WI: US Bombs Vietnamese Dikes

Not losing? If the US had bombed the dikes and somehow the South Vietnamese turned into a credible state that triumphed no one would care. Victory excuses a lot of sins.
That worked real well in Afghanistan (both Soviet and American occupations), Iraq, Ethiopia (Italians), etc. If the winning power is not seen as legitimate, they won't be in power long. Armed occupation has a varying shelf life.
 
That worked real well in Afghanistan (both Soviet and American occupations), Iraq, Ethiopia (Italians), etc. If the winning power is not seen as legitimate, they won't be in power long. Armed occupation has a varying shelf life.

Considering it did work for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan...
 
When survival is at stake, one tends to overlook certain details.
That's true. With Vietnam, there were so many variables, stress, and confusion that it's understandable to see what happened. The war itself was a gradual evolution of darker and darker acts, worthy of a Kafka novel. Like Joshua said, "The only way to win was not to play." If war requires you to sacrifice your soul, then did you really win?
 
Considering it did work for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan...
Afghanistan is still a mess (we're trying to talk to the Taliban because there really is no other option military wise) and Iraq only worked once Al Sadr was brought in (one of the locals we were fighting) and ISIS created a rally round the flag event.
 
Afghanistan is still a mess (we're trying to talk to the Taliban because there really is no other option military wise) and Iraq only worked once Al Sadr was brought in (one of the locals we were fighting) and ISIS created a rally round the flag event.

Like, sure. However, I meant that we successfully overthrew the government unlike in Vietnam
 

Puzzle

Donor
That worked real well in Afghanistan (both Soviet and American occupations), Iraq, Ethiopia (Italians), etc. If the winning power is not seen as legitimate, they won't be in power long. Armed occupation has a varying shelf life.
There’s a difference there in that North Vietnam was attacking the south. If the US is able to sufficiently degrade the efforts of the north by bombing the dikes they will have one because the attacks will largely stop. I’m not enough of an expert, or one at all, to say if bombing the dikes alone would work, but stopping foreign incursions seems like the very definition of a legitimate victory. Who would care about what the North thought?
 
Legitimacy ? What is the point of anything if the state ceases to exist ?
A state can exist without legitimacy. It won't last long, but it can exist as long as someone is willing to prop them up.

South Vietnam was increasingly seen as lacking legitimacy due to the corruption of those in power. Resettlement (intended to stop support for the VC but hated by many having the opposite effect), stealing of aid by government officials, random acts of violence by American forces on citizens: each of these undermined the South's legitimacy and fostered support for the VC who promised to end the abuse and suffering. You really think killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the north will reinforce the lost support of the rural population? It's counterproductive, will garner negative international outrage, and strengthen the VC. It also sets the precedent for worsening ops to destroy the enemy (they'll break if we use MORE force). Genocide is the inevitable result (kill them all and you win). Unless you have boots on the ground and local support, all you are doing is reinforcing this view of being the 'other.' So yeah, legitimacy is important if you want a state to succeed and the US would have done better with a less corrupt ally. Overwhelming force doesn't work when people hate you so much they'd rather die than surrender. Ask the Germans about Russia.
 
There’s a difference there in that North Vietnam was attacking the south. If the US is able to sufficiently degrade the efforts of the north by bombing the dikes they will have one because the attacks will largely stop. I’m not enough of an expert, or one at all, to say if bombing the dikes alone would work, but stopping foreign incursions seems like the very definition of a legitimate victory. Who would care about what the North thought?
The American public. It was the first televised war. You think all those starving refugees, and believe me the North would let the media in to film them, would win points in this conflict? I'm not saying the international community would support the North, I'm saying the US would lose moral legitimacy which would lead to a lot of problems down the road.

A great deal of Vietnam was a decentralized guerilla conflict. What exactly are you degrading? They moved weapons in primitive fashion, fought unconventionally, and endured crap conditions. We aren't talking armor, air, and naval forces, we're talking about guys with rifles and mortars which doesn't require vast amounts of industry. Unless you're intention is to wipe out the population, you aren't really doing more than double tapping rubble. The US either has to invade the North or clean up the mess which was failed policy in the South which strips the North of support.
 
Might give the chinese a good pretext to fully enter the war which is why the US in general attempted to be carefull about their targets.

A dubious prospect, given the ongoing massive Soviet buildup on their border and increasing clashes along said demarcation.
 
Like, sure. However, I meant that we successfully overthrew the government unlike in Vietnam
True.

The problem isn't winning battles it's having a plan for "after." It's when we lack a plan that things get messy.

Vietnam was something we stumbled into and just got sucked into deeper and deeper. We were supporting the French, then we were supporting the Southern Vietnamese, then we were advising the South, then we were fighting for the South, then we were enacting regime change in the South to make them conform to what we saw as supportive of American policy...

We were supporting colonialism, then a nation's sovereignty, and then a geopolitical position. It just kept getting muddier and nastier spreading into Laos and Cambodia destabilizing everything. When we finally stopped and asked what the hell are we even doing there no one had an answer.
 
That's true. With Vietnam, there were so many variables, stress, and confusion that it's understandable to see what happened. The war itself was a gradual evolution of darker and darker acts, worthy of a Kafka novel. Like Joshua said, "The only way to win was not to play." If war requires you to sacrifice your soul, then did you really win?

I'm lost here.

Are you talking about what happened OTL, what could have happened TTL or what should have happened in an ideal world?
 
Which presupposes that the Vietnam War was a war for survival.

It was to South Vietnam.

I was commenting on the sub-hypothesis of giving VNAF the means to bomb the North and looking the other way.

Which, unless one is a true believer in the Domino Theory is flat out wrong.

Not what I was talking about.
But there's always political survival at stake: what if Nixon had decided that a major offensive would have saved him after Watergate?
 

kernals12

Banned
Or what if Ford sees north Vietnam about to overrun Saigon and launches a last ditch air assault to save face before the election?
Then Carter's margin of victory widens. Americans already thought of their military as being like Nazis and a bombing run that kills 1 million people won't help.
 
The only ways that happens are either Goldwater wins in '64 or else we have a "Roaring Mouse" situation with North Vietnam involving concrete subs with North Vietnamese and/or Vietcong naval ensigns on them surfacing at Subic Bay, Okinawa, Jeju Island, and/or Pago Pago and lobbing missiles at naval and civilian vessels right and left. Possibly with the addition of Vietnamese actors (in the legal sense) pulling a 9/11 35-33 years early.
 
I'm lost here.

Are you talking about what happened OTL, what could have happened TTL or what should have happened in an ideal world?
What actually happened. The attacks on villages, importance of kill ratios, etc. Incursions into Laos that undermined a regional ally. The situation spiraled downward. Unless America agreed to stay, it wasn't going to get better. If anything it was a mini China and we were Japan. We owned the cities but not the countryside. The breakdown of military discipline, drug use, and allowing politicians to run the war didn't help either.

Bombing the dikes is merely increasing the "appearance" of victory by increasing collateral damage. "Look we destroyed the enemy's ability to wage war." Just like the touted kill ratios. "We killed these many VC. They're close to collapse." You kill their families, the North isn't going to stop; it's going to escalate.
 
We owned the cities but not the countryside.

After 1970, the VC were gone, and much of the countryside was under control.
That was due to a few things
Tet
RF/PF Militias worked
CIA Phoenix program

RVN fell from a conventional Blitzkrieg, not guerrilla insurrection
 

longsword14

Banned
You seem to have misunderstood.
SV ceased to exist in a conventional invasion from the North, remember ? What has legitimacy got to do with anything ? Saigon was not going to fall, short of an invasion that could deal with their standing army.
 
Last edited:
Top