Why was the US defeated in Vietnam?

Answer 1

I believe a lot of it had to do with the president at the time Dem Lyndon Johnson. He owned a company called Brown and Root that build everything in South Vietnam, roads, airports, buildings etc. So as long as the war continued he made money. He had the troops in a defensive situation and couldn't take the fight to them. Also pilots reported bombing the same place every day, there were places there that looked like the moon because of it. With Lyndon Johnson it would have lasted forever. Rep Richard Nixon started bombing North Vietnam real hard, he said he was going to bomb them back to the stone age. But some of his people were spying on the Democrats and stealing papers (Watergate). He know he'd have to leave office and made it a point to get our troops out first. If Nixon would have stayed we would have won it, because North Vietnam would have ceased to exist.

Answer 2

Vietnam is an interesting subject for the fan of military history. At the Paris Accords, the US got pretty much everything it asked for. In pretty much every military engagement of the war, the US came out ahead. The truth is, we won the the Vietnam War. What we lost was the peace afterward. The North Vietnamese simply waited a while and finished the job when they knew it was politically impossible for us to intervene.

Answer 3

The US lost in Viet Nam for the exact same reason that the British lost the American Revolution. The Viet Namese were willing to fight and die for as long as it took to get the superior power out its way and their will lasted longer than that of the greater power. If you just look at stats, the Americans didn't really lose. They "held" the ground they started with until they decided to leave it. They killed something like 10 VC for every man they lost. They just couldn't sustain the effort among their own people which was exactly what happened in the 1780s. When the fighting ended, the British still held all the cities and magor commercial centres of the future US. They had been handed some pretty good defeats, but damn did they make the Americans pay for them. Thing was, the British were simply tired of paying for a war they didn't care to fight. It was sheer stubborness beating out hazy politcal motivations both times. Hopefully the same doesn't happen in Iraq because it will make one hell of a human tragedy.

Answer 4

There are probably a lot of political/historical reasons that Viet Nam won that war. One interesting note is that Viet Nam has never been defeated by any other nation, though it paid tribute to China off and on for centuries. The US believed they were fighting against Communism, and it is true that Ho Chi Minh called himself a Communist, a political theory he learned in France during the 1920s and 30s. But it is my personal belief that the Viet Namese people were more interested in throwing off the yoke of European colonialism (France claimed most of southeast Asia during the 1870s) and in reestablishing their own sovereignty in their own country. In other words, it was really a war of "national self-determination" in much the same way that the American Revolution was a war against English colonialism. The Americans, though less well organized and armed than the British, were able through a combination of determination, knowledge of the local geography and guerrilla warfare to defeat the British. The Viet Namese were able to marshal the same resources against the US 200 years later.

Answer 5

The U. S. was "defeated" in Vietnam because our forces faced "mission impossible." That "mission" was to prop up the South Vietnamese government until it was able to defend itself. But, because of corruption and internal discord, that day would never come. After eight years (1965-73) the American people grew weary of the "temporary" conflict and demanded withdrawal.

Answer 6

The Vietnamese were tired of putting up with Imperial overlords. After they got rid of the Dutch, then the French they certainly were not about to put up with the Americans. One of the things most people miss is the question of why the world powers of those times wanted Vietnam to start with. It is not as if there is gold or oil there.

Answer 7

By the same thinking that took us into Iraq. We couldn't imagine a bunch of peasants in Vietnam had the determination to wait us out indefinitely - which they did. Also, the so-called "Vietnamization" didn't work. "Iraqification" isn't working either. You might want to read "The Best and the Brightest" to better understand. You can't force democracy at the end of a gun.

Answer 8

The U.S., militarily, gained back in the 60's. Our difficulty stems from the way we habit conflict. Ever when you consider that WW2 we do not participate in entire conflict, our targets in conflict on the prompt's to kill as few human beings as a possibility, rebuild each thing we wreck, and to occupy cities. The stress of a rustic lies interior its protection stress; to win a conflict you may want to defeat the protection stress both by skill of resign, which does no longer continually artwork, or by skill of entire defeat. the rationalization the North Vietnamese gained the conflict grow to be because of the adverse approach of attrition that Westmoreland followed. His attrition approach is what prolonged the conflict and ultimately led to the political help for the conflict to ween.

Answer 9

Because we forgot that technology is not the only answer. Belief in the rightness of your cause is a powerful motivator. Ho Chi Minh had it. Vo Nguyen Giap had it.We actually supported them against the japanese In WWII !!! We were in at the ground floor,but we were dumb enough to kiss up to the French and give them back "Their colony". So of course old Ho is going to go to the other side giving out guns and other goodies!! Duh!!
We forgot its easier to catch something with honey than vinegar!!

Answer 10

Ages old question and many theories around it but only one thing is sure "Never start a war to force a country into Democracy".. Same for Iraq today..