Vietnam War in hindsight: and you have a magic wand

[Pat Hurley]

Radical changes in the rules of engagement/strategy, would have resulted in far different results. That's my vote.

[berto64]

Eisenhower should have helped Uncle Ho in getting the French to give Vietnam autonomy and a lot of people on all sides would still be alive, maybe.

Ike said he couldn't interfere because France was/is(?) our ally.

He didn't so Ho asked the Commie Chinese who were more than willing to help him out. The rest, as they say, is history.

[22WRF]

#2 & #3

Radical changes in the rules of engagement/strategy would have required the removal of McNamara & his "Whiz Kids" as Secretary of Defense and Gen. Westmoreland in command.

[obxned]

None of the above.

During WWII Ho lead his people against the Japanese with little outside help after the French abandoned the county. The French should NEVER have been allowed to reclaim the country as a colony after the war. Vietnam would have been a non-communist nation from the end of WWII if we had recognized them and helped them rebuild as well as we did to our enemies.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by berto64

Eisenhower should have helped Uncle Ho in getting the French to give Vietnam autonomy and a lot of people on all sides would still be alive, maybe.

Ike said he couldn't interfere because France was/is(?) our ally.

He didn't so Ho asked the Commie Chinese who were more than willing to help him out. The rest, as they say, is history.

I must agree, Berto. I do respect Eisenhower though in his unwillingness to involve us in any sort of ground war in Asia. He warned strongly against it, but Kennedy--and to a much greater extent, Lyndon Johnson--didn't heed his advice, much to our sorrow and loss. Could we have won militarily if our strategy had been changed and the "Whiz Kids" given the boot? Maybe, though I strongly suspect it would have required use of tactics the American people would not have supported for long. The only thing that finally brought the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table was Nixon's Xmas bombings. I've often wondered what the result would have been had such tactics been used in 1965.

[charagrin]

I voted for just advisers. America has a way of sticking her nose where it doesnt belong. If push came to shove and the winner decided to try anything "not sanctioned" a couple of nukes would change their mind.

I truly dont care about enemy civilions during war. Its them or us. I know its not their choice to be in a war, but Id rather kill a 1000 now to save a 100,000 tomorrow.-Char

[stash247]

I am somewhat prejudiced in the matter, as a former Special Forces Soldier, in that theater, among others, but I feel our results would have been as good, and our costs, far less, had we continued to 'advise' and equip
the South Vietnamese, and never moved a single soldier into the fray.
A seven man "A Team" can raise an army, trained and disciplined, from indigenous forces, in six months; it's one of the many things we were trained to do.
Personally, I 'don't do domestics', ie, I won't referree a beef between you and your spouse, etc, and this is what we did, when we moved in troops to Viet Nam.
MACV was a fine idea, in spite of Westmoreland, and McNamara's thinking, until we inserted troops, at which point we started losing lives, of children with no choice in the matter
I was there because I chose to be, a 'triple volunteer'; I knew the situation, knew my craft, well, and taught and aided the citizenry. I survived , but 48,000 kids, thrown into the melee, ill trained, and even less well equipped, died, from the poor judgement of the two, named above.
My 'Tag line' is explicit, on the subject.

[AL MOUNT]

Originally Posted by stash247

I am somewhat prejudiced in the matter, as a former Special Forces Soldier, in that theater,

Oh man...... ....ya gotta share some snake & lizard recipes with us.... .....just kidden stash....

I wanted to vote 1-3, but setteled for #2.

[Havoc]

Tough choice between 2 and 4, but in hindsight... "Send no troops, sailors, or air support. Advisors only. Let the South win or lose on their own."

Beating an enemy is one thing. Instilling the concept of a republic and the will to defend it is very much another. I think the locals always see us there and figure they don't have to do anything or try to hard.

[stash247]

Originally Posted by AL MOUNT

Oh man...... ....ya gotta share some snake & lizard recipes with us.... .....just kidden stash....

I wanted to vote 1-3, but setteled for #2.

Door number three, dammit! Except for those idiots, we would have killed everything but the grass, and been home by '69.
Drop by, if you're in the south Texas area, and I'll show ya what I kin do with rats, bats, and bugs, as well; an epicure's delight!

[AL MOUNT]

Originally Posted by stash247

Drop by, if you're in the south Texas area,!

Got 2 sons in Austin, 36 & 33, probably the only 2 Republicans in that

den of left wing iniquity...

Only 1 of my exes lives in Texas......



My door gunner buddy did a lot of shuttle service for the SF in I Corps..

Were you ever inserted or extracted by the 158th Lancers, 101st ABN

[Marlin]

The military should have been allowed to call ALL THE SHOTS.

The incompetent micromanaging by that idiot in the White House caused us ALL THE GRIEF and the WAR.

[22WRF]

The incompetent micromanaging by that idiot in the White House caused us ALL THE GRIEF and the WAR.

History tends to repeat it's self