I was trying to find a quote similar to the Patton quote I used earlier (also by Patton, I believe, but may be someone else or apocryphal) that said what you posted. It was something like "war is killing people and breaking things, but to win a war you need to break more and kill more than the enemy is will to lose." When I was in elementary school we had a German substitute teacher who was alive during World War 2 and he described what it was like in some of the cities we bombed in German. He showed us pictures of a city that was so bombed that the fires were put out by the lack of oxygen caused by the fires themselves. He said that his family knew the end was near, because there weren't many left that after that who were willing to chance another city to be destroyed like that. We just have the heart to do that anymore.

British troops were effective against communists in both Malaya and Borneo but, they had the support of at least half the population. When I got to Borneo in '86 the people were definitely anticommunist.

If you have time, please read my comment under the new thread, "Nam vets, thanks for your answers" and let me know what you think, am I right, wrong, or somewhere in between?

This. Right here.

We were not there to win. We didn't try to win. We knew what it would take to win and we were not willing to do those things.
Contrast this to Gulf War 1. We on the ground had authority to call in some truly devastating support: tactical nukes. Obviously we didn't. But the mere fact we were authorized and provided with the means to do so gives you an indication of the willingness and resolve to win. Observe the results. Regardless of what happens after, we easily won that war.

For Vietnam we didn't have that resolve. We started to get it with the bomber runs, so they were called off. I've been on the ground when a low altitude mock B52 bombing run occurred and I can tell you the sound alone was absolutely terrifying - even after the first one and knowing it was coming. It was primal.

High altitude bombing runs are less primal but more mentally terrifying. Things. Just. Go. Boom. Indeed this was a key factor in the mass surrender of Iraqi tank commanders. To quote one "...out of nowhere one of my tanks exploded. Then another. And again. Yet we could see and hear nothing. We knew it was the Americans. I've never been so frightened in my life."

A primary favor in winning a battle, and thus a war, is terror. Not fear, but primal terror. Fear can be overcome and provides for courage. Terror not so easily. In Vietnam we were unwilling to do the things that would induce that level or terror and fear. The enemy had no such compunction.

War should be terrible, as much as we can make it. The more terrible it is, the less likely war is to occur. Even the socialist Gene Roddenberry knew this. The reason we haven't had WWIII is because of the extreme terror nuclear weapons are.

Just as Rand says in regards to hide who are willing to compromise principles will always fall to those who are not, the side willing to sacrifice victory for pleasantly will fall to the side committed to destroying the enemy.

Do you believe Kissinger was being honest with you, we weren't fighting to win or, was he being defensive after the fact, since we didn't win he changed his statement of purpose?

Thank you, the president and the congress are the functioning arms making up the US government so they were all complicit as they are now with respect to the middle east. They are the problem and since we have a volunteer army nobody should volunteer. Let 0 and his contingent go there to fight.

Our veterans kicked ass. They were held back and NOT allowed to win the "war". Our veterans are awesome. It is to bad that they are suppose to listen to the losers that are politicians. I have a question, does anybody think McCain has sold out as a politician? Vote veteran someone that puts America B4 any party, we come from all backgrounds. Divide and conquer is what they do. End double standard,DC politician on Obamacare,SS mrpresident2016.com

The way I understood it, taking a deferment put off the time you had to serve until after you got out of undergrad college. I didn't take a deferment and could have been drafted, but drew a high number. Mike could have deferred until after college, and then the war could have been over. Don't know if he still would have had to serve in peacetime though.

I heard a military tactician who studied the Vietnam War say it was like the US was playing Chess, and the VC were playing Go. The US was fighting the war with rules that hamstrung their effective deployment of their soldiers well and tried to fight a clean war (trying to minimize the civilian casulties as much as possible). The VC had no such restrictions and were fighting a guerrilla war where they would ambush the US then retreat into the local area and blend into the population for civilian protection. It goes without saying that if our leaders really didn't try to win, it was a fait encomplet they would lose.

Which frightens me in our current military actions when we try to win the hearts of the people and don't try to do everything to win simply because it will make us look bad at the end of the day. To quote George S Patton "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his". We have seemed to have moved away from this sentiment, and maybe why we seemed to have this never-ending series of wars and 'police actions'.

I'm curious as to your thoughts about my answer. I posed it in a new thread.

As I said, I didn't get there until '92 but, I found the communists just as dedicated then as they apparently were in '75.

Never get involved in a war you don't intend to win. The objectives in Viet Nam were never clearly stated. It's hard to win a conflict when you don't know what you mean by victory. I was in Viet Nam in the late 60's working for a different government agency but protected by brave Marines. Even then the frustration among the war fighters was palpable.

We were stupid 18 year olds. None of us knew anything about draft deferments. Actually, I still don't. I have no idea whether simply going to college would have got Mike out of the service. I do know that was one of the drunkest weekends of his life.

How about the marxist type movements in our culture that increasingly hampered our ability to get the job done and get out. Just look at what that liberal creature, Kerry did when he got home...that whole "Baby Killer" nonsense was invented by the Liberal brain.
There is a book out on the subject, wish I could remember the name...but it explains that America Was winning this battle for the South but was hampered by liberal demoncraps...read: Communist sympathizers.

Basically you used the wrong tactics. Should have used ones Briton used in Malaya and Borneo.

Wrong question to ask, IMHO. Assuming for a moment that there even is such an entity as "WE", the question I would ask is "What moral right did "WE" have enslaving (drafting) tens of thousands of young man and women and forcing them to travel thousands of miles from home and go kill a bunch of strangers who had done them no harm?". That being said, let me add that I have nothing but the deepest, most heart felt compassion for all those drafted Nam vets.

Aviation Supply Sergeant, Chu Lai, 1968-1970. Drafted, converted to Regular Army, elected second tour to get out 5 months early. Followed by a 28-year career in the US Navy. Only the troops on the ground wanted to win (or escape); the media led the campaign to destroy public resolve; the congressional staffers who were hosted at the Continental Hotel in Saigon saw to it there were insufficient funds for bullets. We didn't belong there in the first place, but when civilians (who tolerate and support the evil regime) become more important than our own people, that is the political key. It continues to inhibit the military today. When attrition is measured in human bodies... When the people of a country must be drafted, turned into slaves, to fight against others who would enslave them... Pick any of the reasons offered in all the comments. Kissinger and his minions, including LBJ, were unwilling to cut the head off the dragon, hang the bankers, or remain allegiant to a constitutional republic. I do not believe 80% of the people supported the Vietnam War in the early days; more like 80% were against communism and the hordes...

I was in country in 1970 and by that time it was pretty clear that we were not going to win a decisive victory over North Vietnam however we were still arming and supporting the South Vietnamese government, even ceding over the defense of the south to the RVN military.

I believe that we were never really in the war in order to win it (I.e., conquering North Vietnam) but rather just to stabilize the south. The argument at the time was still that Vietnam was a critical domino and that if it fell, the rest of Southeast asia would end up being vassal states of the Soviet Union and China.

Militarily, we never had a plan for going in and defeating the north on their own territory. All we thought we had to do was bomb them into submission. That assumption was grossly wrong!

In part, the problem stemmed later in the "war" or more accurately, "police action" that the intelligence that was being used was faulty! Johnson listened to the military and the intel that was coming out of MACV regarding critical tactical and intel based info. On the other hand, the CIA was probably providing much more accurate information that was for all intents and purposes being ignored.

These are two major reasons that I believe we were kept from victory! It was not for a lack of physical resources or the bravery and commitment of the American soldier and the allies that were there with us. It was a totally flawed war plan prosecuted by the political class in this country. Politicians should have little if any control of military operations! That was a lesson learned and has been taught going forward.

For what its worth!

HOW ABOUT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DID NOT WANT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoting from an interview with General Frederick W. Weynand:
" ,,, but America’s fighting forces did not fail us. ‘You know, you never beat us on the battlefield,’ I told my North Vietnamese counterpart during negotiations in Hanoi a week before the fall of Saigon. He pondered that remark a moment and then replied, ‘That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.’"
We violated ever principle in Sun Tsu's "Art of War," and paid the price/

The fundamental reason?
Because it was run by politicians.

They tried to let the civilians run the war from DC which is exactly the same reason that we're losing in the Middle East.

i was a pilot in the Air Force from 1970-1979...started out wanting to go to Vietnam, but my first instructor the first Medal of Honor winner in Nam...flying F105's into the radar sites in the North...low and slow trying to get radar operator to fire up his SAMs, then he would drive a smart bomb into the SAM site bunker down and take them out...he had pics of his 105 after a mission with a hole so big he could put his head thru it...he entered the war talking like you or me, but left Nam after 100 missions with a really bad stutter...made full colonel for retirement pay and left the service...

he and my other instructors (all survived 100 missions over the North...their reward was to be instructor pilots stateside)...they told all of us not to go...that they were slaughtering everyone over there...that is was insane...so i stayed as an instructor stateside...the 10 in my class who went to Nam were all killed...

years later i am deadheading in uniform as a pilot for American Airlines L.A. to NYC...sitting next to me is Henry Kissenger...we had quite the conversation...he explained that we did not fight the war to win it...just to prove to the communists that the U.S. was willing to sacrifice as many Americans as necessary to stalemate them, but the demonstraters stateside caused us to withdraw for political reasons only....i was very proud i didn't beat the crap out of him...

Missed the lottery but wasn't sure I would, so joined National Guard. Read some where we were a month from winning the war, but pulled out due to the likes of Jane Fonda and the protests at home. There certainly blood on her hands given what happened next.

Easy answer:. (1) We should never have been there in the first place and (2) people fighting in their homeland have a more vested and emotional interest in the fight than to the foreign invaders. We face the same problem in the mid-east and we'll never win there either for the same two reasons.

We saw Vietnam From the domino theory perspective which did not pan out.

Ray Glab
92nd Field Hospital

The Reason we lost in Vietnam was, as LBJ said,"I have no intention to win the war in Vietnam. I have to prosecute the war or the conservatives will say I am soft on Communism, But I cannot win because the liberals would never forgive me."