Vietnam is at the crossoads of Indochina. To the west lies its Indian influenced neighbours of Cambodia and Laos. To the north lies China, which historically it has a shared culture but has had much resentment against.

The US having occupied Vietnam after the French practiced a policy of 'sit, wait and see'. From 1963 to 1965 the US tried winning favor of Cambodian prince Sihnouk. In 1965, Sinhouk gave North Vietnamese forces the go ahead to occupy the 'parrot's beak' and to use Cambodian ports to recieve arms shipments. The year 1965 also marked Operation Rolling Thunder, bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail.

From 1965 to 1968, the US had been winning the war in the sense that the South Vietnamese were well protected from incursion by North Vietnamese forces. Then 1968 marked the changing point. The occupation became a war. It took until 1969 for US forces to regain control of the South. 1970, Sihnouk was deposed and the US seized the moment to incure into Cambodia, briefly changing the tide of the war.

But by 1971 the war was all but lost and by 1972 Nixon was announcing that the US would bomb and mine all of North Vietnam, which in hindsight was to allow cover for withdrawing US troops.

The moral of the story became not a conflict over Vietnam but a conflict over Indochina. The inablity to act against Sihnouk and his regime spelt the downfall of US forces. The Ho Chi Minh trail while a popular term and scapegoat of US failure was not. The failure was to stop shipment from Sihnoukville and to eliminate NV presence in the 'parrot's beak'.

US popular opinion was always against incursion into Cambodia, but why? Incursion into Cambodia would have spelt an end to Sihnoukville, allowing forces to concentrate on the Ho Chi Minh trail. This could have allowed US forces to push NV back across the mountains into the lower lying ground of Laos. US popular opinion was unaware that the war was to be fought in Indochina, not simply Vietnam.

The failure of the US led to the Khmer Rouge regime and the subsequent genocide, the flight of the 'boat people', more than two million refugees, a brief border war with Vietnam and China and resulting inflation and poor economic showing in the US.

Sun Tzu said: "Know thyself, know thy enemy." This shows the poor performance of 'democracy', the one form of government said by Plato to be fit only for the lawless societies.

Sun Tzu said: "No one has ever benefited from a protracted war." The 'sit, wait and see' policy of the US failed to deliver a decisive blow to the NV.

Today in Iraq the same is true. US popular opinion will always shift inevitably toward a 'sit, wait and see' policy. The crass glut of the American populace left uncheck will create a docile belief that the War on Terror is not worth fighting, staying the course is not the right thing to do. Most of all, the US now labels its responsibilities as 'intrusions into freedom and liberty'.

All of this could be avoided if we invaded either of these countries for a real reason. Maybe the solution is just not to eat more than you can chew.

Sun Tzu said: "No one has ever benefited from a protracted war." The 'sit, wait and see' policy of the US failed to deliver a decisive blow to the NV.
true -> The Art of War 2000 years and it's still teaching people things. +1 for taking the time to read it.
Today in Iraq the same is true. US popular opinion will always shift inevitably toward a 'sit, wait and see' policy. The crass glut of the American populace left unchecked will create a docile belief that the War on Terror is not worth fighting, staying the course is not the right thing to do. Most of all, the US now labels its responsibilities as 'intrusions into freedom and liberty'.
Are you saying The Surge worked?
Anyhow I think this whole "crass glut of the American populace" thing you speak of could be related to the fact that North America has not seen the horrors of 20th or 21st century total war. Another thing is that seeing as terrorists haven't did a follow up to 9/11 there isn't the same kind of zeal for the war on terror that there used to be. I don't want another attack of that caliber, nor do I think that's what it takes, but there isn't much else to say to tell people that international terror needs to be taken seriously.

The mistake was not letting Ho Chi Mihn have the whole ball of wax after he beat the French at Dien Bien Phu.

http://www.dienbienphu.org/english/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEATO

The US helped create that situation by providing financial support to the French forcing the Vietnamese more into the Chinese Communist camp to get support against the French. The US turned a nationalist anti-colonial fight into communist vs capitalist bullshit.

Now Vietnam was a Buddhist country. Buddhism has no history of Jihad. But now the US is going into a Muslim country with links to other Muslim countries and centuries of history of Christian/Muslim conflict. This has the potential of triggering a chain reaction far larger than Vietnam ever could. And they won't disconnect from this tar baby because of the oil.

DT

The United States prior to Vietnam had won the wars it fought. The US took back control from the Japanese in WWII and checked the power of the Chinese in the Korean penninsula. By the time American forces began to occupy South Vietnam and especially by the Tet Offensive, most Americans felt they had a duty to wrest back control for the South Vietnamese. However, by 1969, after control had been taken back from the VC Americans were still fighting a war they had come to feel they were winning on account of the counter against the Tet. This is why most Americans felt antipathy toward Vietnam.

The whole time prior to the Tet Offensive, Americans were led to believe they were not only doing the right thing but were making significant progress in Vietnam, simply by the fact that the troops were not fighting (or dying) in the manner of the Korean War. So when after Tet, Americans were told by their president that the war was being won, all the meanwhile nightly news reports began tallying the body count which seemed to suggest otherwise. This created the feelings toward the war which lead to the ultimate and untimely withdraw in 1972/1973 of US forces.

Americans became 'crass and lazy' on account of having won the major wars: WWII and Korea. If today this happens with guerilla warfare in Nigeria, Phillipines and Iraq, the results will not be the same as they were in Vietnam. Vietnam was not a large trading partner or strategic launching point for military operations, but Iraq, Nigeria and Phillipines however are much more valuable toward American interests. The outcome of which may revise the Cold War history as not a coldconflict between the US and the Soviet Union, but a hostile series of hot and cold wars against the newly formed nation of China.

I think it is amazing that in hindsight, things become so much more the clear.

Actually, the Americans didn't win Korea, it was a bitter stalemate remember?

Actually, the Americans didn't win Korea, it was a bitter stalemate remember?

More like a return to the status quo antebellum, except now a shitload of civilians were dead.

The United States prior to Vietnam had won the wars it fought. The US took back control from the Japanese in WWII and checked the power of the Chinese in the Korean penninsula. By the time American forces began to occupy South Vietnam and especially by the Tet Offensive, most Americans felt they had a duty to wrest back control for the South Vietnamese. However, by 1969, after control had been taken back from the VC Americans were still fighting a war they had come to feel they were winning on account of the counter against the Tet. This is why most Americans felt antipathy toward Vietnam.

The whole time prior to the Tet Offensive, Americans were led to believe they were not only doing the right thing but were making significant progress in Vietnam, simply by the fact that the troops were not fighting (or dying) in the manner of the Korean War. So when after Tet, Americans were told by their president that the war was being won, all the meanwhile nightly news reports began tallying the body count which seemed to suggest otherwise. This created the feelings toward the war which lead to the ultimate and untimely withdraw in 1972/1973 of US forces.

Americans became 'crass and lazy' on account of having won the major wars: WWII and Korea. If today this happens with guerilla warfare in Nigeria, Phillipines and Iraq, the results will not be the same as they were in Vietnam. Vietnam was not a large trading partner or strategic launching point for military operations, but Iraq, Nigeria and Phillipines however are much more valuable toward American interests. The outcome of which may revise the Cold War history as not a coldconflict between the US and the Soviet Union, but a hostile series of hot and cold wars against the newly formed nation of China.

I think it is amazing that in hindsight, things become so much more the clear.

No Chinas too content to sell us shit.


The parrots beak of Vietnam = Iran of Iraq, and Pakistan of Afghanistan.

I really don't see a way to win Iraq in the first place. Applying the lessons of Vietnam to Iraq should be we left Vietnam, nothing happened to America.