Did America lose any battles?

[Spiderman]

Guerilla attacks and Skirmishes aren't battles imo

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's true, we were actually winning the Vietnam War. We pulled out under political pressure. Not from the Viet Cong, but from our own politicians.

Totally false: Opinion | Why Vietnam Was Unwinnable

Vietnam was unwinnable just like Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Totally false: Opinion | Why Vietnam Was Unwinnable

Vietnam was unwinnable just like Afghanistan and Iraq.

That's complete BS.

 

[Spiderman]

If America would have fought north Vietnam like they fought the Germans and Japanese, I doubt North Vietnam would have been able to win.

Problem was we would not cross the DMZ. It would have been very costly to occupy North Vietnam, but doable.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's complete BS.

Lol. Very convincing.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If America would have fought north Vietnam like they fought the Germans and Japanese, I doubt North Vietnam would have been able to win.

Problem was we would not cross the DMZ. It would have been very costly to occupy North Vietnam, but doable.

Anything is "doable", the question is how much blood, treasure, political capital and time you're prepared to expend doing it, and what benefit you expect to get from doing it?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That's complete BS.

Other than mindless US centric ra ra boosterism, why?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Other than mindless US centric ra ra boosterism, why?

There was a 20:1 kill ratio in Vietnam. With just about every battle being won. The Tet offensive was a major defeat with operation Linebacker by Nixon pretty much decimating the rest of the Viet Cong to the point where they were no longer militarily viable as a fighting force.

What killed the war was the Paris Accord for which all the Vietcong had to do was stay on the defensive and hold out for a couple more days until the pullout of troops which is what happened and declared a victory.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There was a 20:1 kill ratio in Vietnam. With just about every battle being won. The Tet offensive was a major defeat with operation Linebacker by Nixon pretty much decimating the rest of the Viet Cong to the point where they were no longer militarily viable as a fighting force.

What killed the war was the Paris Accord for which all the Vietcong had to do was stay on the defensive and hold out for a couple more days until the pullout of troops which is what happened and declared a victory.

Similar numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan, though. And Russia during Barbarossa. Killing "20:1" isn't enough to achieve a victory if your opponent is prepared to accept <20:1 losses.

No one's claiming that Western forces didn't kill a whole lot of enemy in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, but the point is the World War 2 paradigm of "he who kills the mostest, fastest, wins" simply doesn't apply when fighting popularly supported asymetric insurgencies. A lesson Western war planners have aaaaaaalmost come to accept after effective defeats in 3 different decade long fights of this kind.

This is not a criticism of the Western military, which is still great at what it was designed for, i.e. fighting against conventional, regular forces in set piece engagements. The problem is that we are using regular, conventional forces to fight irregular, non conventional forces. The analogy of "standing in a humid swamp trying to hit a swarm of mosquitoes with a sledgehammer" is incredibly apt.