacific to the superior military power of the US.

Vietnam was an example of a superpower engaging a vastly inferior military force in what was, until 2003, the most half-assed and incompetently run engagement in American history. Bush's Iraq War is only worse because his administration had Vietnam to draw lessons from, and yet somehow learned nothing (except, perhaps, to adapt to local terrain).

When I say Americans lost the will to fight, let's make it clear that they didn't lose the will to fight because it was beaten out of them (as was the case for Germany and Japan), but because American attitudes towards the use of American military power were changing and because American media coverage of the war and anti-war movement shifted away from a propaganda-driven coverage of the war. The loss of the strong, charismatic leadership of JFK probably played a role in this. Essentially the American people decided that other people's freedom was no longer worth American lives. The "Greatest Generation" had raised a generation unwilling to make meaningful sacrifices for other people's freedom.

LBJ's administration was divided and conflicted about what they were doing in Vietnam. As turintumbar noted, the military was forced to sit back and remain on the defensive rather than pressing their massive military advantage. When Nixon came into office he pressed harder and it was exceptionally unpopular. That left withdrawal as the only politically viable option. Further efforts to stop communism in SE Asia would be left to the CIA.

But it's ridiculous to suggest we lost the war. The Vietcong forces only advantages were better knowledge of the terrain and a populace to hide amongst. In the long run, those are pretty crappy advantages when the enemy has aircraft carriers and long range missiles.

At the end of the day it's like this: America was Superman, the Vietcong were Street Punks, South Vietnam was a lady with a purse, and just because Superman decided that lightly bruising his knuckles (seriously, the Allies lost more men in the months-long Operation Overlord, a small part of WW2, than in ten years of the active military engagement in Vietnam conflict) wasn't worth saving the lady with the purse, and flew off to leave her to the Punks.

That doesn't mean Superman lost. It just means he's a punk.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

I am no expert on the Vietnam war, but my view has always been that US troops were unprepared for a conventional war over there. In the sense that fighting in the jungles and the terrain was much harder for them than the VC. Do you mean to suggest that if they had well defined strategic goals then they would have done better?

Initially that was true -- the uS military expected the Vietcong to fight like the North Koreans i.e. conventionally -- but by the end of the war the US military was adapting its tactics and strategies to match the terrain and the war they were actually fighting.

[Ran]

But it's ridiculous to suggest we the glorious Soviet Union lost the war. The Vietcong mujahideen forces only advantages were better knowledge of the terrain and a populace to hide amongst. In the long run, those are pretty crappy advantages when the enemy has aircraft carriers and long range missiles.

I'm sure somewhere in the depths of the Kremlin, some old commissar has comforted himself with sentiments of this sort.

[Hereward]

I was going to raise the whole stabbed-in-the-back-while-the-glorious-German-Army-was-undefeated-and-still-on-occupied-territory bollocks, but your example works too.

[IheartTesla]

If only the US had some good old hovercrafts to navigate the treacherous jungles of Vietnam and engage Charlie........

[Shryke]

Sure.

To lose a war implies that one was defeated militarily. Germany lost World War 2 to a superior military effort by the Allies. Japan lost the war in the Pacific to the superior military power of the US.

Vietnam was an example of a superpower engaging a vastly inferior military force in what was, until 2003, the most half-assed and incompetently run engagement in American history. Bush's Iraq War is only worse because his administration had Vietnam to draw lessons from, and yet somehow learned nothing (except, perhaps, to adapt to local terrain).

When I say Americans lost the will to fight, let's make it clear that they didn't lose the will to fight because it was beaten out of them (as was the case for Germany and Japan), but because American attitudes towards the use of American military power were changing and because American media coverage of the war and anti-war movement shifted away from a propaganda-driven coverage of the war. The loss of the strong, charismatic leadership of JFK probably played a role in this. Essentially the American people decided that other people's freedom was no longer worth American lives. The "Greatest Generation" had raised a generation unwilling to make meaningful sacrifices for other people's freedom.

LBJ's administration was divided and conflicted about what they were doing in Vietnam. As turintumbar noted, the military was forced to sit back and remain on the defensive rather than pressing their massive military advantage. When Nixon came into office he pressed harder and it was exceptionally unpopular. That left withdrawal as the only politically viable option. Further efforts to stop communism in SE Asia would be left to the CIA.

But it's ridiculous to suggest we lost the war. The Vietcong forces only advantages were better knowledge of the terrain and a populace to hide amongst. In the long run, those are pretty crappy advantages when the enemy has aircraft carriers and long range missiles.

Except the Vietcong had the will to win and the US didn't. Which is why the US lost. All the hardware in the world won't help you if you lack the will to use it.

Your attempt to confine the term "militarily" solely to the technological and structural just shows more of why you don't understand a single fucking thing your talking about.

At the end of the day it's like this: America was Superman, the Vietcong were Street Punks, South Vietnam was a lady with a purse, and just because Superman decided that lightly bruising his knuckles (seriously, the Allies lost more men in the months-long Operation Overlord, a small part of WW2, than in ten years of the active military engagement in Vietnam conflict) wasn't worth saving the lady with the purse, and flew off to leave her to the Punks.

That doesn't mean Superman lost. It just means he's a punk.

Superman lacked the will to win the fight, so he retreated. Superman lost.

[Ran]

The American juggernaut had hovercrafts. Unfortunately, the hovercrafts lost the will to fight, picked up their skirts, and flounced home.

[RWHamel]

The American juggernaut had hovercrafts. Unfortunately, the hovercrafts lost the will to fight, picked up their skirts, and flounced home.

Besides that, they were too loud.

[Ran]

Well, what else can you expect out of American tourists?

[Hereward]

Would this be a good time to point out that hovercraft, like jump jets, Diego Garcia and the English language is something you ungrateful colonials stole from your erstwhile protectors?

[Sariel]

I've never lost a game of chess as my flatmate has yet to take my stereo

[Undead Dungeon Master]

Except the Vietcong had the will to win and the US didn't. Which is why the US lost. All the hardware in the world won't help you if you lack the will to use it.

Your attempt to confine the term "militarily" solely to the technological and structural just shows more of why you don't understand a single fucking thing your talking about.

Superman lacked the will to win the fight, so he retreated. Superman lost.

Sorry friend, you're just laboring under a very bizarre definition of "lost."

Following your definition of lost, if an adult man walks up to a toddler with a lollipop and punches that toddler in the head, and the toddler falls down, and the man walks away wihout taking the lollipop (having realized stealing candy from babies is wrong), then that man lost in a fight against a toddler.

That my friend, is a fucking stupid conclusion to come to. Yet that is exactly where your logic leads. Therefore I suggest it is you who "don't understand a single fucking thing your talking about."

[mormont]

"You know what your problem is, Archie? You don't like winners."

"Winners? Winners like, North Vietnam?"

"Shut up! We did not lose Vietnam! It was a tie!"

[litechick]

For crying out loud...

America lost the war in Vietnam but our military was not defeated.

Just stop it.

[ljkeane]

Sorry friend, you're just laboring under a very bizarre definition of "lost."

I'd think completely failing to achieve the objectives you set out with is a fairly good defininition of "lost".

[Maltaran]

Right, so for you, it only counts as losing if there's an actual military defeat. Never mind that South Vietnam fell to the Communists and the Americans ran home with their tails between their legs, the Viet Cong never won any battles so it doesn't count as a loss.

[RWHamel]

Would this be a good time to point out that hovercraft, like jump jets, Diego Garcia and the English language is something you ungrateful colonials stole from your erstwhile protectors?

Yes, but we always improve the original idea. :P :leaving:

[Undead Dungeon Master]

America lost the war in Vietnam but our military was not defeated.

But that is a self-contradicting statement. If we were not defeated, then we did not lose.

I'd think completely failing to achieve the objectives you set out with is a fairly good defininition of "lost".

We set out objectives? Most military historians agree that it was the failure to set quantifiable objectives that made it impossible to gauge our success in Vietnam.

Right, so for you, it only counts as losing if there's an actual military defeat. Never mind that South Vietnam fell to the Communists and the Americans ran home with their tails between their legs, the Viet Cong never won any battles so it doesn't count as a loss.

First of all, the Americans did not "run home with their tail between their legs." We were not driven out of Vietnam. We left of our own accord, irregardless of any action by the Vietcong.

Furthermore, you are grossly misrepresenting the facts. South Vietnam did not fall while Americans were in Vietnam. It was only after the US removed itself from the fight and stopped supporting South Vietnam that Saigon fell. But you are presenting it as if Saigon fell and then the US military left. That's a load of horseshit.

[Guest Ontology Interface Layer]

I'm curious to hear an elaboration on whether or not the US is the only one with this amazing ability to conclude a war without losing under conditions where it fails to attain any of it's goals and the enemy does attain all it's goals. Is this another unique snowflake situation?

And is it contingent on being the more powerful party or not? If we really lost the American Revolution, maybe we should take that loser Washington off our currencies.