How come we lost in Vietnam but we killed more of the enemy than they killed of us?

Question

Update: Today I read on questions and answers this information about Iraq. "We are winning because we are killing more of the insurgents than they are killing of us". Did we forget about Vietnam?

Answer 1

From a military stand point we destroyed the Viet Cong. That's why the NVA had to step in. Then we proceeded to destroy them also. However, after we defeated their armies during the Tet Offensive for some reason the media really turned against our presence there. Then Walter Cronkite on one of his news broadcast let be known that he was against the war and we couldn't win. So the politicians decided that American troops should pull out. Once the NVA heard about this they attacked Saigon and ARVN ran away, as they had done so often during the early part of the war. So we left and all of Vietnam is now Communist.

Militarily we were successful, politically we cut and ran. Just like they are planning to do in Iraq. The US does not like to see flag draped caskets of their young men. It's been that way since the Civil War. General Grant was called a butcher because when he fought and when you fight and don't run you will have casualties. Casualties are terrible, but if you want to win you have to engage the enemy and that means taking casualties. Sad as that is. Every country in the world fears us as a military power but they also know that a long sustained war does not set well with the American people. They then bide their time and wait for us to cut and run. We haven't fought a credible war since WW2 and Korea.

If you don't believe this read some of questions asked on Y/A about the war in Iraq.

Answer 2

We deployed the A Bomb in Japan TWICE in order to make them stop fighting. Something on that order would have been needed to destroy the Vietnamese will to keep on keeping on until they were all dead. We gave up, and for good reason, in Vietnam.

We should probably do the same in Iraq, that is LEAVE, and concentrate, as we did during the cold war, on winning the hearts and minds of the people most susceptible to islamic extremist propaganda. It's a tragic fact that what we have done over there so far, in Iraq and afghanistan, has produced many militant enemies for the United States who will never be charmed back over to our side with any volume of pro US propaganda. We lost these people because of our own actions. So its our dumb fault. Bush's fault.

Answer 3

No. winning the conflict isn't approximately what proportion people you kill. winning the conflict is approximately having a objective for the conflict, and having a objective and attaining it. If there's no objective and no measurable objective, then it rather is a mindless conflict. the objective of the Vietnam conflict became into to give up the develop of the Vietcong or the communist military. the U. S. lost, because of fact they could not give up the Vietcong from overrunning Vietnam. it is not approximately what proportion vietnamese the U. S. killed. If the objective of the Vietnam conflict became into to kill as many vietnamese as achievable (that's shameful for a rustic like US), then the U. S. won. that would desire to make america a huge bully who purely needs to kill people. fortuitously, that may not the case. So, the secret's, the U. S. lost the Vietnam conflict, because of fact it may not fulfill that's objective.

Answer 4

The U.S. never lost in Vietnam. Vietnam fell THREE YEARS after the U.S. left. Richard Nixon decided to train the South Vietnamese army so the U.S. could pull out. That was fine until the Democratic Party CUT FUNDING to the South Vietnamese army. Without the needed supplies, South Vietnam fell, and one million South Vietnamese were killed while two million were forced to flee on boats. The Democratic Party lost the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese had no problems attaching bombs to their own kids or being labled baby killers. They didn't care about complaints of them burning villages or not following the rules of war. The U.S. should have stayed just to kill them.

Answer 5

The U.S. ruling elite went into Vietnam in an effort to take over imperialist rule when the French vacated. But the time had come when the Vietnamese people could no longer be pacified by imperialist domination. The French so warned the U.S. prior to the U.S. becoming heavily involved in Vietnam.

The majority of imperialist ventures eventually fail. One need only look at the history of America. England lost all of her colonies as did Spain, France, and the Dutch. In other imperialist ventures, England was thrown out of Iran. Japan couldn't hold on to its domination of China. Napolean failed miserably as did Hitler and the Germans, Mussolini and the Italians, and so on . . .

One of the main reasons for this failure is that the the ruling elite who promote the war and are its only intended beneficiaries must always promote the war with a lie. As the military venture begins to sour, the public of the imperialist power increasingly begins to become victims as well.

First, the pretext for the war begins to unravel and is questioned by an increasing number of people. Then, friends and relatives begin to die and sustain serious injuries in increasing numbers. Public funds must be used to pay for the war thereby reducing or eliminating needed funds for programs that actually benefit the public. Eventually, the ruling elite find themselves stuck in war that is more problematic for them than beneficial. Military personnel begin to rebel (a good film on this topic is Sir, No Sir). The public at home goes into full rebellion. The continuation of the war, at that point, has become a threat to the ruling elite who begin to fear total public revolt. They come to realize that their choice to continue the war has become a significant risk to their position of privilege, at which point they succumb to public demand to end the war in order to save themselves and maintain public order.

The leading members of the ruling elite then begin to lay the foundation for the next imperialist venture by blaming the "liberals" or "cowards" or "pacifists." All imperialist powers have used that same tactic. The Nazis came to power claiming that the German army would have won WWI if not for the cowards. Of course, the reality is that the German army was soundly defeated in WWI. But to admit such is a defeat for the future desires of the imperialist power, so the "official" story requires rehabilitation.

The problem is that capitalism requires expansion and expansion eventually requires war with other capitalist nations that are facing that very same problem. New markets must be found and the people of the world are used as pawns in an ugly battle between competing capitalists over who will control the lion's share of the spoils.

"A capitalist has two enemies: Labor and other capitalists."

Answer 6

I wouldn't say we lost Vietnam.. We pulled out because we weren't getting anywhere and Nixon waited until an election year to do it. The same thing is probably going to happen in Iraq.

Answer 7

of course in vietnam your countrmen killed/murder more enemy because at that time indiscriminate bombing of B52 bombers around vietnamese capitals were the favourite option.when cities are bombed and levelled more people will lose their life.as for the US during the vietnam war only soldiers are involved.so 55000 killed was OK compared to almost 1 million vietnamse soldiers and civillian killed.hey...civillian of enemy country will also be considered as ENEMY.
in afghanistan when bombs fell on the muddy huts the media will say: 19 taliban terrorists killed (although actually they are common villagers and innocent children

Answer 8

Because we could not effectively control all of Vietnam and the whole war was a mess, so we withdrawed and we lost the war.

Answer 9

Viet Nam was lost. You can deny it but it was lost. It was an unwinnable war from the start. If you can't even identify your enemy, you can't defeat them

Answer 10

some people who say we won, or want to blame it on funds being cut, conveniently forget the Fall of Saigon.