What happened in Vietnam?

Question

What would have happened if we stayed the course and stayed there.

Answer 1

If we would have stayed the course we would still be there getting our *** handed to us. In 1967-68 we were actually winning the war. We stopped bombing the north, stopped search and destroy missions and let the politicians set rules from behind a desk 30 000 miles away. They wasn't getting mortar attacks in the middle of their dinner. If policies would have stayed the same as they were in the mid 60's we'd be using Saigon as a vacation destination. Same as Iraq; if we don't stop being killed and start killing, we'll never get out of there.
As a country, a nation or as a world leader.

Answer 2

What would happen would depend on two factors; the politicians and the media. The War would be winable if both say out of it.

A more interesting question is what SHOULD have happened..

U.S. involvement in Vietnam changed considerably after the assasination of South Vietnamese President Diem and then President Kennedy. Vietnam would be like Korea is today if Kennedy was not assasinated.

After Kennedy's assasination, Johnson made up the Gulf of Tonikan incident which led congress giving Johnson a blank check to start a war in Vietnam and the rest os history.

Answer 3

By the time L.B.J. announced in 1968 that he would not seek to be re-elected to the Presidency, public opinion had swung far against continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Humphrey, the Democratic candidate was hurt so by his association with the Johnson administration (he was the sitting V.P. after all) that even he began calls to stop bombing operations. Nixon campaigned promising "peace with honor," and, though never claiming to be able to win the war, Nixon did say that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific". Nixon won the presidency in 1968, and begain a progress of "Vietnamization" of the war - sound familiar? The war in general shifted to smaller operations aimed at NLF logistics, better use of power, more cooperation with the South Vietnamese, and more openness in the media. The 1968 election was seen as something of a mandate to begin concluding American military involvement in Southeast Asia. As a result of the 1968 election, "staying the course" was no longer a viable alternative politicially. It just would never have happened.

Answer 4

Counterfactual history, i like. If the US had not aided the French during the 1st Indochina warfare and not invaded Vietnam and started the 2nd Indochina warfare then probability is that the August Revolution might have marked the beginning up of the individuals's Republic of Viet Nam in 1945. it would have additionally meant that civil society might have not been "bombed decrease back to the stone age" in Cambodia and the acceptance of the acceptance of Prince Sinahouk might have made it impossible for the Khmer Rouge to upward push to power. The 0.33 Indochina warfare would not have occurred and a genocide could have been prevented. additionally the 4M who died in Viet Nam may well be alive. probability is that Viet Nam might have progressed with the comparable achievement of the chinese language and the Soviets and a interior of reach communist block might are transforming into extremely wealthy. I doubt that the matters of the communist block have the different source than the state of warfare they have been compelled to flow into by way of capitalist aggression. so as that a non violent asia could have been a sort of progression for all the international. at last Latin united statesa. might have effectively became socialist, because it back and back tried to do against the purposes of the CIA. probability is Africa could have been a recipient of huge help from socialist countries and Europe might have probably became socialist if the US had not boycotted the CP's of Italy and France or given help and materiel to the fascists in Greece. yet nonetheless, if the US had remained out of those styles of countries, it would not probably be an empire. Peace

Answer 5

Pol Pot and his killing fields in Cambodia probably wouldn't have happened if we'd not only bombed Ho's supply chain through Cambodia but stationed troops there.

There's 2 million lives right off the bat.

The critical events that ultimately lost us Vietnam were LBJ's refusal to let local commanders decide on targets and timing of attacks and LBJ's cessation of bombing Ho's supply lines for several months before he decided not to run for re-election. Ho made good use of that time.

Supplies do run out at some point though. If bombing was inneffective then Ho wouldn't have come back to the bargaining table in Paris. We could have won that war but it would have required us to bomb parts of North Vietnam to the stone age.

Kind of like the Iraq "quagmire" - - it's "hopeless" only because we put artificial limits on ourselves that the opposition doesn't put on itself. There are various Iraqi factions but they'd be fighting with sticks and stones and knives if weapons weren't being brought over the border from Syria and Iran. If we targeted the source of the weapons and funding for the local terrorist groups we could reduce them to something along the lines of street gangs like you have in Mattapan. But that means bombing entire areas to the ground and it means a lot of civilian casualties because like the VC and the North Vietnamese, the Jihadists hide among innocent civilians.

I'd do it. Maybe others wouldn't. But neither war was "unwinnable" in an objective sense - they're both "unwinnable" after, and only after, you preclude certain options. It's kind of like the Colts saying they're going to keep Manning off the field and then saying the Superbowl is "unwinnable."

Answer 6

One of the most popular lines of the vietnam conflict is "from the jaws of victory we snatched defeat".

The NVA never won a single battle against America of the SVA while we were there. The Tet Offensive was a total failure for the NVA and the Cong. We should have leveled the entire forest, firebombing the entire forest into ash. But instead of letting the military wage the conflict, we had congress wage it.

Answer 7

I wasn't in during Vietnam (wasn't even born) but I know this-it was fought as a defensive war with alot of constraints placed on our troops, like they couldn't fire into Cambodia (technically), they couldn't go into N. Vietnam (technically), etc. They didn't take and hold real estate, they cleared it and left to fight for it another day. I fought in Iraq and I know this is no way to win a war, you can't limit when, where and why soldiers can shoot, and you definitely can't win by constantly fighting over the same ground

Answer 8

Vietnam was a politicians war. As horrible as it would be, if the Generals were allowed to fight the war on their terms, they would have cleared the jungles with Agent Orange. We would have won the war, but lost the people.

If we had just kept drafting people and sending them over, we'd still be there today.

Answer 9

If we had stayed, we would have been at war with North Korea and we would still be fighting it--if we weren't bombed off the face of the earth by now.

Answer 10

We probably would have won. Then maybe comparisons between the Iraq war and Vietnam might be a little more appropriate (if we stick it out, we can win...). I know a lot of people who were there who were disappointed in our government and the American people for pulling out. After reviewing the facts, it seems like we were close to winning.

All the Hollywood movies you've seen about Vietnam are not fact, they are biased fiction.