I agree with your major points, plus I would add that it was madness for LBJ to commit us to a war of attrition in the jungles against an enemy that couldn't have cared less how many casualties it took. Still, we were fighting an invasion from North Vietnam, a backward country with no industrial base. 100% of its munitions came from outside sources, chiefly the Soviet Union. Evenwithout destroying their sole port of Haiphong, which we didn;t do because of the fear of killing Russians, we could have made it impossible for them to resupply a large army in the south. It was simply a matter of bombing them into submission, but the democrat congress repeatedly pulled the plug when Nixon was close to breaking them. I think it is hard to be objective about Vietnam without sounding partisan. It was a war started by a democrat president, JFK, and vastly expanded byLBJ. Nixon was handed a tough hand to play. He could have cut and run and left our South Vietnamese allies to pay the price for trusting us, which was what ultimately happened. Or he could negotiate a peace, which he tried to do. It is impossible to negotiate with a ruthless enemy that sees its best ally sits at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue from the President however.
Please see the post above, the one you are replying to - I edited it. I am trying hard not to lead with sarcasm and derision these days, except in my dealings with one or two particularly smelly members. I'll defer to your knowledge of the details. My opinion has been informed by what I have seen and heard from vets themselves, not by an in-depth study of the political underpinnings of the war. I hate to say this, but in the context of the cold war and war-by-proxy against the USSR, Vietnam might be easier to explain than what is going on in Iraq right now. I read your solution for Iraq and I agree with some of it, but I fear it will never come to pass.
Bush is drawing straws. Karl Rove has dug deeper into the barrel of "COVER THE TRUTH TRICKS" and came up with a tv ad not unlike days of Barry Goldwater etc. Nothing, NOTHING is beyond this crowd to retain power and destroy America. The invasion and folly of a plan to win is costing your childrens their future. Who long will the America people BUY this cover of the terror card as a cover to invade another country and destroy what our parents, grandparents etc gave their sweat and blood to build? Let the administration draw on FEAR.............they have nothing else to fall back on. With this coming election i just hope they fall on their swords. ..........TIME TO KICK SOME BUTT>.............
I suspect that some on this board may be unaware that general Giap has said in his biography that the North was ready to surrender until the US Left/Dems became so vocal in their resistance to the war. That gave the North their reason for hope. As regards Tet in '68, it was a complete military debacle for the North. It took them, and we gave them, 18 months to recover. That was the mistake. By allowing them that breathing room it gave them negotiating room in Paris. The grunt on the ground or in the air was shackled by ridiculous rules of engagement. Troops had more to fear from the civilian command authority in the states than from the VC or NVA. AAA makes a good point about support from major nations. In addition to Russians in the North , there were ethnic Chinese in the south. All of these groups were protected by safe havens constructed by the US. Cross into Cambodia or Laos and they were safe. Absurd! The two similarities I see between iraq and VN are; 1. It's sometimes difficult to tell the bad guys from the civilians. Sometimes they are one in the same. 2. Insufficient use of force.