Does A "Vietnam" Benefit a Nation?

[pzwicke]

In one of my random musing recently, I was questioning whether or not a "successful" nation must undergo its own version of a "Vietnam" in order to either stay "successful" or have its level of "success" increase?

When I was thinking about this, I realized that there were about 50,000 plus Americans who might repute Vietnam being a "success" for the United States. But, I think if you look at where the U.S. and its standing around the world is today, I think you could make the case that it has been "successful." So is this "success" due to its involvement in Vietnam or in spite of it?

Next, I tried to look at what other "successful" nations "Vietnams" might have been. For instance, would England's be the India Mutiny or the Boer Wars? The Seven Years War for Napoleonic France? The Winter War for the Soviet Union?

Finally, in keeping with the alternative history theme of this site, would these nations have been as ultimately "successful" without their own "Vietnam" analogies? Without their "Vietnams," how would they have developed alternatively?

 

[Emperor Julian]

I have no idea what you mean by "Vietnam". Is it "A lost war"? If so, I guess being able to lose a war without collapsing is a sign of a strong regime.

 

[Son of Sphinks]

I think that the consideration we need to have is that is the involvement in something like a "Vietnam War" comes from a combination of overextension and hubris. While I agree to an extent with the observation that the "Vietnam" for the British was the Boer War, the French experiences in both Indo-China and Algeria more fit this idea along with the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. It could also be argued by some with more knowledge than I that the American "War on Terror" is its second "Vietnam".

The British Empire was approaching its zenith at the time of the Boer War. And while the Boer War gave the British military experience in the field against a more modern enemy than it had faced since the Crimea, it didn't promote changes in doctrine or tactics. For the British, they faced a long, slow decline in Imperial authority that may or may not have been forstalled by both World Wars.

French expeience in Indo-China led to an unwillingness to "lose" Algeria, which made the war between the two even more brutal. The loss of the parts of Algeria that had been seen as French by France for more than 100 years have probably colored their relations with Arab nations and its Arabic speaking citizens for generations since.

The Soviets went from trying to prop up a left leaning government to having to occupy the country to keep insurgents from beating back government forces. (Sound familiar?) The strain on the system finally forced a retreat, leaving a power vaccum that was filled by religious radicals who wanted to keep the infidels out and abolish any traces of modernity.

Even in America, the failure of the American military to be victorious in Vietnam led to a downturn in the national psyche. Couple this with the general economic downturn experienced in the 70's and early 80's and you get the picture of a Great Power finding out it wasn't as great as it thought it was. The world it had seen from inside it's thought bubble wasn't what was actually out there.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Kipling (not a Political soul mate of mine) Sumarised the Boer War

"Let us now admit it , as business people should

They taught us no end of a lesson

It will do us no end of good"

 

[pzwicke]

Your comment on the U.S. is what I am talking about. Because of the loss and the impact of that loss on the American people during the 70s and 80s, I think it forced American leaders to review how they would fight in the future, i.e. no more conscription/all volunteer military, that wound up being for the better. I would also contend that English experiences in the Boer War would lead to changes, like the Lee-Enfield for instance, that brought more success later on.