Victory in Vietnam?
- Thread starter lounge60
- Start date
Not without changing the fundamental nature of the war and a very early PoD (no Korean war, something like that).
The problem for the US is the war is asymmetric. The US was not trying to unite the country, in part because of the history of the Korean war, fear of getting into war with China, etc. They are simply fighting a necessarily limited war to maintain the status quo. This is the type of war the US has always been worst at (e.g. Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, now Iraq) because eventually the public gets fed up.
On the other hand, NV, is led by people prominent in the independence struggle, is trying to unite the country, and simply needs to stick at their war until the US gets bored or gives up.
You could say, well maybe, the US could inflict so much pain on NV, that they give up. I don't see that happening because look at NV's losses in the war - they are grisly in the extreme - look a the amount of bombs dropped on NV during the war - and also remember the war fighting supply of NV was beyond the reach of US bombing (in China and Russia). Also, I don't think the US or world opinion would tolerate virtually wiping out NV's population, or at least ending the country's existence as a civilized society (which is probably what would be required).
The problem for the US is the war is asymmetric. The US was not trying to unite the country, in part because of the history of the Korean war, fear of getting into war with China, etc. They are simply fighting a necessarily limited war to maintain the status quo. This is the type of war the US has always been worst at (e.g. Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, now Iraq) because eventually the public gets fed up.
On the other hand, NV, is led by people prominent in the independence struggle, is trying to unite the country, and simply needs to stick at their war until the US gets bored or gives up.
You could say, well maybe, the US could inflict so much pain on NV, that they give up. I don't see that happening because look at NV's losses in the war - they are grisly in the extreme - look a the amount of bombs dropped on NV during the war - and also remember the war fighting supply of NV was beyond the reach of US bombing (in China and Russia). Also, I don't think the US or world opinion would tolerate virtually wiping out NV's population, or at least ending the country's existence as a civilized society (which is probably what would be required).
Aozhouhuaren
Banned
I'm not sure how victory could be accomplished strategically, since obviously I did not fight in the war nor am I a war strategist, but if you eliminated somehow the enormous presence of media ie newspaper outlets, TV stations reporting on the war back to the American public, it might buy some time for the politicians and soldiers stationed in Vietnam before the American public gets true hold of the whole situation and force mass withdrawal.
More time I heard from some is all the American army really needed to achieve victory, of course, what would the geo-political impacts be of an American victory, would Vietnam be another puppet state of the US or would independence be granted with a American presence to ensure continual safety?
More time I heard from some is all the American army really needed to achieve victory, of course, what would the geo-political impacts be of an American victory, would Vietnam be another puppet state of the US or would independence be granted with a American presence to ensure continual safety?
Xen
Banned
Hmm a couple of things could be done, go on a hearts and minds campaign for the people of Vietnam, take and hold land, none of this take and give back and take back later crap. There is also a plausibility of working with Red China, they were having border problems with the USSR which led to a small short lived war that cost both sides thousands of soldiers.
If this happens before the Tet Offensive or the US intelligence gets word (perhaps through the Chinese) of the details of the attack and turn it into the Tet Defensive (could you imagine the condemnation the US will receive for breaking the truce?). Move north to Hanoi, and if possible decapitate the North Vietnamese government. Fighting will continue well into the 1980s and would likely die out as Communism collapses.
I am no expert but this might work.
If this happens before the Tet Offensive or the US intelligence gets word (perhaps through the Chinese) of the details of the attack and turn it into the Tet Defensive (could you imagine the condemnation the US will receive for breaking the truce?). Move north to Hanoi, and if possible decapitate the North Vietnamese government. Fighting will continue well into the 1980s and would likely die out as Communism collapses.
I am no expert but this might work.
US intelligence knew about the Tet offensive. It just didn't know what to do with the intelligence. In any case, Tet was a military defeat for the VC, but a political victory by the mere fact that they were able to launch an offensive, and apparently had guerillas in all areas of the country. Better US anticipatory moves to the offensive doesn't change that.
Take and hold ground? There were not nearly enough US combat troops in the country. In any case, tinkering with tactics is not going to change the outcome: The US won every significant battle it fought in the war, already, so better tactics doesn't make that much difference.
Take and hold ground? There were not nearly enough US combat troops in the country. In any case, tinkering with tactics is not going to change the outcome: The US won every significant battle it fought in the war, already, so better tactics doesn't make that much difference.
A strategic victory would likely be the accomplishment of the policy goal for Vietnam in the first place; to support a nationalist alternative to a communist government/movement.
That goal worked elsewhere; Korea, the Philippines, across Latin America, parts of India and Central Asia, etc. Perhaps, and this is pure conjecture here, one reason that it didn't work was because Vietnam wasn't centralized/modernized/developed enough for a nationalist government to enforce control on its own citizens, while the communists had a more widespread presence.
No Watergate. Nixon remains in power, and is popular for his foreign policy (though OPEC plus inflation is still gonna screw the economy) but he makes it clear to the North Vietnamese that he's not willing to lose the face caused by a takeover of the RVN while he's in power. That punts the NVA offensive to 1976.
Another Republican victory, and by this time South Vietnam has managed to become reasonably well-established, and is starting to gain on the North in economic terms.
Another Republican victory, and by this time South Vietnam has managed to become reasonably well-established, and is starting to gain on the North in economic terms.
Just have the Church-Case amendment vetoed (or was it Case-Church?
) and SVN can be resupplied with bullets. As the ARVN did not collapse till it ran out of ammo, resupply and US Air Force support should be more than enough to defeat the invasion.There were two major differences between Korea and Vietnam. S. Korea is surrounded by water on 3 sides, so there could be no communist infiltration from the west, as happened from Cambodia into Vietnam. And there was no S. Korean version of the VC. So this war was, at least, a conventional one.
How to win in Vietnam? Well, to start with, you have to take a 'damn the torpedoes' approach, and not care if China gets in or not; then invade the north, maybe bomb Hanoi and Haiphong to death, cause a Tokyo-like firestorm, make them think that it just isn't worth trying to get the south back. You still have the VC, but without the north, they gradually wither, until they are just a nuisance. Of course, to do any of this, you have to have a president, and a large portion of the Congress, who doesn't give a shit about world opinion. They need also to put the fear of God into Red China, to keep their asses out of it, and also to use some sort of carrot and stick tactic on South Vietnam, to make ARVN effective, instead of an army that was full of gutless cowards, as it was in OTL.
How to win in Vietnam? Well, to start with, you have to take a 'damn the torpedoes' approach, and not care if China gets in or not; then invade the north, maybe bomb Hanoi and Haiphong to death, cause a Tokyo-like firestorm, make them think that it just isn't worth trying to get the south back. You still have the VC, but without the north, they gradually wither, until they are just a nuisance. Of course, to do any of this, you have to have a president, and a large portion of the Congress, who doesn't give a shit about world opinion. They need also to put the fear of God into Red China, to keep their asses out of it, and also to use some sort of carrot and stick tactic on South Vietnam, to make ARVN effective, instead of an army that was full of gutless cowards, as it was in OTL.
The ONLY Way to Really Win in Vietnam, was Not to Fight The War in The First Place ...
After The Illegal Election of Ngo Dihn Diem in 1955, All Legitimacy for The South's Government Went Right Out The Window ...
If However, The US had Simply Backed Ho Chi Mihn's Recommendation of a Reconciliation Election, they Could Have Easily Out Spent The Communists and Brought Vietnam into their Camp that Way!
Westmoreland (COMMACV) said before he died that there was a plan that would've forced NVN to quit the war; invade Laos and cut off the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Three divisions (1st Air Cav, 4th ID, and 1st Marine) were to move into Southern and Central Laos, as far as Tchepone, and "seize, occupy, and defend" all known and suspected NVA base areas. A Thai division was to come in (there was a Thai brigade that fought in the Saigon and Cambodian border areas from 1967-70) and link up with the forces coming in from SVN. And to block the trailhead: an Amphibious and airborne assault (173rd Airborne Brigade and 3rd Marine Division) to land in NVN north of Vinh, and advance to cut off the Mu Gia Pass, with Army forces following up behind the Marines and Airborne. Result: the trail is blocked, and the VC/NVA down south are isolated from the North. The GAME WARDEN/MARKET TIME naval interdiction campaign prevents moving any significant supplies from the North via sea, and fearful of U.S. action, Sianhouk orders the NVA and VC in Cambodia out of the country. To try and reopen the trail, the NVA in the North has to manuver and fight conventionally, not as insurgents. U.S. air and naval superiority makes it impossible to retake the Pass, and Hanoi throws in the towel. The only opposition to implementing the plan was (as usual) from the State Department: "Laos is neutral, and we'd be violating Laotian neutrality." Well, Mr. Striped-pants diplomat, what do you think the North Vietnamese Army's doing in Laos? They sure as hell aren't tourists. And there was no way the Soviets were going to intervene, and the Chinese are busy with their own internal problems (read: Cultural Revolution). Could it have worked: maybe. But we'll never know.
I don't think it was possible to "win" the Vietnam war without
a lot of risk.
The problem is Communist China would never allowed it and
would have massively intervened in the conflict. My wife who
is Chinese has told me repeatedly, that the Chinese people
shared half of their food with the NV during those years and
would have given the NV anything they needed. She was a
child during those years in China.
It would be really stupid to escalate the war over some macho
desire to win a war that should never have been fought. If the
Chinese intervened in NV militarily, it would have ended up like
Korea and I wonder how the US public would have accepted
another Korea situation in Vietnam.
a lot of risk.
The problem is Communist China would never allowed it and
would have massively intervened in the conflict. My wife who
is Chinese has told me repeatedly, that the Chinese people
shared half of their food with the NV during those years and
would have given the NV anything they needed. She was a
child during those years in China.
It would be really stupid to escalate the war over some macho
desire to win a war that should never have been fought. If the
Chinese intervened in NV militarily, it would have ended up like
Korea and I wonder how the US public would have accepted
another Korea situation in Vietnam.
How would you occupy Laos when you couldn't occupy South Vietnam? An even larger army would need to be drafted to occupy more territory.
Both Giap and Dung (NVN's Defense Minister and CINC, and Chief of Staff of the NVA and brainchild of the final 1975 NVA offensice) have been interviewed by Western Historians and they have stated that the main fear of the North Vietnamese was such an attack into Laos and the Panhandle of
NVN. It would've forced the NVA and VC to abandon guerilla warfare and come out into the open. At the time the Laos option was being considered (1966-67), there was but a single NVA armored regiment, and though the NVA used armor very effectively in 1972 and 1975, they wouldn't have been so lucky in 1967. Both Giap and Dung basically admit that if the trail in Laos is severed-permanently, and the Mu Gia Pass and Panhandle of NVN's occupied by U.S. forces, the North Vietnamese would've had to quit the war. The only opposition, like I said, was the State Department having the President's ear (and he learned the lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis too well-there was no way that the Soviets would've gone to war to "save" North Vietnam, and the Chinese were too busy with the Cultural Revolution to go into North Vietnam.). The Striped-Pants bunch are very useful, but if the NVN are violating Laotian neutrality, that enables YOU to put troops into Laos and drive the NVA out.
NVN. It would've forced the NVA and VC to abandon guerilla warfare and come out into the open. At the time the Laos option was being considered (1966-67), there was but a single NVA armored regiment, and though the NVA used armor very effectively in 1972 and 1975, they wouldn't have been so lucky in 1967. Both Giap and Dung basically admit that if the trail in Laos is severed-permanently, and the Mu Gia Pass and Panhandle of NVN's occupied by U.S. forces, the North Vietnamese would've had to quit the war. The only opposition, like I said, was the State Department having the President's ear (and he learned the lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis too well-there was no way that the Soviets would've gone to war to "save" North Vietnam, and the Chinese were too busy with the Cultural Revolution to go into North Vietnam.). The Striped-Pants bunch are very useful, but if the NVN are violating Laotian neutrality, that enables YOU to put troops into Laos and drive the NVA out.
A number of possibilities
1. Vietnam was won or lost on the streets of America: Vietnam era embedding of journalists and /or WWII style censorship of war footage.
2. Stronger American hand at peace conference: Kissinger now knows he probably could've gotten more concessions(withdrawal of North Vietnamese troops from South Vietnam). Giving the RVN a better chance of survival.
3. Continued American financial and military support RVN. As stated earlier, in OTL the ARVN fought well until the congress ended US support.
All three of these options were possible. The first guarantees the next two. The second gives the US more bragging rights in the Peace with honor category. The third has the RVN survive until a negotiated settlement and reunification in the 80's-90's period.
1. Vietnam was won or lost on the streets of America: Vietnam era embedding of journalists and /or WWII style censorship of war footage.
2. Stronger American hand at peace conference: Kissinger now knows he probably could've gotten more concessions(withdrawal of North Vietnamese troops from South Vietnam). Giving the RVN a better chance of survival.
3. Continued American financial and military support RVN. As stated earlier, in OTL the ARVN fought well until the congress ended US support.
All three of these options were possible. The first guarantees the next two. The second gives the US more bragging rights in the Peace with honor category. The third has the RVN survive until a negotiated settlement and reunification in the 80's-90's period.
Have LBJ run for a second(third?) term, and get re-elected.
"Vietnamization" would have to mean something very different. Rather than gradual troop withdrawl, it would have to have might full commitment by the US. Every man available would have to go.
Of course, this would have done severe damage to the already unpopular war effort. Maybe the US forces Canada to turn over all the draft dodgers?
In my opinion, there was just no way the US could win that war. Militarily, we did win every major battle, but ideologically the NVA and VC held the high ground. All they wanted was to unite a common country under one flag, but we were so dead set on crushing communism anywhere that we would look for any old chance to defeat it.
"Vietnamization" would have to mean something very different. Rather than gradual troop withdrawl, it would have to have might full commitment by the US. Every man available would have to go.
Of course, this would have done severe damage to the already unpopular war effort. Maybe the US forces Canada to turn over all the draft dodgers?
In my opinion, there was just no way the US could win that war. Militarily, we did win every major battle, but ideologically the NVA and VC held the high ground. All they wanted was to unite a common country under one flag, but we were so dead set on crushing communism anywhere that we would look for any old chance to defeat it.
Have the United States support someone who isn't a Diem brother, someone who actually will hold the election in 1956. Cut off the rage, the budding anti-Diem guerrilla movement in the ROV, the disillusionment with the Saigon regime and budding support for the Hanoi reds, and if the US still manages to get involved for whatever reason in the Sixties, it should have a bit easier job to do.