Did America Lose the Vietnam War?

[Bakis]

So winning is not an option?

Do you think America made the best choice they could make by leaving?

If I quit a job because I want to move somewhere else, does that mean I lost my job? No, it means my priorities shifted, I decided it was more important to live in a better area, so I quit. It's not the perfect comparison, but just because one shifts their priorities and changes their original plan doesn't mean they lose. They wasted time and lives, of course, just like quitting my job and moving costs time and money, but if it's the best choice, we do it. It's just not reasonable to count such a decision as a loss.

You and I both know if America wanted to, they would have been able to eliminate every single Vietcong out there. It wouldn't be a good way to handle it, but we definitely had the means to do so. We weren't at risk of a loss. It just wasn't worth it to win. Like I said before, we neither won nor lost. But also a draw doesn't make much sense. It just ended. Like a story half-finished. No good or bad ending, just cut off. No resolution to either side.

Am I correct if I interpret your post as "the US could not win so they pulled out hence they did not lose"?
In my view they entered the conflict, it then became clear that the US public as well as the rest of the world would not tollerate increased civilian death tolls (or that of US soldiers), hence the army could not do all in its power to win the war.
That still does not change the fact (in my view) that the US entered the war and were forced to withdraw without fulfilling their goals.

That is what it boils down to, not why they were not able to achieve their goals cos that is not important but that
they could not achive them. Hence a loss.

Obviously there can be a draw but that has to be about single events. The US started it presence in the 1950ies and pulled back 1973 if I remember correctly.
That is a very serious commitment which blows the 'draw' argument up in flames.

[Deleted]

I don't know how this is even a discussion, America lost and wasted a ton of lives/money doing it

[Fuger]

I don't know how this is even a discussion, America lost and wasted a ton of lives/money doing it

If it was actually a War. Yes.

Politicians are stupid and should not lead armies.

[Chaosrider]

First off, there was no "War". The US never declared war, so it should be called the Vietnam Conflict. That being said, we failed our primary military objective so we pulled out. Since it wasn't a war, we did not win or lose.

[Fuger]

First off, there was no "War". The US never declared war, so it should be called the Vietnam Conflict. That being said, we failed our primary military objective so we pulled out. Since it wasn't a war, we did not win or lose.

If we did declare War however I believe the newly formed branch of the military would go to town.

[Deleted]

You're making the rather odd statement that the goal of the military in a war is to kill as many people as possible...

I do hope you know that it isn't. The military should always take the best route to to take their objectives, gain control and ultimately win the war. If it was a tactical loss then it was a loss plain and simple.

Inb4 people flood this thread saying "USA WOULD HAVE WON IF WE HAD KILLED ALL OF THEM LOL!", completely ignoring any shred of reality as they type.

i agree, if you go by this guy's logic the nazi's won world war 2.

[Jackmoves]

First off, there was no "War". The US never declared war, so it should be called the Vietnam Conflict. That being said, we failed our primary military objective so we pulled out. Since it wasn't a war, we did not win or lose.

Doesn't matter if it's declared or not, an act of agression is pretty much the definition of a war, the US stated that North Vietnam attacked their navy I think, which made them retaliate. Anyways, it doesn't matter whom attacked first, thats only important if you want to define who was the agressor in the conflict between the forces of the US and NV.

What is aggression?

The UN definition is based on actions not words - a declaration of war doesn't feature in the list. Instead it includes such acts as:

the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State
any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack
any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof
bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State
the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State
blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State
attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State
use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of that State, in contravention of that agreement (e.g. overstaying permission for the army of state A to stay on the territory of state B)
the action of a State in allowing its territory to be used by another State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State
sending by or on behalf of a State armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such seriousness as to amount to the acts listed above

[Deleted]

I see some people commenting that the "US Forces" lost the war, and that is a total myth. From a Soldiers stand point, "Did America lose the war?" Well Soldiers fought the damn war, which makes up less than 1% of the US Population, so the real question is "Did US Troops lose the war?" The answer is NO. As a whole, yes our governments plan for ending the spread of communism failed. However, the troops did not fail in any way.

i find this very naive, i guarantee there were troop failures somewhere, there always is.

[Flutterguy]

From a military standpoint, the US was actually doing quite well, but was hamstrung and unable to push the conflict into enemy territory. From a political standpoint, it lost too much support to sustain and therefore was ended at the cost of millions of south Vietnamese lives.

It was a prime example of why politicians should not run wars.

[Deleted]

I'd say we lost the war, but my history teacher said that it could be viewed as either a draw, a victory, or a defeat.

Your teacher is right. It can be viewed as a draw, a victory, or a defeat, depending on which criteria you choose to use.

Victory: The US killed far more enemy Vietnamese than vice versa, in addition, the entire conflict took place in Vietnam, US territory remained unscathed. Expressed in losses, the US won.
Draw: The US failed to secure Vietnam, but Vietnam didn't threaten the US either. Both sides ended in control of their own territory, therefore it was a draw.
Defeat: The US failed to achieve its objectives, and spent a huge amount of resources pursuing them.

Evaluation of the outcomes in Iraq and Afghanstan presents even greater problems.

In my opinion the entire concept of victory/defeat is meaningless for conflicts like this.

---------- Post added 2012-05-08 at 02:35 PM ----------

From a military standpoint, the US was actually doing quite well, but was hamstrung and unable to push the conflict into enemy territory. From a political standpoint, it lost too much support to sustain and therefore was ended at the cost of millions of south Vietnamese lives.

It was a prime example of why politicians should not run wars.

War is the continuation of politics through military means - von Clausewitz.

In other words: War is a form of politics. Which means war is by definition run by political leaders. They can be elected politicians, or a military dictatorship - take your pick.

For Vietnam this meant that while US politicians wanted to secure a favourable outcome in Vietnam, they did not want to risk escallation of the conflict into war with China, or worse, with the Soviet Union. For very good and obvious reasons.

ETA: What you're effectively arguing for is to put the military in charge of foreign policy.

---------- Post added 2012-05-08 at 02:42 PM ----------

Saying U.S. lost the war is like saying Russia lost World War I because the communists took over and ordered all troops to quit advancing.

Considering Russia signed a peace treaty with Germany surrendering large amounts of territory, it is very reasonable to say Russia lost WWI.

[Bakis]

First off, there was no "War". The US never declared war, so it should be called the Vietnam Conflict. That being said, we failed our primary military objective so we pulled out. Since it wasn't a war, we did not win or lose.

Funny since both the leading politicians, president, military at the time labeled it a war.
Do me a favor, walk up to a vet and say "it wasnt a war", im pretty sure he will yell at you to leave his property before he go get his shotgun.


Some people find it hard to coop with truths which they do not like.

Also:
What is aggression?

The UN definition is based on actions not words - a declaration of war doesn't feature in the list. Instead it includes such acts as:

the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State
any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack
any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof
bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State
the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State
blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State
attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State
use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of that State, in contravention of that agreement (e.g. overstaying permission for the army of state A to stay on the territory of state B)
the action of a State in allowing its territory to be used by another State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State
sending by or on behalf of a State armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such seriousness as to amount to the acts listed above

[Forfax]

Some kids trolling, or Captain America voted.

lol +1 to you for this one

[Seegtease]

Am I correct if I interpret your post as "the US could not win so they pulled out hence they did not lose"?

No, they could have won, but winning would have caused more displeasure and unrest in the people, would have damaged more than it helped, so they decided to not complete their objectives. The collateral damage wasn't worth it. It wasn't that we weren't capable of winning, but it wasn't as valuable to win as it was to end the war immediately.

If I want to demolish a building, but in doing so, I end up destroying a valuable building next to it as collateral damage, I might decide it's not worth it to destroy that building. Does that mean I failed to demolish it? No, it means I decided it wasn't worth being demolished. Goals change. Sometimes, after getting some perspective, the ideas about what is more important change.

A change in objectives does not constitute a loss, no matter how bad anti-American people want it to be.

[BLCalliente]

This got me thinking. I want one of you who thinks America was the bad guy in Vietnam to answer this for me. Literally any one of you will do.

Are you aware that South Vietnam was a free nation before America was forced to abandon it? That North Vietnam sent a conquering army to force communism on a democratic and capitalist nation? And that after we left, the North Vietnamese slaughtered the South Vietnamese by the hundreds of thousands?

So knowing all of this, please explain to me how it was morally wrong to protect South Vietnam. Why was it evil to attempt to save those people?

It was morally wrong because we DRAFTED soldiers TO GO DIE in a FOREIGN WAR that was OF NO CONSEQUENCE to the United States.

Sign up? By all means. You knew what you were getting into when you joined the military.

Draft? For a foreign war?? With no threat to the US??? Those people must have been crazy. Especially the ones who complied with the draft.

---------- Post added 2012-05-08 at 02:17 PM ----------

50000 dead americans versus 1.3 Million dead Vietcong. And 369 vote Defeat ?

I liked the comment earlier about war not being just a game of team deathmatch.

More guys dead on one side is not how you measure victory or defeat.

[Bakis]

So knowing all of this, please explain to me how it was morally wrong to protect South Vietnam. Why was it evil to attempt to save those people?

Kalyyn what you say is sane but not really valid since the war almost from start shifted from protecting South Vietnam into an all out war to eradicate all of Vietnam of communism.
That obviously led to a shift from protecting the South into demolishing the North and that is where the moral aspect flew out the window.
The strategic bombing campaigns where pretty insane especially considering the low precision back then.
It simply became a massacre of the north with little or no descrimination between military or civilian casualties.
The figures are unknown but ranging up to 1.9 million dead civilians in the north.

That is nothing more than a total neglect of human lives, especially when performed by a democracy who liked to portray itself as in the front for respect for human/civil rights.

US military fucked up so bad but the american public did the right thing and forced the war to an end.

[Jackmoves]

Kalyyn what you say is sane but not really valid since the war almost from start shifted from protecting South Vietnam into an all out war to eradicate all of Vietnam of communism.
That obviously led to a shift from protecting the South into demolishing the North and that is where the moral aspect flew out the window.
The strategic bombing campaigns where pretty insane especially considering the low precision back then.
It simply became a massacre of the north with little or no descrimination between military or civilian casualties.
The figures are unknown but ranging up to 1.9 million dead civilians in the north.

That is nothing more than a total neglect of human lives, especially when performed by a democracy who liked to portray itself as in the front for respect for human/civil rights.

US military fucked up so bad but the american public did the right thing and forced the war to an end.

The South wasn't even a democracy, so the US pretty much protected a country run by a military regime for the most part, well for the first 7 years the country was run by Diem who won the election by blatantly cheating, but the rest of the war it was run by a military regime. Quite similiar to how things turned out in Chile when you think about it. The US supported quite a lot of evil and corrupt leaders during the cold war.

[Bakis]

The South wasn't even a democracy, so the US pretty much protected a country run by a military regime for the most part, well for the first 7 years the country was run by Diem who won the election by blatantly cheating, but the rest of the war it was run by a military regime. Quite similiar to how things turned out in Chile when you think about it. The US supported quite a lot of evil and corrupt leaders during the cold war.

Comming from the history Vietnam came from it is not real to expect it to be a democracy but it was heading slightly that way, and it is that point that Kalyyn made.
As you say though the US didnt care shit about the souths democracy, the aim was to stop communism.