2007-03-07 14:52:13 · 11 answers · asked by make someone happy 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
No. The South was too corrupt because the US put in leaders that were out to make a profit and not unite the country. The North had a strong leader in Ho Chi Min who's sole purpose was to unify Vietnam and have self rule (he felt cheated after WW2 when the French retained control of the country). As mentioned by a previous answer they also had the support of the USSR and China.
2007-03-07 15:07:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Probably not, but we didn't have to lose, either. Propping up an artificial Catholic government in a land of Buddhists would eventually have failed, but there was no need to leave, and there was certainly no need to let the NVA win.
In Jan/Feb 1968, Giap seems to have made one of a series of mistakes in moving to all-out battle in the Tet offensive. In doing so, the Viet Cong were totally destroyed as a fighting force, and the North Vietnamese Army took such losses that it set them back for quite some time and put a real strain on their resources. Had the American public seen it as the tactical victory it was, there was a great opportunity to go in a different direction, and there were small programs that were beginning to work on the local level. Once Nixon came to office with his "Vietnamization" program, there were still opportunities, and indeed the ARVN held up well after American troops left, as long as they had US support. Giap took another couple of major hits trying to force a traditional military victory too soon. It wasn't until Congress cut off all US support for the South that the NVA tanks rolled into Saigon.
2007-03-07 16:05:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A good question! Could America have successfully prevented Vietnam from becoming a unified, independent nation under a communist government? The whole point of going to war after denying the Communists the elections in mid-1956, was to maintain the division of the country of Vietnam into North and South, in the hopes of the South becoming a democratic nation. The North already had its own government whose determination was no less that the North (Union) in the American Civil War to see the country unified again. Since the South could not defend itself militarily, the U.S. had to send military advisers (16,000 to start with in 1962) then ground troops in 1965. I will not go into the long history of combat from 1965 - 1972, but it was evident from the beginning that America was fighting a contradictory war - since America limited its role to training and providing logistical support to an inefficient, unpopular, and corrupt regime (in hopes of it becoming democractic) and since America was under the impression that the fall of Vietnam would threaten the security of the United States and the Western world.
You won all the battles, you lost the political challenge.
2007-03-07 15:37:42 · answer #3 · answered by WMD 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Probably not - we could have defeated North Vietnam, sure, but Russia and China were in their corner and if we did that, then we'd have had WW3 with those two. Which would not have been counted, by anyone, as a win. So no, not really. Keep in mind that the purpose of that war was not to defeat North Vietnam, it was to send a signal to Russia that we had had about enough of them spreading communism everywhere and we were going to start opposing them. Vietnam was just a forum for us to say that to them. It needed to be said too - the judgments that we screwed that all up are misguided and overly harsh, in my opinion.
2007-03-07 14:57:07 · answer #4 · answered by All hat 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes. All wars are winnable if a nation has a clear objective (both militarily and politically), the necessary political will and the treasure/manpower to absorb the cost. In the case of Viet Nam, we had the treasure and manpower but no clear objective and lukewarm political will.
2007-03-07 15:02:33 · answer #5 · answered by dizattolah 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What were we planning on winning? The only reason we went to Vietnam was because the French wanted some rubber.
2007-03-07 15:23:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes, but with a different army. The draftees finished their term just when they started to be useful soldiers. "We didn't fight them for ten years, we fought them for one year ten times."
2007-03-07 16:43:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes! Here is how, let the military fight it, and keep the democrats out of it! Same is true for the Iraq war!
2007-03-07 14:56:45 · answer #8 · answered by Roll_Tide! 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Not without the support of the will of the people.
2007-03-07 15:01:15 · answer #9 · answered by kevin k 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes, we might have won it soon now.
2007-03-07 14:59:56 · answer #10 · answered by Beejee 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋