Quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I like that way of phrasing defeat there Khazadman - "not allowed" to win. I play Snooker quite a lot and the guy I play with often doesn't allow me to win - is this the same situation?
Its a disturbing right wing tendency I've seen to see the Vietnam war as lost from within. It helps uphold the rather dangerous view that if America were agressive enough it could go anywhere, do anything, and deal with any consequences. I'm afraid that in this day and age no military is that strong.
|
You do not know enough about the Vietnam War then Barry, if you think these claims are "a right wing tendancy". President Johnson, personally, was the approving authority for all bombing missions. No North Vietnamese targets were allowed until Pres Nixon authorized Line Backer II. All combat missions came from the White House and the Pentagon, NOT the Commanding General on the ground.
US units would take places of NVA or Viet Cong resistance, hold long enough to consolidate, and then be ordered to retreat ...... the enemy would then walk back in unopposed. The movie
Hamburger Hill is about a nameless hilltop that was bought and payed for in blood no less than five times!!!
The sentiment of the troops of that era was "We kept winning the Battles, but somehow lost the War." Then, after our Country called them to arms, we betrayed and regected them for doing what was asked.
Vietnam was a failure on the Homefront, not on the Battlefield.
As for military prowess ...... we still haven't seen US forces with it's gloves off.
That would be a truely frightening spectacle. There are only a few nations that I would rate in that category. If war today was waged as it was a century ago, occupation would not be required, for there would be little indigenous population left.