Moderator: FU!UK Committee
Just inquiring wrote:Can someone clarify how many victories the US would have needed to win the war that they lost?
TMP - killing off small companies!Editor in Chief Bill wrote:It also 'thins the herd' so to speak, so that marginal and under-financed companies fall off the radar, leaving the better managed companies to dominate the news sphere.
sebigboss79nli wrote:Condottiero wrote:sebigboss79 wrote:Condottiero wrote:Name a PAVN general who routed US forces.
Which part of routing them is required to win the war (or a battle)? Correct, NONE whatsoever.
However, if running was not required why call it "Operation Frequent Wind"
Not going to answer the question are you? Show me another example of Dien Bien Phu...
Changing the question does not alter the result. The Yanks lost, the French at least forced a decisive battle while the yanke ran with the tail between their legs
Macnamara wrote:How do you account for US failure in Vietnam then, Condi?
And try doing it without blaming the media.
Macunaima nlinn wrote:Well, I actually agree with Condi in part. The NLF/NVA wanted to win battles like Dien Bien Phu against the U.S. and couldn’t. Thus by their own metric, they lost tactically.
But it was by a cunt’s hair in some cases.
Furthermore, in terms of STRATEGY, they were spot on. They knew that all they had to do was to bleed the U.S. indefinitely and they’d eventually win. The U.S. knew this too, and from the beginning.
Given that tactics should follow strategy, the NLF/NVA did a pretty damned good job. They didn’t make their prime goal (another Dien Bien Phu) but they did a damned good job of consistently making their secondary goals (grab onto the American’s belt and make them bleed) and that was enough to win. More than enough.
And the U.S. knew that BEFORE they got sucked into Vietnam. Four presidents did all they could to lie to the public about that salient fact.
So Condi’s real problem is that he seems to think battles are clearly won or lost according to the rules, of, say, football. The NLF/NVA did indeed largely dictate when and where fights would take place and, although they had their fantasizing moments, too (i.e. Tet will push the Yanks into the sea), they by and large had a competent strategy, stuck to it, and made their tactics serve it.
Both the Yanks and NVA/NLF sucked at operations, however, and that is one reason why the war dragged on so long.
By the way, Condi, if you want to talk “revisionist history”, let’s talk the late 1990s revision of Tet into a clear cut allied victory.
Macunaima nlimmm wrote:Ironically enough, DR Gibbin’s book was a response to state-directed gistorical revisionism in the 1980s, which sought to cast Vietnam as a victory betrayed by “libruls”.
If you like his book, his second book, Warrior Dreams, goes a long way to explaining the Walt culture that has infected TNP.
Tet was a tactical victory for the US, but a strategic loss due to the casualty count...
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Jakar Nilson and 55 guests