James DiEugenio Posted October 6, 2015 Author Share Posted October 6, 2015 Who would know best the details than Abrams? And he told Nixon and Kissinger that in 1969 the war was not winnable, and without the USA, Thieu would lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Let's blame the American people for the second Viet Nam war. Through1969 at least, through the hard-hat demonstration in NYC, the American people clearly supported the war. IMO, no one has the creds to weigh in on the details of the war who didn't serve in the war. And among those who served, there are as many views as the number of those who served. As to the big picture of the war, I always ask, what's the agenda. As one who served, I say no one here or elsewhere wants to know the details. You really don't. As to one who served, I say if you're looking at the big picture, look at the agenda of the presenter. You might say, screw that. Nixon did this and that. And so did Kissinger. They're both POS. Screw 'em. As to one who served, I say this: the ground-level facts, which you don't want to know, are the truth of the war. In 1972, you would have wanted a complete American withdrawal. Without regard to what happened to South Vietnamese citizens. john i am an american citizen and i will question and comment upon the actions of my government without the permission of anyone and despite what i may or may not have done or been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 Martin, Not just freedom of speech but, recall that the Easter Offensive was about to overrun South Vietnam. If Nixon had not ordered a massive Air Force bombardment that went on for weeks, it would have. Abrams was correct in NSSM -1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 James Di @ post #18 The massive Air Force bombardment to which you refer: Do you mean the tactical air strikes in the besieged areas of South Viet Nam? Or do you mean some prior or subsequent strategic bombing of Hanoi or the HCM Trail? Your comment @ post #18 leads me to think you mean strategic bombing, which is not tied to a specific ground-force mission. I don't believe much strategic bombing was carried out during the Easter Offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Martin Blank @ post #17: You write: "john i am an american citizen and i will question and comment upon the actions of my government without the permission of anyone and despite what i may or may not have done or been." Have at it, Martin. I enjoy your posts. My view of Viet Nam is tempered by the 12 most memorable months of my life. Forget me; I'm nobody. Except I'm representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Jon, In the video I posted of the interview of Hackworth, he very specifically mentions the bombing that should have occurred if the military was going to be "allowed to win". It seems to me that his point is that to "win" we would be required to take the gloves off. The consequences being an unacceptable loss of vietnamese life - therefore we should never have been involved. He termed it a "bad war"despite the successes he had with his own tactics. Can you comment (on his comments) based on your own "boots-on-the-ground" perspective? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 8, 2015 Author Share Posted October 8, 2015 Jon: Operation Linebacker, the massive aerial bombardment that took place over both the north and south went on for several months. And it included all kinds of targets. It was the most extensive, ferocious bombardment since late 1968, when LBJ pulled the plug on Rolling Thunder, in trying to get a peace treaty, which Nixon deliberately sabotaged. All told it included 155,000 tons of bombs from the air, and 18,000 tons from ships at sea. In some ways it went beyond Rolling Thunder, since it included the mining of Haiphong, and also laser guided bombs which were just coming in at the time. There is very little doubt that if Nixon and Kissinger had not done this, Saigon would have fallen. And the dichotomy is really stark. Because Giap's attack was completely conventional and had just about no air cover. It included only seven divisions, and 600 tanks. That is how much South Vietnam needed the USA. What makes the Linebacker operation so nutty today is that it was done for one reason: the 1972 election, so as to make sure McGovern would lose big. And BTW, that is not my deduction. Its in Ken Hughes's book Fatal Politics. Which is based upon tapes from the Nixon Library. See, because as I said, Nixon and Kissinger knew the war was not winnable. They knew what they were doing was simply a delaying action of something inevitable. Its only aim was to make sure Saigon did not fall before the election with American troops still there, of which there only about 10-12,000. To me, that is really despicable when you think about it. Why? Because they are still pulling mines out of Vietnam today. Twenty years after Nixon died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Why? Because they are still pulling mines out of Vietnam today. If that's not enough, WW1 and WW2 ammo, mines and grenades killing today, as well: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Jon, In the video I posted of the interview of Hackworth, he very specifically mentions the bombing that should have occurred if the military was going to be "allowed to win". It seems to me that his point is that to "win" we would be required to take the gloves off. The consequences being an unacceptable loss of vietnamese life - therefore we should never have been involved. He termed it a "bad war"despite the successes he had with his own tactics. Can you comment (on his comments) based on your own "boots-on-the-ground" perspective? Chris strategic bombing had been unsuccessful against germany in world war ii and we knew it. compared to germany there were not that many industrial targets, etc., in north vietnam. just ask albert speer if you don't believe me and we were going to bomb north vietnam back to the stone age when it was barely out of the stone age to begin with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Martin Blank @ post #17: You write: "john i am an american citizen and i will question and comment upon the actions of my government without the permission of anyone and despite what i may or may not have done or been." Have at it, Martin. I enjoy your posts. My view of Viet Nam is tempered by the 12 most memorable months of my life. Forget me; I'm nobody. Except I'm representative. of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Martin, At about the 32:00 mark of the video Hackworth is very specific about the ground troops needed, the targets of strategic bombing and overall strategy. He is describing a war where the enemy capitulates, defeated. He goes on to explain the responsibilities of command. What he is talking about is anathema to the strategy of the politicians waging the Vietnam conflict. Hack didn't wage war at the strategic level though, he was only one of the most successful Brigade Commanders of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Martin, representative of at least some Viet Nam vets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Martin, At about the 32:00 mark of the video Hackworth is very specific about the ground troops needed, the targets of strategic bombing and overall strategy. He is describing a war where the enemy capitulates, defeated. He goes on to explain the responsibilities of command. What he is talking about is anathema to the strategy of the politicians waging the Vietnam conflict. Hack didn't wage war at the strategic level though, he was only one of the most successful Brigade Commanders of the war. at what point did hack factor in the chinese entering the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 at what point did hack factor in the chinese entering the war? Martin, Hackworth got his baptism of fire in Korea where he earned several of his 8 purple hearts. I'm sure he'd have never "forgotten" the Chinese. He was not a General but his knowledge of counter insurgency tactics were exceptional. His papers are required reading: http://www.amazon.com/The-Vietnam-Primer-David-Hackworth/dp/0974099600 Hack started complaining about 1968, to everyone he could in the Army, that we couldn't win Vietnam. When no one would listen he got angry and went public in 1972. They destroyed him for that. He was modern day "Smedley Butler" for speaking truth to power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Secret Nixon Archive Paints Disturbing Portrait of a PresidencyThe Washington PostOctober 11, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/top/secret-archive-reveals-nixon-thought-vietnam-bombing-didzilch/2015/10/11/474072afe78a41d5bc6e2e143f72c5c2_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now