Seems like after the Vietnam War, the North kind of 'unified' with the South anyway. Just what good was it for

Question

the US to be there in the first place? What was the purpose?

Answer 1

The purpose was to prevent the north from taking over the south and spreading communism. Also to prevent the slaughter of hundreds of thousands that took place when it happened, but once again a very vocal minority undermined the troops and ended a perfectly righteous war. Don't try to cloud the issue by using the word "unified" as if it was a positive thing.

Answer 2

Actually we did stop the communists. We stopped them for Ten years (1963-1973) with our troops in Vietnam. As a result, we practically bankrupted the former Soviet Union which tried for 10 years to keep up with us in Vietnam. They failed. We actually had a peace treaty in place when we left. Although the North Vietnamese invaded and took over after we left (Apr 1975) we eventually reaped the rewards from the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1989-1990. Drawing a line in the sand against terrorism in Iraq is actually retarding the efforts of global terrorism. Yes the US is safer without the Soviet Union and we will be safer by conducting and winning this war in Iraq.

Answer 3

Well to prevent exactly that occurrence.
The US was handed this little gem by the French, who insisted that US help was needed to prevent all of Indo China from becoming Communist.
What most folks don't consider is that the whole structure of deterrence as practiced by the US, was predicated on a system of treaties. SEATO (SouthEast Asia Treaty Org) compelled the US to come to S. Vietnam's aid, if for no other reason than to show that the US was serious about assisting its allies. SEATO was also why the Koreans, Thais, and Philippinos were there as well.
The execution was faulty as there was no political/military consensus as to what the objectives were:
1- Stabilize the situation, i.e. stop Communist infiltration into the South
2- Engage and destroy the NVA, combined with a political offensive to destabilize the North
3- Advise the South Vietnamese military
All three of these were at one time the stated goals of the Vietnam War. Basically, Johnson was afraid of seeming to be "soft on communism', yet also refused to commit the resources to finish the job. His secretary of defense believed he knew better than his military advisors, without the benefit of military experience, and constantly overrode their decisions. Not that the senior military leadership of the time were paragons of strategic vision. By and large, they insisting on re-fighting WW2/Korea in a environment foreign to that type of combat.
I'm guessing you weren't around them, but invariably someone will talk about the "anti-war" movement. In fact, you can bet someone will post something on that here. The reality is the VAST majority of Americans supported the war, at least until the Tet offensive of 1968. In fact, note that in the 1968 and '72 elections, the "peace candidate" lost-and lost huge.

Answer 4

As others have said, the purpose was to prevent the spread of Communism.

The government of the South was insanely corrupt and in many cases run by the CIA. As has been pointed out there was no real clear set of goals and every time we got close to finishing the North off, we would 'pause'.

Pretty much every battle we fought was a victory for the American forces, usually with tremendous NVA/VC casualties. Tet - The battle where Walter Cronkite decided that we had lost resulted in the near extermination of Northern forces in the South. But Ol' Walter had his say and the political fallout was immense.

We had pulled every trooper out of South Vietnam three YEARS proir to the fall of Saigon. That happened VERY shortly after Congress voted to cut off all funding and arms sales for the South, leaving them utterly unable to fight against the Soviet and Chinese backed and supplied North. That coupled with the rampant corruption throughout the ARVN and South Vietnamese government spelled doom.

The final result was millions in SE Asia dead thanks to the Communists.

What was it good for? Energizing the American Left to do everything that they can to destroy this country. They are trying to do it again in Iraq.

So...from America's point of view - at least a PRO-America point of view, it was a disaster. Our military learned a huge number of useful lessons and rebuilt itself. From an ANTI-American point of view, Vietnam was a godsend.

Orion

Answer 5

In 1975, the North gained a protection rigidity and political victory. The South ceased to exist. The usa became unified, and it nonetheless is. the objective for the U.S. to be there became to contain Communism. to offer up what the yankee politicians and human beings concept on the time could be the autumn of Asia (like Dominoes) to Communism. possibly you do no longer understand the political atmosphere of the U.S. interior the previous due Fifties and early Sixties: the pink Scare, the Blacklists, McCarthy and Nixon - 2 who made their careers on anti-communism, and the others who felt Kennedy became "comfortable on Communism".

Answer 6

Vietnam is still subject to the majority rule of world democracy. That's why they have gradually become what they could have been over three decades ago.

The sting of a bomb can turn a 100 year problem into a 40 or 50 year problem.

Wake up and smell the cordite.

Answer 7

Communism. We wanted to stop the spread of it. Yeah the North unified with the South...but in the complete wrong direction.

Answer 8

seems like you need some education

Answer 9

lets say it was a very unpeaceful and violent and chaotic unification