https://www.google.ca/search?q=ameri...FMblyQHrt4DwBg It was a very painful time in American history and I don;t know if it worthwhile going through the whole thing again. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert but i do like to some some research when I feel that propaganda is being used, as it certainly was.
They've done that in Europe but the troops could have left for deployment Vietnam rather than remaining scattered across Europe, well after the time they became essential.. It seems we have learned to much from Vietnam and not enough from WWII.While it's true the US forces never lost a battle (as commonly stated) the US couldn't stay there in perpetuity.
These constant 'withdrawals' are not doing anyone any good. As far as the enemy is concerned it is a 'retreat'. not a withdrawal.Nixon's idea was "Vietnamization"; very similar to the 'transition' we are trying to accomplish as the ISAF forces withdrawl from Afganistan.
That's what you do in a war until the enemy retreats.I don't buy either premise. It's not like we didn't give our all in Vietnam -
the prosecution of the war was escalated to carpet bombing, mining Hanoi's harbor, etc.
The war was lost in the United States, not in VietnamThere isn't anything I can think of we didn't do that would have turned that war around, to the point the S. Vietnamese could have taken control of the country
South Vietnam could not win without American help. Remember they were fighting Russia and Chinese communists as well.The same thing is going to happen in Afganistan, if history is any guide.
As we leave security forces in place to somehow support the Afgan national forces; the Afgani forces have to be able to withstand the Talban.
The similarity of the Taliban to the Vietnam's Viet Cong, and the NVA is that those forces are more dedicated to winning.
That's what happened in Vietnam; no matter how much longer we stayed, in the end the S. Vietnamese didn't want to win badly enough.Not being able to see the future, but seeing this template in play in Vietnam, i would assume, the same situtation will happen in Afg. The Taliban are more dedicated to winning, and seizing the gov't -
even as the existing representative western style gov't in place is makig plans for a support role for the Talban.
In other words; both the V.C. and the Taliban were/are not going to settle for any power sharing arrangement
The enemies of democracy seem to have learned a great deal more from Vietnam than many of the American people. If the combined forces of the United States, the world's only Superpower, and all the other democracies, cannot defeat a ragtag army of third world terrorists what does that say about our futures, and those of our children?
As the US retreats from the world stage there will be other powers, probably from Asia, who will take its place. Perhaps these next 'superpowers' will have the stomach to finish a war as easily as it starts, or before it gets out of hand.