alternatehistory.com

Inspired by this post asking what if we had sent 3 million troops to Vietnam (same level as US troops in Europe during WW2) instead of 500,000, and as someone who would be happy if LBJ ran and won in 68, I would like to posit the opposite question. What if our involvement in Vietnam was more subtle? As shown in Yugoslavia twice, as well as in Libya, and against ISIS, we don't need to launch a full scale war to defeat an enemy. If we had limited ourselves to bombing North Vietnam and the Ho Chi Minh trail, would we have kept the Viet Cong out? And would this be less controversial?
Top