Delta Force
Banned
Which was more winnable, the United States intervention in Vietnam or the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan?
Which Was More Winnable: Vietnam or Afghanistan?
- Thread starter Delta Force
- Start date
Possibly Vietnam as the driving force for VietCong requirement was a dire for land reform and if that had been preformed earlier and the government kept more stable it would make South Vietnam in a more sustainable potation then Soviet Afghanistan where the insurgents wanted the USSR out.
Last edited:
Vietnam, all the US had to do was come up with a competent scheme to wear out the Viet Cong so that South Vietnam's existence is secured; probably should have taken a page from the Malay Emergency.
I know few Afghanies from 80-ties who wanted US supported jihadists out. But thry were biased I guess ss they were studying in Czechoslovakia and fro pro givernment families. Afghanistan was to complicated so complicated we have US in now fighting movements they werd supporting some 40 years ago. Soviets retreated from fighting Taliban. Who is now fighting these freedom fighters? Isnt't that epic?
Actually the Taliban didn't exist until 1991 so the Soviets didn't retreat from them and further there was actually a period of civil war before the Taliban in 1996 preformed a blitzkrieg and secured Souther Afghanistan and Kabul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
I would suggest going to the page and looking at the individual references however the point that the Taliban didn't fight against the Soviets as an ordination is I believe already proved.
Last edited:
Vietnam.
Militarily the US inflicted severe defeats on the Communists. On multiple times, the only thing that kept Hanoi in the war was their belief that the anti-war movement would win it for them. If the US honored its commitments to South Vietnam after it withdrew, South Vietnam would likely have survived until a point in the eighties when the North's economy could no longer wage war. Doi Moi started in 1986 barely ten years after they won.
The US problem was morale and will. The Soviet problem included that as well but additionally had economic problems and that atheist Communism was more alien to Afghan culture than the US represented in Vietnamese culture.
Militarily the US inflicted severe defeats on the Communists. On multiple times, the only thing that kept Hanoi in the war was their belief that the anti-war movement would win it for them. If the US honored its commitments to South Vietnam after it withdrew, South Vietnam would likely have survived until a point in the eighties when the North's economy could no longer wage war. Doi Moi started in 1986 barely ten years after they won.
The US problem was morale and will. The Soviet problem included that as well but additionally had economic problems and that atheist Communism was more alien to Afghan culture than the US represented in Vietnamese culture.
aleasp
Banned
This depends on how you define winning. In Vietnam, the US was not defeated on the battlefield, and we might still be there if we had been willing to continue to make the commitment of money and American lives, but it's doubtful that we would be any closer to anything that we could reasonably describe as victory. US forces in Afghanistan have not been defeated, but it's hard to see any benefit in their continued presence. We invaded Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and capture Osama Bin Laden, we should have began a withdrawal the day after Bin Laden was killed, and at that point we could have plausibly called it a victory.
aleasp
Banned
The US cannot fix all of the world's problems. Military force should be used only to defend ourselves or our allies against an imminent threat, and then only as a last resort. Any decision to go to war should be made only after the following questions have been answered: 1. What is our objective? 2. What resources will be required in order to achieve this objective? 3. How will we pay for it? 4. Is the benefit worth the cost? Can we look our wounded servicemen, or the parents, widows and orphaned children of our dead servicemen in the eye and tell them that their sacrifice was worthwhile?
aleasp
Banned
Pardon me for getting off the subject in my previous posts. The Soviets likewise were not defeated on the battlefield, and could potentially still be in Afghanistan had they not gone bankrupt, and had they been willing to make the continued commitment of resources. As with the US in Vietnam, it's doubtful that they would be any closer to victory.
History Learner
Banned
The US did defeat the Viet Cong, it was the NVA that took Saigon in 1975. This gets forgotten a lot, but when the US left in 1972/1973 the VC were no longer much of a threat and the ARVN was more than capable of holding them down. What happened though was that the Democratic congress, after Watergate, tied Nixon and later Ford's hand on providing further aerial and logistics support. In particular, and this was partly due to Arab oil embargoes as well, the US stopped sending oil supplies and this resulted in the South Vietnamese armored forces being largely immobilized to counter the NVA come 1975. Further, the USAF was not allowed to launch air strikes against the NVA or the North as well. All this is especially tragic when one realizes 1975 was really the last shot the North had to take South Vietnam, thanks to the Inter-Communist split that was coming in full force (Just a few short years later, China itself would get into a war with the now unified Vietnam). Once the late 70s hit, China will cut aid and force the North on to the defense in order to safeguard both borders while the South would finally come into its own.
Long story short, no Watergate or a more willing Congress and South Vietnam will survive (And thus the US wins).
Long story short, no Watergate or a more willing Congress and South Vietnam will survive (And thus the US wins).
The soviets though did not try as hard in Afghanistan. They never committed as many forces to the country as the US had in Vietnam and they lost only one fifth to one third the number of people in Afghanistan as the US lost in Vnam.
Last edited:
Thank you for correcting me for calling freedom loving jihadiest fighting Soviets Taliban. Otherwise nothing much change on what a said. We trained freedom fighters, who were actually religius fanatics with mentality as if their lived in 18 or 19th century. Now our soldiers are dying fighting them. That's what I call success.
All I was saying was the Taliban didn't as an organisation fight the Soviets.
All I said was thank you for time corection. My mistake in expressing myself otherwise I am standing behind my opinion on these so called freedom fighters. It is funny how US or Russians are able to support movements which are questionable. Like Russians now being cozy in western Europe with ultra right but in Ukraine they are talking about Nazi Bandera supporters. Which well they are. It is shame Ukrainians are worshipping that scum Bandera even if understanable.