Would You Have Gone To Vietnam IF...?

General General Discussion
1

Consider the following scenario.

US involvement still began in 1950 with the first US “advisers” sent to Indochina with rising troop levels in 1961-62.

Assume an “all volunteer” military with no draft.

Assume President Kennedy was NOT assassinated in 1963 and he, rather than Johnson, began deploying regular units in 1965.

Assume it is 1968 and the Tet Offensive had just broken the back of the enemy. Only instead of having Walter Cronkite claim an enemy victory and declare the war “unwinnable”, the President fully commits to destroying the enemy cities with a Rolling Thunder campaign followed by invasion and occupation of Hanoi by US troops.

Would you in 1968 join the military to fight in Vietnam in order to prevent the spread of communism in southeast Asia?

2

No. Not my farm, not my pig.

3

Nope.

4

I’ll play devil’s advocate here. We lost and the communists won. We know that…now with time. Back then there was a real threat of communism spreading far past Vietnam. Be it real or made up is not the point. The fact is it was a very viable concern in the 60s of the U.S.S.R. taking a huge foothold in that area.

I would say no as well but hindsight does tend to clear things up a bit. I remember as a kid having this big fear of massive amounts of Soviet tanks and BMPs headed into Western Europe. Would I have gone to war for that? Yep, because that was the fear in my time. If I’d been about 20 in the late 1960s and Steyr’s world played out I am not so sure I wouldn’t raise my right hand and take the oath.

Although I have because much more of an isolationist as I have gotten older.

-Jax

5

Absolutely not… But I’m a bit of an isolationalist/nationalist… Let them duke it out. I come from a long-standing, proud military family but I wouldn’t endanger my life for someone else’s battle.

6

I think the issue with Vietnam was that there was no established goals, from what I know, other than to stop the VC and the NVA from overrunning South Vietnam. Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible to win a war of attrition on the enemy’s soil. It’s also difficult to win a war against communism in a culture that is naturally collectivist as it is, and when the government you’re supporting is nearly as brutal and totalitarian as the one you are fighting.

I have to wonder though, if we had a clearly stated goal of not only stopping and containing the threat of communism, but actively destroying any communist nations that showed aggression to our allies, would things have been different? Instead of just trying to drive the NVA out of South Vietnam and trying to capture a few big fishes here and there from the VC, what could have happened if we told North Vietnam that they must immediately stop their incursions into South Vietnam, or we would drive north, take Hanoi, and knock their nation off the pages of history…then did it? Today, the war might still be seen as one that there was no reason for us to be involved in, but it would have set a precedent that all wars will be fought for decisive victory.

With the exception of China, almost all communist nations have been aggressive and imperialistic by nature. It’s part of their creed: A worldwide worker’s revolution. It’s understandable why the domino theory was so popular at the time. Now we say that we should not have gotten involved in another nation’s war, but at the time, it looked like it was just the beginning of what would eventually be our war, once communism had overrun the world and the final battle would be fought on U.S. soil. Paranoid? Twenty years earlier, we, and much of the world, did not feel it was our place to get involved in the affairs of one nut ranting about how his race was the greatest, or how other nations around him needed to surrender much of their good lands. The rest is history. 20/20 hindsight, the Vietnam war did little to alter the balance of power in the world, but considering what was believed at the time, I would have volunteered for military service.

7

“We lost and the communists won. We know that…now with time. Back then there was a real threat of communism spreading far past Vietnam. Be it real or made up is not the point. The fact is it was a very viable concern in the 60s of the U.S.S.R. taking a huge foothold in that area.”

Bingo…and just ask anyone who experienced the communist worker’s paradise that followed the North Vietnamese take over of the South.

Oh, wait, many of them were killed.

8

So many consequenses for the national zeitgeist with the question’s changed assumptions. A rock star president without a micro-managing disaster for SecDef? Have more effective strategy and tactics prevailed? Are the morale-killing ROE still in force? Is the corrupt ARVN military leadership still tolerated? Are the anti-war forces relegated to radical fringe status?

In hindsight, if the ARVN were at the point of the spear and under US command, and the American public was supportive, I expect I would sign up.

9

No. It seemed that the cold war was fought with a certain restraint. The threat of a hot war breaking out between the U.S. & the Soviets was always lurking. Would the Soviets & Chinese have gotten directly involved if the North Vietnamese had started losing too badly?
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=268358

10

I am not quite the same ignorant fool that got drafted in 1965 anymore. Most of the time our “betters” aren’t. At any level.

11

Dienekes has it on.

That said, I have to honestly say I’d have already been there - despite all the issues, I’d have learned other languages and still had a use that was functionally defending our guys out there. Despite the issues with the ARVN being what would have been the next impediment, we’d have started seeing green-on-blue attacks even back then had there been more success.

All-volunteer force would have made it a smaller deal, slightly less use of raw boots on the ground, and nullified anti-war clout at home.

We’d be looking at a closer analog to where we’re at in Afghan right now, but fighting against a more popular NV leadership (at least Karzai is popular somewhere in the country), so we’d be even more likely to end up with a second Korea outcome. It would have taken the Afghan folly of the Russians to really change the overall balance of power. With those preconditions, it would be a lot like our current Afghan deal, and I went there, so I can’t say I wouldn’t have gone then.

12

I would have joined in 68 just like I did 88 if there was a war on at the time so be it.

13

Knowing that the war, as well as many others, have been started under a generated false flag incident, at the cost and waste of american lives, no. As a 20+ year career Soldier, I can honestly say, I would have chosen another career path knowing what I know now. Fighting a just war, I’m all in. Fighting false flag wars to generate debt/money to bankers who fund both sides, not so much.

14

As USMC General Smedly Butler pointed out, All War is a Racket.

We have a long history of fighting pointless wars. VN is no exception. We are currently engaged in several pointless wars. Anyone feel like volunteering for any of those?

15

This is spot on, bravo sir.

16

Not just any General but a recipient of TWO Congressional Medal of Honors.

http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/2455/butler-smedley-darlington.php

[QUOTE]
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” - Major General Smedley Butler USMC[/QUOTE]

17

If only for the chance to kill some Communists. Yes. Provided that I didn’t have a real life built yet, like I do now.

18

Gulf of Tonkin was 64 under Johnson. Assume it didn’t happen.

19

I don’t know why all the assumptions or attempts to change history, but I would have joined up just like I did in 86 and later in 2002. But, I am also hard headed and foolish.

20

Assumptions aside, I consider myself a life long patriot, beginning as a kid, and leaned towards a career that would defend our way of life, against all who would oppose us. As anti-communism was so in vogue during that era, which I was and still am, and as big of a fan I was for Kennedy, despite being a democrat (but a true centrist) I’d still have to say no. This country has a long history of sticking our nose into other places where it doesn’t belong…as recently as Syria, but the People stood against the machine and didn’t let us, openly get entangled in another war, which seriously pissed off Saudi Arabia, who was the main instigator of that push. Covertly, we are already involved, but are too dumb to distinguish between true Syrian rebels and al Qaida terrorists who are co-opting their indigenous plight, with Iran still in ours, Israel’s, SA’s, and the globalists sights.

Then as it is now, we need to say phoque all these BS proxy wars for outside and internal hidden agendas, which run contrary to what the American people want, and for what is truly in this country’s best interest. If it wasn’t for the weak leadership in this country with these oppressive environmental laws, we wouldn’t need the Middle East for a god damn thing. Sorry for the thread derailment, but It’s time we let the rest of the world figure out how to deal with their own problems without us. Sometimes, it’s good to let people fight their own wars to remind them just how costly and phoqued up war actually is, especially when it’s their own ass on the line.

Our methods for going to war are asinine. We let dick heads (corporations and politicians) get us into war, then let them call the shots on how we wage that war. We win, then give back the country…to hell with that. Our rules for war should be ruthlessly simple, ala the Roman Empire…who ever Effs with us, we totally annihilate, take over, enslave initially, kill off the entire top of the regime, then assimilate that country’s military, take its resources and wealth, then add another star to the flag. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and AFG should all be US territories with US military governors at the helm as far as I’m concerned. Phoque what the UN has to say about it. We are the military arm of the UN. If we had done that, no one would mess with us. The recession would have been over 10 years ago due to the stolen wealth from those countries alone :slight_smile: If we are unwilling to do that, when directly provoked of course, then ruthlessly play for keeps, we shouldn’t be going to war, in any era.