Vietnam

>>33418742
We focused on body counts instead of objectives like land and territory. We were closing in on them at the end of the war but we pulled out for political reasons and they swung back in and took over.

we honestly had some of the best soldiers in american history after vietnam and we did nothing with them. They were some of the most combat hardened and experienced soldiers we have ever created and i dont think we will ever match it again.

File: afghan war.jpg (50KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x424px

>>33418742
How does a country lose a war to goat herders when you have Air Superiority?

Are Russians that bad at war?

See? It's that easy to make a shitpoast

>>33418780
>What is Iraq twice

>Afghanistan

>Vietnam

>Panama

lol

>>33418786
WTF is Iraq twice and Panama?

>>33418780
>>33418786
its because we fuck around and give a shit about politics. If we wanted to we could wipe out the middle east without a single nuke. Just rolling over every man, woman, and child indiscriminately.

They had AA guns.

>>33418742
"The end results of the New Year's Eve battle were devastating for the Russian side, with the first Russian armored column alone losing 105 of its 120 tanks and armored personnel carriers.The entire first battalion of the Maikop Brigade, more than 50% of the 81st Regiment, and hundreds of men from the remaining units had been killed. A high-ranking Russian General Staff officer later said "On January 2nd, we lost contact with our forward units." According to Maskhadov, some 400 Russian tanks and APCs in all were destroyed. Russian Colonel General A. Galkin reported 225 armored vehicles lost during the first month and a half of the war, including 62 tanks.
Most of the Spetsnaz detachment troops surrendered to the Chechens, "after wandering about hopelessly for three days without food, let alone any clear idea of what they were supposed to do."A Russian Lieutenant Colonel was quoted when he returned from Chechen captivity as saying, "the only order was to go forward, without explanations as to what they should do, where they should go, and whom they should capture." Meanwhile, highly mobile Chechens attacked even the Russian second-echelon forces outside the city, raiding an artillery battalion"

>>33418839
"Russian soldiers who were taken prisoner did not even know where and why they were there; some had been told that their mission would be to "protect roads," while others asked the reporters "who is fighting whom".When more captured Russian soldiers were shown on TV, the mothers of some went to Grozny to negotiate release their sons. Those negotiations took place in the center of the city without Russian government assistance and while under Russian artillery bombardment; some of the prisoners were released on the promise they would never fight the Chechens again.
Already during New Year's battle Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudayev had moved his headquarters to Shali, 25 kilometres south of Grozny. The Russian forces pulled back, leaving isolated pockets of men behind in the process to resist on their own. Morale dropped so low that units of the Interior Ministry and OMON forces outside town departed without orders. Several Russian generals and commanders were sacked for their poor performance in conducting the assault."

>>33418742
We're just bad at politics. The US military fought with one arm tied behind its back, because we feared that escalation would bring the Soviets or China into the fray and kick off a nuclear war. Therefore the US fought a limited action, hoping to wear down the NVA with attrition, but it took to long and public support evaporated.

>>33418742
from what i read. mostly no given goal to conquer that country .. american and french and south vietmease stayed south, most part of the time in defensive positions . also the socialist effect from russia and china , alot of arms coming through china. also korea was at a draw with china as ally . so area was basic tinder box after WW2 .. thers prolly alot more . but hopefully this was and indication of the struggle at the time..

>>33418742

How does an anon lose to memes when you have an entire internet filled with historical research?

Is anon this bad at google searches?

>>33418742
>lol it was like, the US vs mere rice farmers! HUHHUH HOW DID YOU LOSE
>calling Nguyễn Văn Cốc a rice farmer
>insinuating there werent competent "farmers" amid the guerilla forces outside of the NVA

Fuck off

>All these cars on the excuse train

EX-EX-EX-EX-EX-EX-SCUUSE-SCUUSE!!!

How bout never fight a land war in southeast asia? Seems like a pretty simple rule to me.

REEEEEE IT WAS ONLY A POLITICAL LOSS NOT A MILITARY ONE!
REEEE WE WON BECAUSE THERE IS A MCDONALDS IN VIETNAM, IN SPITE OF THAT BEING A NON SEQUITOR DUE TO THE NVA BEING A PRIMARILY NATIONALIST ORGANIZATION AS OPPOSED TO ONE AGAINST TO PERSONAL OWNERSHIP AND CAPITAL GAINS
So on, so on, etc.

File: Clausewitz 2.jpg (42KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x450px

>>33418742
Because Americans didn't read their Marc Aurel or Clausewitz and went to war without proper reasons and without a proper goal.

>>33418839
>>33418846

How in the fuck did the Russians manage to get more of their people killed in 10 years in Chechnya than the US did in 15 years in Irag and Afghanistan?

>>33418777
trips of truth son damn .

>>33418943
>>33418950

having to use caps is the sign of weakness. How do you live with yourself being a plebian inferior? When your patrician betters (such as myself) walk by you, do you bow your head in reverence as is proper, or do you seethe with anger in your burning eyes, knowing you will never, in your life, achive what your superiors have?

It must be horrible to live in that purgatory of never being great, but not allowed to die. I weep for you.

File: tmp_2853-666afa25a298c84423290107c1ad5069-1121529133.jpg (69KB, 699x700px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 699x700px

>>33418742
How does a country lose a war to rice farmers when you have Tactical Superiority?

Are the French this bad at war?

>>33418777
>We focused on body counts instead of objectives like land and territory.
hard to focus on objectives like that when land and territory are constantly shifting, and there aren't any clear enemies.
vietnam was a gigantic shitshow

File: 11-1.jpg (27KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 650x366px

How does a party lose an election to memespouting racists when you have globalist backing?

Are Democrats this bad at elections?

>>33419434
>Are Democrats this bad at elections?
Yes
that's why moderates, conservatives and leftist liberals are jumping ship from the party.

I'm not trying to be edgy here, but I think a lot of problems with these insurgencies stem from the fact that we're unwilling to completely dominate the populace and enforce our values on them.

>>33419434
Its because they got to greed

>>33418742
Couldn't invade north vietnam because it would trigger china getting involved and therefore WW3

So the only thing left to do was defend south vietnam, and defending is a losing battle in modern warfare.

>>33419434
because America is not a democracy
it's a constitutional republic

>>33419555

What was China's military position at that point of time? Couldn't the combined might of the USN and RN just blockade them into bankruptcy?

>>33419414
well the problem is objectives, owning every god damn hill wont win the war. but owning every strategic point can. we would take shit and loose it in the same day which would be okay except they were just simple hills surrounded by hills. They werent hill 60 in WWI, they were just random pieces of land. We needed to attack more important places like their HQ. At the end of the war we were only miles from were their HQ was but nixon said we couldnt go more than 15 miles(give or take, i cant remember exact number) into cambodia with ground troops. Then we pulled out of cambodia and vietnam all together because nixon was getting so much shit in the united states for the war.


when we invaded cambodia there were a bunch of protest at universities around the country, The national guard was called in and then they killed 4 students and wounded one.(kent state) This was of course a really big deal and nixon had to pull out.

>>33418964
Their empire had collapsed as they knew it, and most of the Chechen rebels were ex Red Army, infact 90% of the Chechen commanders were highish ranking in the USSR's military.

>>33418742
We didn't fight it like a small war.

Max Boot talks about this, the General in command was trying to fight a conventional war, not an insurgency. If we had followed the same formula as the Philippine occupation we'do have done far better.

HEARTS AND MINDS

>>33419637
This tbf

We had no idea how to deal with terrorists (which is all the VC really were) so we went and dragged North Vietnamese regulars into the war to turn the war into something we were familiar with... which merely backfired of course.

America was fighting against communism. Vietnam was fighting for Vietnam.

File: Enemy_situation,_early_1964.jpg (126KB, 710x885px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 710x885px

>>33418742
there was no clear front line in vietnam like there was in wwii/korea and was basically a giant clusterfuck; pic related

bombing the shit out of gooks is significantly less effective when they are able to shoot back with jets and missiles thanks to the commies

no body on the ground wanted to be in that shithole and nobody back home wanted them there so staying in vietnam after years of sucking up resources was pretty difficult to justify

File: vietnam3.jpg (77KB, 720x443px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 720x443px

It's quite simple really, US is a democratic country, democracies don't like going to war, but the countries that US was fighting, USSR and China, were not democracies, their leaders did not give a single shit if their citizens were do die, US leaders did care because they wanted to be re-elected/elected.

Everyone ITT is retarded.

The Vietnam war was lost because of politics.

>>33419637
>Max Boot

ahahahahahahaha

>>33419890
>US is a democratic country, democracies don't like going to war
So why did they enter the war in the first place?

>>33419877
>bombing the shit out of gooks is significantly less effective when they are able to shoot back with jets and missiles thanks to the commies
It's as much our own fault as the Soviet's. For one thing, LBJ shouldn't have dragged North Vietnam into it in the first place, but after that point there was ample opportunity to neutralize North Vietnam's defenses... but for some ungodly reason, US leadership seemed to prefer to LET the North Vietnamese shoot back. Early offensives were gradual in nature, starting with only intermittent, meaningless attacks with small fighter-bombers. This gave North Vietnam and it's Russian advisors ample time to formulate a defensive strategy. The approved targets during early campaigns rarely had any tactical value, and North Vietnamese defensive installations such as airbases or SAM sites were frequently off-limits.

Things got better towards the end of the war in most respects, as heavy bombers were introduced and targets were broadened to include Vietnamese air defenses, but bombing campaigns became short and sporadic as North Vietnam started agreeing to (and subsequently violating) ceasefire after ceasefire to buy time to recover and rebuild between US air offensives.

>>33418786

Iraq 1 objective: push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Saddam Hussein is pushed out of Kuwait.

Panama objective: depose Manuel Noriega and dissolve the ruling military junta. Noriega deposed, junta dissolved.

Iraq 2 objective: kill Saddam Hussein maybe? Does anyone really know why we invaded Iraq? Anyway Saddam's dead, so there's that.

Vietnam objective: stall the advance of communism by supporting the fascist government of southern Vietnam. South Vietnam fell, but communism in southeast Asia was greatly retarded, so that's something.

That said, I'm really not sure what the point of your post was. Are you experimenting with greentext? Do you just enjoy making lists?

>>33419923
we had to stop the commies from taking over the world :^)

>>33419480
This. We apparently want the trappings and benefits of an empire without having to collectively get our hands dirty. Because God forbid we admit that sometimes the advancement of a national agenda requires good men to do horrible things.

>>33419480
>Implying the French didn't try that and fail miserably

>>33419923
For democracy.

>>33418742
The same reasons the british empire lost in the American revolution despite complete naval supremacy

>>33420043
>same reason Great Britain lost
So, America lost to Vietnam because France arrived with tens of thousands of veteran troops and mariners to aid the communist cause, while simultaneously America drained its resources fighting with Spain, the Netherlands, and Mysore?

Is that why America lost in 'Nam? Or could it just be you're a retard?

>>33418786
>kicked the shit out of iraq twice
>kicked the shit out of vietnam
>kicked the shit out of afghanistan
>kicked the shit out of panama

>>33419583
they lost a war to Vietnam in the early 80s.

>>33418742

America didn't loose, at least technically so. Nixon bombed the shit out of Cambodia through Operation Menu and forced the NVA into the Paris Accords. The US pulled out, and only then did the NVA push south. By that point, Nixon was mixed up in Watergate which was the lead story. Three months after Saigon fell, he would resign. On the most technical level, it wasn't a US loss.

Anyway, looking more broadly the goal of Vietnam was to contain communism. By 1970, Nixon had dumped that policy in favor of detente by opening up China (thus splitting the communist block). Vietnam's role had become defunct, as the larger "domino theory" unraveled. After the US pullout Vietnam, backed by Russia, would immediately get into a much more brutal war with China (who also "lost").

>>33420062
>huffed paint in the deep south (you)

(you)

(you)

>>33418964

Modern Russian military has had a very poor performance record.

>>33418742
France lost that war. America just waved the freedom flag at people that already had that.
They waved it a little too much and got told to F* off.

>>33420006
>the fascist government of southern Vietnam
South Vietnam wasn't fascist. They were just a garden variety tin pot dictatorship.