Let me preface my comments with a little of my background. I did not serve in Viet Nam. I tried to enlist/join the Army, Navy, Aifr Force and Marine Corps. None would let me in (bad heart). Instead I went to work for the Army as an ORSA (you military types know what that is, we were the pencil pushers that analyzed everything going in, out or into the military effort. Men, weapons, tactics, strategy etc. Bean counters to the hilt.)
Looking at it from the home front, we lost the war because the press said we did. It was like the Soviet Union in Reverse. They say they came in second and we (the US) came in next to last is what was a dual track and field contest. both statements are true but hardly convey what the rea situation was. The political leaders at the time (bot Rep and Dem) wouldn't have known the truth if it bit them in the butt.
All of that taken together equals winning the war militarily and loosing it politically and socially.
Just my non-server POV.

If you think the rules of engagement were stupid then, you'll be bowled over by the rules now. If a soldier sees someone pulling out a weapon, he can't open fire. If he sees that person pointing the weapon at a fellow soldier, he can't open fire. Only AFTER he shoots a fellow soldier can you open fire. Those are the rules today. Every wonder why so many have PTSD?

try this Youtube video. Itmakes everything clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYG...

I have a different thesis. I'd be interested in what you think. Go to the follow up question: "Nam vets, thanks for your answers..." and read the first comment, it's mine; then let me know what you think.

Well done. I don't know any college kids who work now. They go on daddy's tab or borrow the money.

One word. POLITICIANS. Just explain to me how you can win EVERY battle, and lose the war. Clearly it was a case of betrayal, especially of nearly 60,000 troops who were killed fighting that war, and hundreds of thousands more who were permanently disabled. If the politicians weren't willing to WIN, they should have left the Vietnamese alone, and stayed home, and left a few million innocent Americans to live their lives in peace.

i felt he was being matter of fact and could care less about sending troops to their death with no winning strategy

i am currently reading "The Worst President in History"...if you have the stomach, it is worth the read...just went thru O's treatment of the armed forces...disgusting...

my Air Force participation was free pilot training for 6 years of payback, then onto the airlines...i was a poor boy out of west virginia and the first on either side of the family to go to college...worked a 40 hour week while taking a full load of classes...finished in 4 years..

That's what I am getting at with the follow up question: "Nam vets, thanks for your answers...". If you'll read the first comment, which is mine, I'd be interested in what you think, whether I'm on to something or not.

Quite possible. I wasn't 18 until after I was in college, so I wasn't eligible until then.

Many people have mentioned something similar, but, they did not want to win because they wanted to KEEP U.S. troups in Viet Nam as a means of "holding off" the Chinese who were USING the North Vietnese similar to the reason for being in South Korea to hold off the North Koreans. Similar to the reasons for NOT winning ANY wars in the Middle East!

Sergeant in the Marine Corps from 1968 to 1972. The war was designed to be lost from top to bottom. Presidents would make the decision to bomb strategic targets and sometimes non-strategic then stop. Some of the North Vietnamese commanders admitted years later that there were times when they considered the war lost then America would quit bombing and they would rebuild and continue. Military commanders on the American side in Viet Nam would take strategic positions (which always cost lives on both sides) cutting off supply lines then later abandon the position and go somewhere else allowing the 'enemy' to reopen the lines without any loss. There were times when the military would go back and take the same positions with an additional loss of life and then leave again. It didn't take long for the VC and NVA to learn to quickly disengage from any major battle, wait and then return with little if any loss of supplies and men when there would be no resistance and no risk. When you look at the Viet Nam war strategically there is no war college in the world that teaches its leaders and soldiers to fight in this manner. The behavior of the leaders may have been postulated for the benefit of the masses back home as wanting to win the war but their behavior betrays their actual intentions. Lower ranking individuals may have recognized the problem but they went along because they were 'ordered' to and believed it was immoral to disobey but not immoral to fail to be logical or objective and complain or refuse to carry out their orders. Supply routes through other countries were never cut, victories were never established by maintaining control over area or resources. How did we get in the war? Ho Chi Minh was schooled in France and believed (so he once stated) in democracy. After WWII the French retook Viet Nam (they had been kicked out by the Japanese) and began running their rubber plantations with their Vietnamese slaves. Ho Chi Minh asked Truman for help (thinking he was for democracy and would support him) and Truman instead supported the French in their endeavors to plunder the country for they were an ally and this would ensure America's continued access to the important rubber commodity. The French were as brutal as the Japanese in maintaining order (their Pax Romana) and the Vietnamese wanted to be free, Ho Chi Minh turned to the other side (Communism - Russia & China) to get the French out. When the French finally fled America still did not want to lose its resources there so a puppet government was set up to 'maintain democracy' and access to the resources. America assassinated one of the first 'presidents' they installed who was not cooperative enough and put in one desired for his willingness to comply. Eisenhower authorized 'support troops' who were not supposed to engage the enemy. Some of my older cousins ended up over there during this time and when they came home I remember them talking about the 'secret war' being fought in Viet Nam. I was 13 and unaware of the country's existence until they came home with their war stories. President Kennedy authorized a shooting war but still kept it minimal. He had actually put forth a plan to withdraw the troops after deciding that perhaps it was a mistake, before he could complete this action he was assassinated and soon thereafter Lyndon Johnson had the 'Gulf of Tonkin' (read the Pentagon Papers-interesting how Senator White was given a copy of the papers because he was against the war but felt he couldn't present them before congress would implicate him in their illegal procurement - failimg to bring attention to the lie about the incident) and really escalated the war. America never crossed the imaginary line into North Viet Nam to pursue and eliminate the enemy. Imagine World War II fought in this manner, stopping at the German border, not bombing their infrastructure except occasionally and hoping that they would give up.
Behavior betrays intent. It isn't that the military men were unwilling or even too unwitting to accomplish the task. When orders come from the very top to cease and desist or to leave accomplished goals it is clear there never was intent to win. What the intent was can be speculated upon and I have my ideas but there is no evidence I am aware of that gives any information as to why the war was fought except the first intent was to protect access to an important commodity.
An aside from the story, I was in China this spring and met a woman who asked if I had been in the service during the Viet Nam War. I told her that I had been a Marine. She said that in China it was known as 'the secret war' because other than the military that was directly involved (and the country's leadership) no one in the country knew about the war. Then she asked me a question (I find it interesting that only women ask this question) that I have not been asked in a long time. "Did you ever kill anyone? What was it like?"

Sgt. US Army, Phu Bai, 1969-70. It is common for the losing side in a war to argue they lost because their leaders betrayed them or didn't really intend to win to begin with. [See Hitler on WWI or Booth on the Civil War] In virtually all cases, however, the losers came out on the short side because of logistical, tactical or strategic failures or because the losers lost political backing of their citizenry. All these factors contributed to a greater or lesser extent with the US and Viet Nam. We were fighting in a civil war located half a world away. The opponents involved a determined regular army (North Viet Nam) and a highly motivated guerrilla force (Viet Cong). They were supplied in large part by regional allies. We were fighting in a jungle environment with very few conventional engagements where our well equipped military, including total air superiority, would have had significant advantage. The local populace had unidentifiable enemies buried within it. As the cost in lives and treasure mounted with no end in sight, our politicians reacted by increasing troop levels and extending the draft while defining victory in terms which seemed meaningless to most Americans. Hence, defeat. As painful as it might seem, it's not much more complicated than that.

As I dimly recall, at the time of the draft lottery you actually had to be already in college to get a deferment (unless you were married). Trying to avoid your draft call up by enrolling quickly in college didn't help you. The only realistic options for Mike were: being drafted, enlisting, getting into the national guard pronto or heading for Canada. Guys like Bush, Cheney and Clinton were able to game the system, but poor Mike had to put his life on hold for six years. At least he came out alive.