b98422 No.496823
Friendly reminder that far more Vietnamese were killed by communists after the war than during
Yet proto-SJW baby boomer scum like to ignore that.
http://vnafmamn.com/VNWar_atrocities.html
eb3b2d No.496841
Oh well, you can't win em all.
3723f8 No.496867
From a foreign policy perspective, intervention made perfect sense. Securing a further SEATO enclave in SEA would greatly help prevent the spread of Sino-Soviet power, in theory at least. On top of that, the rubber plantations were highly valuable.
Generally I consider myself a non-interventionist if not an isolationist, but I can understand the mindset behind it.
Some people insist that the American military cannot fight an asymmetric war effectively; this is false. American forces have in fact defeated insurgencies with great effect, in the Banana War for example. What was the core of US failure in Vietnam, was it purely a lack of ambition on the part of the general public; a unwillingness to pursue total mobilization, or something else entirely? How would this also be applied in relation to US strategic failure in Iraq?
50203c No.496880
>>496867
There were a lot of problems that stacked up. One was insisting that we shouldn't have the big red one take a field trip to Hanoi and stay until the Communist fucks actually agreed to cease aggression with the south. Along with not cutting off their supply lines by physically occupying the Ho-Chi-Mihn trail in Cambodia and blockading their ports with the navy, preventing the unfettered flow of Chinese munitions and equipment. Another was not declaring a state of emergency so field officers wouldn't be transferred out and discharged right as they learned how to empty a full deck of cards in one helicopter ride. And the ultimate mistake that we made that we actually learned from was that in a Guerrilla war, territory still means everything. The way we came in on helicopters and showed up, shot people that the locals knew and then fucked off into the sky never to be seen again. This did not really work in winning over the average stone age culture mindset of the rice gooks. And this is why in the sandbox we spend so much time with the local poppy farmers and interpreters. And then get dishonorably discharged for murdering them when they rape their sons
Of course, this is just what was done wrong military-wise. Even if we did correct all of these mistakes the fucking boomers didn't want to see the big picture and fight to stop communism. Hell, they didn't even want to pay to keep the ARVN supplied after we pulled out leading to them all running out of ammo after holding back the red hoards much better than the fucking Iraqis did with the Islamic state. So it's honestly up in the air. Despite the flaws in our strategy we still successfully fought without suffering a single tactical defeat. But the public opinion decided they did not want to fight anymore no matter how effective the tactics employed were. If we did occupy Hanoi, they would have been cut off from leadership and regulars. We did this in Iraq by taking Baghdad in the first two weeks of fighting and that shut the NVA equivalent in that theater up for good. But we also repeated the same mistake of not fucking up Pakistan to cut their supply chain. It's complicated. I kinda think that even if we gave everyone aim-boting instagib rifles the public would have still gotten tired of the war leading to the premature pullout and fall of South Vietnam.
694f1d No.496891
>>496880
Letting the SP and SOG groups do what they wanted to do would have been for best, aka knocking out the entirety of the higher ups in Hanoi. That would have put a real wrench in their works.
dd844e No.496896
File: 597abed78dc5ec5⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 114.33 KB, 927x720, 103:80, These kill the communists.jpg)
>>496823
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Pic related undoubtedly shows us the greatest weapons the world has ever had against communism - assuming we're using kill count as our metric of course.
39b24c No.496900
>>496841
>pic 2
>underbarrel flamethrowers are a thing
Its byoutiful
126293 No.496906
>>496900
Finns did it first.
694f1d No.496907
>>496900
Charlie is a dirty fucker so someone invented a sniffer to track them and potential entrances to their fucking tunnels because charlie and his friends stank so fucking bad.
10b667 No.496909
>>496907
(but they were shit and didn't work)
694f1d No.496911
>>496909
Mixed results overall. Charlie tended to have his entire operation for the day spoiled if he decided to open fire on the beeping GI considering it didn't just detect piss and shit.
39b24c No.496913
>>496907
>>496909
Wow, thats fucking retarded, I like my idea better
3f570e No.496914
>>496867
>>496880
US fucked up with Vietnam before they even began.
Literally the Vietcong were funded by the CIA to fight the French cause the US didn't want "Colonial" Empires back. It was only when they announced they were "Commies" did US flip their shit and essentially backstab the very people they had been funding.
Seriously the CIA has done more harm than good to the US and NATO
10b667 No.496915
>>496911
I can't imagine the infantry detector working in any real way, there's no way you could isolate it from going off at your own nearby troops and the operator. the airborne one was supposedly better.
126293 No.496918
>>496914
>US fucked up with Vietnam before they even began.
US fucked up when they didn't drop a nuclear bomb in Siberia and told the USSR to get out of Europe and stop supporting Mao, otherwise the next one lands on the Red Square.
694f1d No.496919
>>496915
Small arms fire set the thing off like nobodies business so if charles decided to take a potshot everyone around him was fucked. Its why the helicopter one was used, bait the fuckers into taking potshots at you.
3f570e No.496921
>>496918
>We should have kept going in 1945
That's for damned sure.
fbc262 No.496922
>>496823
>brown tree people
>producing blonde, blue eyed offspring
21afd3 No.496924
>>496918
US fucked up when they didnt nuke Stalins location and then take over Russia along with East Europe.
I have a feel that EE under American constitution would be a hell of a place.
21afd3 No.496928
>>496867
Guerillas are defeated with willpower and structure. You mercilessly impose a structure of capable, intelligent natives, in command of a very strict set of laws.
Then you treat the guerillas like criminal gangs or brigands, not like freedom fighters. By calling them guerillas you already lost the ideological fight.
c70e11 No.496931
>>496928
> You mercilessly impose a structure of capable, intelligent natives, in command of a very strict set of laws.
Because strict laws and a fully US created government that banned firearms worked so well in Iraq after we tried to get rid of "loyalist militas"
eb3b2d No.496935
>>496907
>>496909
>>496911
>While useful, the detectors had to be used with some caution. People sniffers were known to be oversensitive and would often detect civilians or animals excreting bodily waste.
21afd3 No.496936
>>496931
Strict laws = executions, the last time we had the balls for that there were only 2 genders.
>loyalist militas
>By calling them guerillas you already lost the ideological fight.
Loyalist implies theyre loyal, and conversely that those supporting the US troops are disloyal. Whoever came up with that moniker should be taken out behind the back of the white house and shot.
Also kind of missed the fucking mark on this
>capable, intelligent natives
When the most inbred non-native community in Iraq was given all of the power.
d211dc No.496939
Should have the government censored the war?
d211dc No.496940
>>496914
>CIA to fight the French cause the US didn't want "Colonial" Empires back.
Why is the US such a bunch of faggots.
50203c No.496985
>>496940
We didn't want the fucking French stirring up a shitstorm in a land that they rightfully lost fair and square in WW2. Ike didn't want to become the world's boogyman so we tended to stand up for small countries in the 50s like the Suez crisis. Of course the east noticed and it deteriorated from there on but we simply wanted the gooks to govern themselves.
93bbce No.497013
>>496914
>Vietcong were funded by the CIA to fight the French cause the US didn't want "Colonial" Empires back.
Wait, what? This is the first I've heard of this.
c1c1a4 No.497015
>>496823
That comic is just GRAND
0a55d9 No.497018
>>497013
>Doesn't know about US involvement in Vietnam before they were involved
Not surprising. Vietnam was actually a weird shitshow in the 50's cause France wanted to assert control but had no navy to transport troops cause we kind of sunk it during WW2. At one point there were Japanese POWs fighting on behalf of the British, fighting on behalf of the French, to fight Gooks who were being trained and supplied by US as well as Ruskies
Not the first time that shit happened either during Cold War. US did it to Brits in Africa a lot and we can see where that lead to i.e. it just handed Africa over to the Chinks and not to mention the more famous example of Northen Ireland with US supplying the IRA. Countless more examples I am sure such as Afghanistan, Libya, and what is happening in Syria but really you'd be writing war and peace.
21afd3 No.497035
>>497013
CIA fed LSD to kids to create the counterculture, and then exported it to anglosphere and the continent, specifically to kill the culture at the root of old-style empires.
3c7704 No.497039
Here are some photos to keep this thread going a bit.
What was the point of slaughtering the Cong and then retreat back to the airbase?
50203c No.497041
>>497039
Flawed tactics at the time that believed territory means nothing in a guerilla war. We now know that that is indeed false.
1a16be No.497042
>>497041
Plus Kennedy's bean-counters believing war could be conducted by spreadsheet.
fe9217 No.497071
>>497042
>Kennedy
Surely you mean LBJ?
ec6734 No.497080
>>497064
any idea on the song name?
7306f7 No.497082
>>496880
>Occupy Hanoi
Wasn't it made quite clear that invading the North would result in the Chinks joining the war? Even if that didn't happen how do you intend to prevent the North Vietnamese leadership from simply fucking off and setting up in China? Any target of economic or logistic importance (bar one port) in the North was already bombed to hell, invading it really just forces you to police more territory with an even more hostile set of locals.
>But we also repeated the same mistake of not fucking up Pakistan to cut their supply chain.
Pakistan is a key US ally, you can't just 'fuck them up'.
7306f7 No.497083
>>497013
>>496914
It started earlier than that too, their predecessors were given weapons and funding to fight the Japs after they took over French Indochina. As a general rule of thumb any group funding by the US government will turn around and start opposing them in ~20 years tops. Enemy of my enemy doesn't actually work all that well in practice.
64841b No.497104
64841b No.497105
Why couldn't we just invade cuba?
It was the jews want it?
3723f8 No.497113
>>497105
The general population and foreign powers wouldn't react well to an outright invasion. Cuban invasion could well result in nuclear exchange. In the case of Vietnam, America already had a beachhead/puppet in the south and had a pretext for acting other than "lol invasion." On top of that, as long as missiles and strike forces weren't on the island, there wouldn't be great strategic accomplishment in taking Cuba. Sure it had some resources, but not enough to justify freedoming them at the cost of many men and poking the bear quite hard.
aff547 No.497115
`>>497113
Now I'm imagining a war with North Korea, it would be too dicey. The US Army isn't very good at Infantry vs Infantry (Brigade Combat Teams expect 60% losses against a lesser equipped force with half decent training) because they never take advantage of situations and within just a god damned brigade each battalion doesn't share information well enough with eachother. It's a mess.
They'd win the air war and the Naval War, but I don't see the US winning the Land war even with the South Koreans and Japanese helping them.
Polite Sage for off topic
3723f8 No.497117
>>497115
>vietnam war general
>offtopic
An invasion of DPRK would see fighting go on for decades. Holdouts of ideologically committed fighters would continue to resist to their dying breaths, and unlike mohammedans, they don't leave allah to the aiming.
a128c0 No.497118
>>497115
That's why you should let the Japanese rearm themselves. Those nutcases would invade South Korea and wouldn't stop until the Manchukuo State is in their possession again.
aff547 No.497119
>>497117
Well it kinda is, because DPRK isn't exactly Vietnam.
Just what you said as well as the fact that the US doesn't take any tactical advantage (they legit just bum rush the enemy head on because of lack of communication between each of it's elements within a Brigade Combat Team) and how mountainous the terrain in North Korea is, I don't see the US doing much nowadays as well.
If it is just a campaign to just break their shit and leave while setting up a blockade and leaving them to starve unless they capitulate (or doing the extreme thing of causing civil unrest to the point that they protest and overthrow their own government this is how the US should've done what they did in Iraq as well ), I see no other strategy to "win".
>>497118
Japan can change their own constitution, but even with that, the North Korean Terrain is a disaster.
716e70 No.497121
>>497105
The CIA tried to lay the ground work for the pre-text of an invasion into Cuba…it fucking nose dived like a flying rock. With Vietnam as our astute /k/ollege pointed out >>497113 there was an allied government to "assist" and the Gulf of Tonkin incident was the convenient rationalizing excuse on the global stage for mobilization of US combat forces, in lieu of simply maintaining advisers embedded with ARVN units.
>>497115
The decision to move from a division-centric force to a brigade-centric force was a shit idea across the board. Not only it is shit for command and communication, it has left units underarmed, especially ABCTs.
aff547 No.497122
>>497121
>The decision to move from a division-centric force to a brigade-centric force was a shit idea across the board
Yes and no, the problem with the Brigades is mainly Communications, not enough Engineers, not enough Military Intelligence Companies, not enough Signal Companies and no type of forward reconnaissance outside of the cavalry squadrons.
ABCTs need 1 more tank company per battalion and more mechanized infantry company per battalion (at that point each battalion is a mini regiment by itself).
The US also needs to step away from the brute force strategy and move to a more brit-like strategy of well trained troops, accurate fire, taking every advantage you can (terrain, morale, enemy mistakes etc.) and decent communications.
Too much chess, not enough Go
20dacf No.497147
>>497104
>Source?
Where have you been for the last 70 years?
df678d No.497165
8dd6b1 No.497172
>>496914
>>497013
It's true. In fact it started during WWII.
French Indochina was de facto occupied by the Japs and in name only part of Vichy France (which doesn't even exist anymore at that time, we're mid-march 45) with regular contacts with the free french/OSS/SOE (Force 136 is already active in Indochina at the time, and will try to provide help) and the allies plotting ways to turn on the Japanese when US/UK reinforcement would be close enough.
The Japs realized that and executed most of the french leadership in a game of throne fashion (invented the french gov' and high ranking officers to a dinner at the jap embassy. Beheaded everyone) and tried/succeeded in storm some of the french military bases (after having taken hostage the families of the french officers. No officer surrendered and watched the japs executing toddlers, kids and wives).
Most of the garrisons though, including a strong anamese contingent (roughly 12 000 french and around twice that of anamese. In the opening move the japs manage to kill around 3 000 french and an unknown number of anamese. Most of them come from systematically executed prisoners, which immediately force most of the french to not surrender despite the complete disparity in strength), made it out and started to withdraw and regroup towards the Chinese border (which was held by the Chinese nationalists and packed with OSS and US supplies troops).
The guy in charge of China, USAF General Chennault, did airdrop some supplies to the french AGAINST GHQ orders. His orders were very clear, he was to abandon the french, specifically because the US thought they could have nationalist China invade Indochina (which was an old Chinese wish. Which would happen but by the Chincom VS Vietminh), and french authorities would throw a wrench in that plan ("Way of a Fighter: The Memoirs of Claire Lee Chennault, Major General, U.S. Army (Ret.)").
What was left of the french were mostly exterminated, those that did make it to China were taken prisoners by the Chinese and left to rot.
The jap posed themselves in liberator, forced the old royalties (which were surprisingly extremely loyal to the France, to the point that the japs had to resort to physical threats) to declare independence and executed most of the french administration creating a massive void, themselves capitulating not 6 months later.
That void the Vietminh tried to fill fully supported by… the OSS under the pretense of fighting the Japanese (which they never actually did, bidding their time), but really trying to secure a geographical beachhead for China in north Vietnam (which is just a small part of Indochina), despite how insane that sounds (but the vietminh weren't "officially" commies back then).
Then the British invaded, with some french. Which then the french tried to restore colonial rule and more or less succeeded.
Except in North Vietnam were there was a rabid bunch of commies armed to teeth…
You know the rest.
a128c0 No.497176
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>497172
>That void the Vietminh tried to fill fully supported by… the OSS
I honestly can't link this video enough times at enough places. The US was really a commie puppet in practice, mostly because they managed to hijack the burger equivalent of the foreign ministry.
21afd3 No.497181
>>497082
>invading the North would result in the Chinks joining the war?
A) that wouldnt have happened, it was a bluff
B) they were already supplying the north with arms clandestinely, which they preferred over open war
C) if they did come out in the open, at the time chinks had no way to nuke america, so that would be a short war
>>497082
>Pakistan is a key US ally, you can't just 'fuck them up'.
How two dimensional. Thinking that way got the world into 2 world wars. If Pakistani ISI is funneling arms to terrorists, or even allowing them to be so funneled, they have ABROGATED THE ALLIANCE.
>>497121
>The decision to move from a division-centric force to a brigade-centric force was a shit idea across the board.
It was the first good idea army had since they learned to count to potato.
The problem was they moved brigade centric responsibility, but didnt give the colonels a star so they could get a staff, some fucking eyes, and coms equipment to fulfill their duties. Of course they kept all that shit in divisions because the Major Assholes didnt want to give it up.
So in effect you got the worst of both worlds, a heavier burden of responsibility on brigades, and even more micromanagement from division levels.
716e70 No.497182
>>497122
What you do considered a "pro" in reorganization to the brigade level? None of the shortcomings in organization, manpower, or firepower will ever be addressed, this is because the entire strcture is has on "Full-Spectrum" doctrine. I'm surprised the reinstituted DIVARTY, but with the downsizing of the force and the restructuring of some BCT to MBTF shit is going to get worse, not better.
As far as strategy, that's another turd on the shit sandwich is adopting the "Full-Spectrum" doctrine.
aff547 No.497219
>>497182
>What you do considered a "pro" in reorganization to the brigade level?
It's a good idea, but the way the US did it was fucked, they need a bit "less autonomy" from the division itself and should be able to be broken down into re-enforced battalions with their scopes of responsibility all covered by both the Brigade and Division. But you know, lack of communications in the Brigade much less the Division Level makes it almost impossible to cover your combat elements and support them logistically.
tl;dr US Army needs a revamp with how they deal with communications and need to STOP leaving elements on their own with no cover from other elements, Division, Brigade and otherwise. It's not even following it's own combined arms doctrine.
c089b5 No.497245
>>497176
>The US was really a commie puppet in practice
And it still is. Different kind of Marxists control education, entertainment, IT, """art""", ethics, even porn and sexual life of the American people. Obama was a literal commie extremist ("Deconstructing Obama" for proofs) and a black supremacist, yet they still voted him two times in a row. That's what happening if your country's trying to be liberal, it won't survive thousand years like Byzantine did.
7306f7 No.497253
>>497181
>A) that wouldnt have happened, it was a bluff
You underestimate how crazy Mao was, he's on record as saying he'd have been happy to get nuked to cause a global war of gommies vs the West (which he assumed gommies would inevitably win). It might also drag the Soviets in, doubly so if we start nuking things as you suggest below (they cannot let the USA get away with dropping nukes willy-nilly).
>B) they were already supplying the north with arms clandestinely, which they preferred over open war
Sure, both the USA and China benefited from keeping it to the supply of arms. China would still have entered if it was that or lose Vietnam, you don't want a US puppet on your border. Hell look how much trouble Vietnam caused for China even without being backed up by the USA. Now I'm not saying the PRC would push the USA out of Vietnam but at best you're looking at a Korea-tier stalemate at an extremely high cost for both sides. Even if you do successfully fuck up China the USSR is not going to let things go too far before it steps in too.
>C) if they did come out in the open, at the time chinks had no way to nuke america, so that would be a short war
Dropping nukes on China (or anyone else if they haven't done it first) in the middle of the Cold War (or even now) is not smart. The world isn't as easy as 'we have bombs and you don't so we win'.
You also haven't addressed my point that there's nothing worth taking in the North (almost all arms and ammo is coming from China with few shipments from the Soviets). Every target of value was bombed down to the point of targeting fucking wooden bridges and the leadership could easily fuck off to China or wherever, it just makes the USA look like the aggressor (in a war already lacking in public and international support) and forces you to police more land with an even less controllable population.
>How two dimensional. Thinking that way got the world into 2 world wars. If Pakistani ISI is funneling arms to terrorists, or even allowing them to be so funneled, they have ABROGATED THE ALLIANCE.
I don't think you understand just how beneficial the Pakistan-US alliance is for America. Afghanistan (both times) would have been all but impossible or at least significantly more expensive the second time around without it, for example. Additionally if you drop support they will simply slide further into the Chinese sphere of influence, not desirable. Also if you start dropping allies simply for 'funding terrorism' you'll lose Turkey and Saudi Arabia if not others. Finally you can't just 'fuck up' a country based on vague charges of funding terrorism (you must prove it was officially sanctioned and all), it reflects badly on you as a nation and, as always, is wildly expensive. Again: the world is not as easy as 'they indirectly funded our enemies so they're bad now', a few civilian and/or military lives isn't worth losing an ally with an important geographical position over nor is it worth the political and economic costs.
44fe7b No.497273
>>497253
>You underestimate how crazy Mao was, he's on record as saying he'd have been happy to get nuked to cause a global war of gommies vs the West
He said that because the Chinese were trying to steal the whole "leaders of the global communist revolution" thing from the Russians. It was a bluff the Chinese really didn't want a war with the US.
64841b No.497574
>>497113
>>497121
Seems like a bullshit excuse. A communist nation on our doorstep and invasion wouldn't be justified? Plus it's not like either China or Russia would have risked a nuclear exchange over cuba.
5b343d No.497580
>>497579
>What was the core of US failure in Vietnam,
The ability for the citizens to see what was going on. War is shit, and has always been shit, but the citizens thought this one was special. The Tet offensive was the same stupid movie every army does when they're losing; throw all your troops into the meat grinder and hope you come out on top. It never works, but militaries always try it. However, this time it worked because they didn't have to win the battle, they just had to make the war look extra bad to be in, and they succeeded. We didn't with draw because we were losing the fight, we withdrew because politicians wanted reelection. Vietnamese commanders clearly stated that their entire strategy was never about winning the war, but simply making American opinion of it so awful, that they would have no choice but to retreat.
95f2b4 No.497588
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>496928
This how you deal with an insurgency
a75cc1 No.497914
Like beyond talking about Vietnam and shit. Why of all the settings are you using THE FUCKING FLINTSTONES to talk about war, massacres especially in regards to Vietnam. Like with the Aliens movie there is some clear similarities that could be argued and made, and at the very least the theme and setting of the universe go with it. NOT THE FUCKING FLINTSTONES.
Like are the creators that desperate to be seen as deep that they want to use any sort of platform they are given to try to "have a deep and meaningful conversation about X topic" aka being a bunch of moral high horse faggots. Or is it them trying to be so fucking artsy that they think they can take a setting such as THE FUCKING FLINTSTONES and turn it into some ultra deep setting about FUCKING VIETNAM. Like is this what the future of media is gonna be. Trying to make everything deep and adult no matter how retarded it is, how little it fits the setting or context, or how hamfisted and blantly preachy it is.
8aad5e No.497932
>>496935
nothin personnel kid
21afd3 No.497933
>>497588
Yep, essentially the same tactics.
4453ee No.506112
090c63 No.506120
>>506109
>dead thread is bumped a month later
>to point out some fuckwit put an A2 grip on an A1 build
Fuck now I feel like I have to redo my entire post about the political situation of nam with a less suicide inducing pic related.
5e4c18 No.506125
>>506120
>be American
>try sarcasm
>fail miserably
lmao btfo amerifat
7dcacf No.506133
>>496880
>And then get dishonorably discharged for murdering them when they rape their sons
What incident is this referring to? I couldn't find anything about it.
d1a387 No.506143
df46ab No.506144
>>497933
outlawing war rape was a mistake.
d1a387 No.506145
>>506133
afghani's are well known pedophiles and child rapists. he might not be referring to any one incident, or at least not any well publicized one,and instead noting the general ire soldiers presumably gain for having to protect pedos. I wonder if this open secret, that we are knowingly aiding and abbetting child rapists in sandniggerland, has anything to do with the veteran suicide rate
7dcacf No.506146
>>506145
Ah, I thought he was referring to Vietnamese raping their children being common, which I couldn't find any evidence of. I'm well aware, however, of how fucked Afghanistan is.
807c17 No.506157
>>506146
I don't think the Vietnamese are particularly well known for child rape.
At least not any more so than any other Asian country.
Afghans are real shitters though. If there's one good thing the Taliban ever did when they ruled that country it was banning boy rape.
4cd78b No.506162
>>506157
Cambodia is known well for child prostitution and rape. Hes probably thinking of that
090c63 No.506164
>>506133
>>506145
>>506146
>>506157
>>506162
I was actually referring to that green beret who was dishonorably discharged for beating the shit out of an Afghan who was raping a 12 year old. Again, in Nam we didn't stay around the locals at all which was why we never seemed to make much progress with the "hearts and minds" shit. Which we have attempted to fix with the "war on terror" with varying results.
pic unrelated
3cf029 No.506165
>>506162
Forgot about Cuntbodia tbh.
Though afaik it's still a taboo practice there, while in Afghanistan it's literally part of the culture to fuck little preteen boys in the ass.
f94c39 No.507189
>>497165
>>497165
>Ching-Chong and co. are out in the jungle, sticking rice up in their asses at their outpost
>Billy Budd and the whole Air Cavalry appears and kills the fuck out of Charlie
>They leave, they just leave
>Some days later, some yellow assholes are back there, still sticking rice up in their asses
>"There's no way we could win!"
If they just went there, kill those fags and then STAY THERE after leveling the whole area and building an outpost, then none of this clusterfuck would happen, or that's what I understood.
3e46c5 No.507269
>>507189
This.
Notice how America only ever won 4 proper wars:
-The independance war.
-The civil war.
-WW2. (No you didn't won WW1 you silly fucks, Britain and France did.)
-The gulf war.
What did these wars had in common?
-You had a very good reason to hold the ground.
-Or someone that liked you did it for you.
-Afghanistan
-Vietnam
-Korea
-Iraq
-Syria
-The commies.
First you won all of these wars.
Then you left because you didn't see the point in staying.
Then you lost all of these wars.
And i'm shitting on 'merica, but same should be said about britain, France, Spain, and to a lesser extent Russia.
If we ever intend to win these wars, and not having them just grow back like the weeds they are, we need to get back at kicking ass AND squeezing balls.
Like the whole islamist bullshit could have been completely solved by now if we just declared Algeria, Tunisia, Maroc and Egypt "Allied Protectorate", and fed them Western bullshit until they forgot who Allah even was.
Then we could have gone on to "civilize" center and southern africa, and Africa would have become a New America.
Maybe the new problem might have been "The United States of Africa", throwing tea into the mediteranean as a protest from European Taxes….
a464ee No.507273
>>507269
You forgot the Spanish-American war, but to be fair that war was kind of one sided on our side. Spain was already the sick man of Europe by that time and declaring war on them was equivalent to a twenty year old declaring war on an eighty year old.
5635db No.507399
>>506164
He wasn't discharged though, they were going to, but when it got to the news, public opinion got to the pentagon, especially with congress dogging on their asses.
5635db No.507400
>>507269
>No you didn't won WW1 you silly fucks, Britain and France did
Bullshit, without American reinforcements those countries would've keeled over during the Spring Offensive. Especially France, Germany was less than 100 miles in reach of Paris. Not to mention the fucking millions in aid.
550bc7 No.513343
>>496867
From a IR scholars perspective:
>What was the core of US failure in Vietnam
The political outcome sought by the US forces, ie: the prevention of the spread of communism was effectively countered by Ho Chi Minh's strategy of refusing to surrender and not compromising no matter how many casualties the Vietnamese incurred. Therefore the US had to choose between total extermination or defeat - thankfully when Nixon went to China Kissinger organized a US-CH detente, achieving the political goal by capitalizing on RU-CH tensions. Thereby the rationale for the war evaporated and the US withdrew. By this measure the military stalemate (despite effective operations by the US) became irrelevant.
>How would this also be applied in relation to US strategic failure in Iraq?
We can only guess what the political motivations of strategic analysts that recommended invasion in the US are. It's entirely possible that the US actions in Iraq achieved their political goals whatever narratives exist about failures and possible explanations for failure.
Possible lessons:
- be aware of diplomatic solutions
- operations must be oriented to clear political goals
- only engage in military operations if a military solution exists
- allies must invest in military actions in proportion to their interests
- you can't make a mule into a lion
000000 No.516681
>>513343
>>496867
>From a IR scholars perspective:
>The political outcome sought by the US forces, ie: the prevention of the spread of communism >thankfully when Nixon went to China Kissinger organized a US-CH detente, achieving the political goal by capitalizing on RU-CH tensions.
Ha you believe. Communist won, Cam Ram became a Soviet base.
> Thereby the rationale for the war evaporated and the US withdrew.
Only thing evaporating was US prestige, emboldening people like the Ayatollah Khomeini.
>It's entirely possible that the US actions in Iraq achieved their political goals whatever narratives exist about failures and possible explanations for failure.
Depends on what “goals” of whom.
1ad79d No.517547
>>507269
>a country wins its own civil war
It'd be hard to lose your sovereignty during a civil war, you retard. By this notion, the Chinese were big winners in WW2 as well.
8313c8 No.517884
>>517547
American Civil War wasn't a civil war you retard. The CSA was a sovereign nation.
ffe01c No.517887
>>496880
>>496867
My current read into the conflict is that we fucked up by not telling the french to fuck off and let their colony be and then making friends with the "rebels" before the chinese got to them
But hindsight is 20/20
ffe01c No.517888
>>497018
>>497013
>>496914
I've read literally the opposite.
Basically that they were fighting to be seperated from france and the US was amicable to the idea but ended up refusing to support them for political reasons because we were worried french would get all commie like and start becoming a USSR sphere of influence kinda place unless we let them rebuild their empire.
Which was retarded.