President Goldwater

Goldwater could claim, Congress notwithstanding, that the United States was obligated to help South Vietnam defend itself should North Vietnam break the treaty. The trick would not be the air campaign, but resupplying the ARVN, which Congress had all but cut off. Goldwater could draw down on American stocks and then demand that Congress resupply them.

The trick would be, would Goldwater be successful? If so, then he gets reelected easily.

On the other hand, would Giap have even tried an offensive in 1975 were Goldwater President? Think about it.
 
Interesting, I never thought about the psychological effect of a Goldwater presidency on the North Vietnamese but that is something to think about.
Goldwater's popularity would be helped by saving South Vietnam, particularly if he can do with just the Air Force. There would low numbers of killed, wounded and captured. I still don't see him winning in 1976. The economy is bad and not only does he carry the baggage of 1964 but he would have made embarrassing statements as presidents. They guys political skills were lacking in many respects.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
By the time this TL diverges there was no money available for military operations in Vietnam and there were no significant forces in Vietnam outside of the US controlled area in Saigon near the Embassy.

The US Armed forces never actually lost a battle with the NVA or the VC. The Vietnam War was lost at home. And by 1974/75 with 58,000 American soldiers dead and nothing to show for it the war was HUGELY unpopular. Any move made by Goldwater to get the USA reinvolved in Indochina on the ground would have been political suicide and possibly resulted in his impeachment. It most certainly would have resulted in civil unrest at home.
Tell that to the survivors of the Lang Vie Special Forces Camp in Quan Tri province, or the survivers of 2/7 Cav at LZ Albany during the Ia Drang battles made famous by Hal Moore.

Here are the descriptions of several other lost battles at this URL:

http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

The enemy was not fighting with WWII tactics. They weren't crazy enough to try and directly take on US fire power unless they had the advantage or had ulterior motives in doing so.

The Vietnam war was not lost at home, not among the population outside of Washington DC anyway.

It was the policy that was flawed. There was no over all strategy. No goals were set until Nixon came up with the Vietnamization goals --something akin to what Kennedy was starting to do before he was assassinated. None of the senior commanders could tell you what the US Military was trying to achieve or what were the US interests in the conflict.

With a coherent policy and clear military objectives, the US population would not have turned against the war at the rate that existed OTL. The loss of Vietnam can be placed squarely on the heads of the politicians of that time.

 
Top