Doesn't /k/ hate it when Europeans say shit like. >Americans

It's called banter you baby. Grow up or crawl back up your own gaping vagina.

The point is that the US military was tasked with completing operations that furthered American policy goals, as every other military in history. It failed to achieve those goals. It doesn't matter how many people it killed doing it, it still failed.

>>33490908

So, what did America get out of the Vietnam war?

>>33490908
>wall of butthurt

Grow some fucking balls.

>>33490943
>>33490946

Killed a bunch if dirty double digit I.Q. Brown people for starters.

No but seriously. It didn't win. But it was due to politics. People act as if it was due to having a weak military and weak soldiers.

>>33490953
Cool movies, revisionist history, 15 years of military stagnation, it aint me and the demise of conscription

>>33490925
>>33490957

Two Europoors who's only feeling of superiority against America was now destroyed with some facts. And now are calling their retarded echo chamber ideas "banter" after realizing how stupid they sounded this whole time.

>I was just pretending

Don't even get to deny it Ahmeds.

>>33490959
War is due to politics. It is politics.

The US military was assigned tasks and asked what it needed to achieve those tasks, and in Vietnam was given everything and more that it asked for. It failed, completely, in making the South Vietnamese a viable force. It disregarded entirely the experience of jungle warfare and COIN brought to it by the Australians and New Zealanders. The approach was terrible, the thinking limited and the inability to adapt to the most basic of tasks led to serious questions about US military capability across the board.

It took the US military until the Gulf War to recover from that debacle and it was largely its own doing.

>>33490975
A thread died for this stupid whining. Also I'm not yuropoor either.

I bet you're one of those fucktards who call the french surrender monkeys anyway.

>>33490975
The US can't even make the claim that the French made with Algeria and Indochina, where its military was successful and its politicians sold it off after victory. These are observable facts.

The US military, veterans of Vietnam and supporters might like to claim that now but at no point was the US military in such a position. It's fashionable and encouraged to imply that the US military was let down by the left, the media, Communists, whatever else but ultimately its performance was its own doing and it was one of the worst performances in modern warfare from start to finish.

>>33490908
>Amerifats will do mental acrobatics for days to justify getting beaten by rice farmers and goat herders

>>33491001
>The US can't even make the claim that the French made with Algeria and Indochina, where its military was successful and its politicians sold it off after victory

But the US exterminated the Viet Cong in between 1969 and 1973.

The reason that the Spring '75 offensive was an entirely conventional one is that the guerrillas were all worm food by that point.

Meanwhile, France outright lost a pitched battle at Dien Bien Phu.

>>33491026
>But the US exterminated the Viet Cong in between 1969 and 1973.

This is an irrelevance. It didn't achieve any of the goals it set out to, even when they were modified.

>Meanwhile, France outright lost a pitched battle at Dien Bien Phu.
Yet if French people took to the internet every day to insist they won the war in Indochina, people would write books about the idiocy of it. With Americans it's a given.

>>33490908
>we didn't really lose because we killed more than we lost and we didn't go at full force because of politics!

You do realize the very same argument can be used to say that the French didn't really lose in Indochina or Algeria, right? Not to mention they litterally created modern anti-guerilla tactics that the US (and every country in the world) later copied for Vietnam and every other war up to this day.

>>33490979
US special forces were successfully applying "oil-spot" doctrine until the politicians and "big battalion" generals gave control to CIA and "theory of the month" .

>>33491055
Well, in both the French and American campaigns, there were things that got done and things that didn't.

I'm not sure how revisionism is justified in one case and not in the other.

Certainly, every fight between the US military and North Vietnamese ended in an American victory, but Vietnamization was a failure.

The French also failed to create credible local forces.

>>33491069
>Not to mention they litterally created modern anti-guerilla tactics that the US (and every country in the world) later copied for Vietnam and every other war up to this day

The good countries imitate Malaya, not Algeria.

The British won Malaya, the French lost Algeria.

If you read any of the US Army Field Manuals on counter-insurgency, they're based on British doctrine because the British actually won wars sometimes.

>>33491075
There is some merit in this, but if you consider that Britain, South Africa and Rhodesia were able to take conscripts who had never seen the jungle/bush before and turn them into incredibly effective COIN operators whilst part of Line Infantry outfits - you are led to the question as to why the richest and most powerful country in the world failed to do the same, or even get close.

Every successful COIN op of the 20th century was done on a shoestring budget by a small number of regular troops.

>>33491099
Ah, you're just a retarded and uneducated faggot then, don't mind me. Sorry to have participated in your worthless thread. Sage.

>>33491125
The British won in Malaya. The MCP fled across the border to Thailand, where they eventually surrendered.

The French lost in Indochina, including at a conventional pitched battle with the enemy.

Modern COIN theory is mainly based off of the British and not the French.

You are extremely angry.

>>33491099
French operations in Algeria were on the reading list at Sandhurst and West Point until very recently - around the time where getting a bit rough with the locals was deemed unacceptable.

French tactics in the Battle of Algiers were perfect, really. They broke up the networks, put the fear into the players and normalised the situation. The French strategy, and De Gaulle's views, got them pulled out but the military approach was sound and is still considered such today.

Malaya was a stunner. The sort of perfect answer that you'll never replicate. That was seriously, seriously impressive work.

>>33491117
Because the British ran the Malayan government and the French ran the Vietnamese government.

Hence, most people supported the government in Malaya, and most people opposed it in Vietnam.

>>33491152
Fun fact: In 2003, the DoD hosted a showing of the Battle of Algiers as an example of how to win on a tactical level and lose on a strategic level.

>>33491159
>Because the British ran the Malayan government

Actually, they didn't. By the time the Malayan Emergency started, the Federation of Malaya was independent and by 1957 it had gone completely independent within the Commonwealth.

>>33491192
The Malayan Emergency started in 1947, when Malaya was a British colony.

The Emergency was coordinated by a military council run by a series of British generals.

I'm 90% sure you're thinking of the Confrontation, which was a totally different war.

I just wrote a 14 page term paper comparing the Malayan Emergency to the Vietnam War a couple of weeks ago, and I got a 94 on that shit, so all of this is fresh in my mind.

>>33490908
>we didn't go total war on their asses
so we olny partly lost the war = victory

>>33490908

It's just bantz m8.

>>33490908
Leave Vitas out of this.

>>33490908
Why do people always represent the KD ratio in Vietnam as just US casualties vs enemy casualties. Americans only comprised about 1/3 of SV forces and only about 15% of that were combat troops. The real KD ratio is something like 800000 to 1100000.

>>33490908
I'm european and i hate that to, but a simple fact us that people doesn't know history well. America dis not leave Vietnam because of the north Vietnam army but because the south was already communist and the War was not usefull anymore, it's the same for algeria and why french leave Indochine too. Because War was not the point

>>33491617
Because ARVN was laughably incompetent.

>>33490908
>>Doesn't /k/ hate it when Europeans say..

no guns, irrelevant, geopolitical manlets

enjoy your multiculturalism

>>33490908
>per say

>>33490953
Proved to the east that America was willing to fight hard over nothing

>>33491657
I'm european and i can but a weapon legaly tomorow without problem. And not only un my country.

And don't talk about multicultralism. USA not America please have a lot of different culture. And to that, you can add canadians, mexicains...

>>33491579
>spotted the eternal vatnik

>>33491736
>USA not America please

The United States was the first independent state in the Americas.

If anyone else wanted the name, they should have worked a little bit harder fighting the Spanish.

>>33491777

I know that thanks. I'm just saying that America did not leave Vietnam it's the United States. Canada was not there et that Time

>>33491821
If I'm honest, I'm pretty sure the US has more relevance on the world stage than the rest of the Americas combined.

It's like saying "don't say that China invaded Korea, the ROC and Hong Kong had nothing to do with it"

>>33491020

>Well laid out facts and logic is mental acrobatics

You're too stupid to even try to bother getting you to notice the irony.

>>33490908
>Americans suck at war,
>The only reason we pulled out of the war, was due to politics
>war isn't politics

>>33491472

Are people really this insecure that they can't truly just admit that the USA whooped ass in Vietnam even while holding back?

We're not talking about reaching political goals. We're talking about just military engagements.

>>33492111

>Americans suck at war
>wait not really they destroy people in all military engagements
>politics back home made the war stop
>I'm going to use this as an excuse to say that their military sucks

>>33491628

Thank you. Finally a manly European who doesn't let his feminine emotions dictate reality.

>>33490908
>>33492120
>It was 50,000 Americans to 2,000,000 Vietnamese dead, and again, that wasn't even total war.
>Are people really this insecure that they can't truly just admit that the USA whooped ass in Vietnam even while holding back?
Because it's not that impressive.

People get mad at the "US losing to rice farmers" meme that they swing too hard the other way and talk about K/D ratio and how they BTFO out of them gooks hoorah.

Despite getting equipment from China and Russia, they were still wayyyy overmatched technologically. People act like Vietnam got cutting edge tech from the commies when half of it was just their hand-me-down stuff they wanted to get rid of.

There were some battlehardened regulars who fought against the French, but a ton of them were just hastily deployed conscripts. That's not even getting into their command structure and supply lines.

It's like bragging about beating up a retarded kid while getting suspended. There really wasn't a good reason to fight and you still ultimately lost despite easily winning the fighting.

>>33491081
>Certainly, every fight between the US military and North Vietnamese ended in an American victor
Not every fight. Most of them sure, but US winning every single battle is fuddlore.

>>33492242
Well, every engagement on a company level or larger.

In Tet, for example, 45,000 NVA were killed for the loss of a thousand American soldiers.

It'd be safe to estimate that the US killed an average of 8 to 12 enemy combatants for every one fatality they suffered.

So it would be inaccurate to claim that the US military performed poorly on the tactical level.

File: huey1.jpg (126KB, 625x790px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 625x790px

>>33490908
>MUH KDA
Why can't Americans cope with loss?

>>33490908
>With nothing but an assortment of missiles and bombs.

Probably the most cowardly nation in history I guess.

>>33490908
>'You won't win,' the woman said, spitting. 'You can't win, against us.' She shook the little chair, angrily.
>'What?' he said, shaken from his reverie.
>'We'll win,' she said, giving a furious shake that rattled the chair's legs on the stone floor.
>Why did I tie the silly fool to a chair, of all things? he thought. 'You could well be right,' he told her, tiredly. 'Things are looking... damp at the moment. Make you feel any better?'
>'You're going to die,' the woman said, staring.
>'Nothing more certain than that,' he agreed, gazing at the leaking roof above the rag bed.
>'We are invincible. We will never give up.'
>'Well, you've proved fairly vincible before.' He sighed, remembering the history of this place.
>'We were betrayed!' the woman shouted. 'Our armies never were defeated; we were -'
>'Stabbed in the back; I know.'
>'Yes! But our spirit will never die. We -'
>'Aw, shut up!' He said, swinging his legs off the narrow bed and facing the woman. 'I've heard that shit before. "We was robbed." "The folks back home let us down." "The media were against us." Shit...' He ran a hand through his wet hair. 'Only the very young or the very stupid think wars are waged just by the military. As soon as news travels faster than a despatch rider or a bird's leg the whole... nation... whatever... is fighting. That's your spirit; your will. Not the grunt on the ground. If you lose, you lose. Don't whine about it. You'd have lost this time too if it hadn't been for this fucking rain.' He held up a hand as the woman drew breath. 'And no, I don't believe God is on your side.'
>'Heretic!'
>'Thank you.'

>Doesn't win
>"I-Its totally n-not war you guys haha"

>>33492129
you misunderstand, you think war is military.
War is politics

>>33490953
Forrest Gump, the most /k/ movie of all time you faggot

>>33492568

It's both and you know it.

>>33492300
Because it's a Nation of winners.

Why can't the rest of the world admit their inferiority?

From conquering this savage terrain. To going to the moon. And bringing Olympic Gold medals like candy at Halloween.

File: A really old map.jpg (178KB, 459x378px)

178KB, 459x378px

>>33491657
>enjoy your multiculturalism

That's a really funny 'insult' coming from an American.
You know, the dumpster bin of people of various colors, heritage, nationalities, and cultures.
Even at the height of immigration, even Sweden is not even nearing the scale of multiculturalism present in the United States.

File: keep-calm-it-s-just-banter.png (17KB, 600x700px)

17KB, 600x700px

>>33495665
>And bringing Olympic Gold medals like candy at Halloween.

By successfully bought off athletes. Heck, more often than not, you can't even pronounce the gold winner's name properly.
NHL is chock-full of foreigners beating the crap out of the natives.
Scientific institutions in most cases only have money going for them and simply serve as places where American children drop massive piles of money so that foreign researchers can get any work done.

File: 1453860417206.jpg (166KB, 1025x819px)

166KB, 1025x819px

>>33490908

>>33490908
>>33490975
>Bit of light ribbing about a war literally nobody on /k/ was alive to experience
>Gets upset and throws his toys, screaming to high heaven that nobody is allowed to make jokes at "his" expense
Cant speak for anybody else, but its tears like this that makes me repeat the US lost Vietnam meme. American btw.

>>33490908

>Doesn't /k/ hate it when Europeans say shit like.

No, because we don't have any reason to respect their opinions.

One day you'll realize it and laugh at their cries for attention too.

>>33490975
I'm American and you are salty as fuck, calm down.

>>33490991
Outside of a select few resistance fighters yeah.
Surrender monkeys.

The stupid fucks we're happy to have the Vichy so long as their shit was kept mildly normal.
Charles De Gaul and his bullshit tried to make it seem like everyone and their sister picked up an MP40 and screamed fuck the nazis but that's apparently not the majority.
>>33491001
Actually we can.
The attrition rate of Americans to Congs
Was around 4 VC to 1 American/capitalist (you were involved too, France and Australia.)

We simply quit because support for the war was waning due to hippies and communist manchildren who wanted "peace and equality" (the ability to not have to worry about anything so they can do drugs all day)
>>33497932
He is salty as fuck.
Shouldn't have made the damn thread.
Still correct about us not losing per se, just not finishing it.

File: Viet Nam 1.jpg (145KB, 980x552px)

145KB, 980x552px

>>33490908
>How retarded does one have to be to believe that?
Of course that's a straw-man of what we Europeans actually think. As it is often the case, whenever an Amerifat shows up on the board, the national sport is to trigger them to no end... so of course whenever you post here you will be faced with some serious shitposting on our behalf. Just don't take this as our *real* viewpoint. Things are more complex than that.
>We weren't at total war with them, hell, as a matter of fact, we weren't even at war with the country per say but specific insurgencies in the countries.
Now, this is something that triggers me... because it highlights the sheer level of "bluepilledness" of the Amerifag public. I will answer this from /pol/ grounds, but I hope you'll follow my line of thought.
Basically, what is obnoxious about this is that Ameriburgers seem so proud of being free-thinkers and the like, yet it seems to me some of them (like (you)) are always ready to buy some government narrative over and over again, just because it suits their ego.
Like, say, when it comes to some of your basic rights, I have found Amerifigs to be passionate and ready to argue. On the other hand, when it comes to basic things such as:
>definition of war
>actual description of the war they are fighting
>details on the enemy, populace, and the like
It seems to me Amerifigs fall for some convoluted semantic traps that have been clearly conveyed by them by authoritarian groups such as army élites or God knows what kind of media.

File: Viet Nam 2.jpg (254KB, 1100x619px)

254KB, 1100x619px

[cont. from >>33500499]
>>33490908
Let's put it bluntly:
>does the way your State sees the war determine what the war actually is about?
Answer: not at all. That's just some government gimmick, as in:
>we're fighting for democracy
>we're fighting for their freedom
>we're not after their resources
>we're not trying to overthrow governments just because they made some political choices we didn't like
So, please, no semantic acrobatics with us.
>muh, duh: we're not at war with THEM, but with a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of THEM.
Guess what, mumbo jumbo, that's exactly like saying:
>not all afghans
>we're not invading their country: we're HELPING them
That is, marketing and nothing more.

File: Viet Nam 3.jpg (61KB, 550x366px)

61KB, 550x366px

[cont. from >>33500511]
>>33490908
>In Vietnam we were fighting the VC and the NVA. Both supplied by the Chinese and Russian communists.
I can concede this.
>And to top it off we were fighting them on their turf.
Sun Tzu would say they mastered the Dao of the Land.
>They were given training and weapons by the bigger more developed communist countries.
Number #1: this is no excuse for Amerifags to underperform on the field.
Number #2: I doubt Russian or Chinese training was as extensive and capillar as you think it was. Yeh, they got some help. So what?
Number #3: It seems to me the American establishment made the foolish mistake of drafting random people for war and sending them to the conflict with training that, although well above the WW2 one, did not match the new nature of asymmetric warfare they were going to face. That's either a strategic mistake or just the fact they were pioneering in uncharted warlike territory. Interpret it as you please.
>And even then, we didn't go total war on their asses. We were trying to strategically over throw the Communists from the North.
Come on. That's documentary bullshit. Everyone knows you napalmed entire villages and then expected "to win the hearts and minds of the populace". Come the fucking on. That's ridiculous. You kept escalating for (how long? Years?) and to no avail. This sounds like bait or you should go back to vietnam 101 and study the degree of military effort put into bombing everything north of Hue.

>>33500511
>we're not after their resources

This is usually true for American wars.

The US typically goes to war over e-peen or to look good on CNN, not for practical considerations like profit.

File: Viet Nam 4.jpg (4MB, 5668x3751px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5668x3751px

[cont. from >>33500525]
>>33490908
>The only reason we pulled out of the war, was due to politics back home. Not because we got militarily BTFO.
Ok. Now I believe this is b8 altogether. Or you're 21 y.o. or something like that.
Consider the effort:
>even though Viet Nam was strategically relevant
>you spent so much time there
>and achieved so little
>with so many losses, etc.
>that basically your own citizens -- back at home -- started rioting
Now, isn't this proof enough of a badly led war? You can call the latter point "internal politics"... but waging war when the internal conditions of your country do not allow you to bear a sustained effort or, alternatively, waging war for an effort that is so sustained you end up losing political credibility... either of these is by itself a huge strategic failure.

File: Viet Nam 5.jpg (85KB, 450x373px)

85KB, 450x373px

[cont. from >>33500546]
>>33490908
>It was 50,000 Americans to 2,000,000 Vietnamese dead, and again, that wasn't even total war.
Beforehand you were saying: "we were not fighting an entire country, just a subset of it."
Now you go: "muh 2 bazillions."
>50,000
That's more the number of Americans who died in Viet Nam. Not the number of those who served.
Check this:
>9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.
>2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam.
>Vietnam Veterans represented 9.7% of their generation
SAUCE: http://www.uswings.com/about-us-wings/vietnam-war-facts/
>If America wanted to glass Afhanistan and Vietnam and completely wipe off those countries off the face of the earth. It could do so without a single soldier being killed. With nothing but an assortment of missiles and bombs.
Okay, but what is victory about? Is it about destruction or is it about the achievement of strategic goals? Yeah, you could destroy everyone -- but does it fit the idea of victory? What would that acheive? Nothing. It would only lower your overall credibiltiy.
>Do they know this and are just purposely ignoring reality. Or do they really think we were at total war with such countries?
Or are your screwed facts ignoring reality?

>>33500525
>this is no excuse for Amerifags to underperform on the field

They didn't though.

"Muh K/D" doesn't make up for the lack of a coherent overall strategy on the part of the White House, but it does negate the claim that the US military performed poorly on the tactical level.

The war was lost by LBJ's cabinet, not by tactical commanders.

>>33500542
>>we're not after their resources
>This is usually true for American wars.
>The US typically goes to war over e-peen or to look good on CNN, not for practical considerations like profit.
How can you be so fucking green?
Literally, can somebody from America reply to this guy, since he seems to take for granted the US have no economic interests whatsoever in the wars they wage.

So
Fucking
Green

You're an SFG poster.

>>33500561
>11 years
>11 fucking years
>not underperforming
>60,000 American soldiers killed
>not underperforming

I mean, Iraq 2 was overperforming by these standards.

>>33500561


The united states army had a lot of problems. Every hear of the term fragging?

File: 1480984030953.jpg (6KB, 95x100px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 95x100px

>>33498011
>Surrender monkeys.
One war and they're surrender monkeys? I'm German, if you knew ANYTHING at all about European history or even just French history you'd realize that you're in fact full of shit. Show some respect you cunt, France is a big fucking reason why you have an independent country to begin with.

And why do you care so much about what Europeans have to say? Over the years all I've seen was a number of Americans say things like "No, we don't even think of Europe" but then every time you get the chance you act like an assmad faggot. The fuck is the point?

>>33490943
>The point is that the US military was tasked with completing operations that furthered American policy goals, as every other military in history. It failed to achieve those goals.

Was this before or after North Vietnam signed the Paris Peace Accord?

File: Gene Wilder.jpg (27KB, 620x400px)

27KB, 620x400px

>>33490908
>It was 50,000 Americans to 2,000,000 Vietnamese dead, and again, that wasn't even total war.
>we were not fighting civilians
>we were just fighting insurgents
>2,000,000 people killed
How could you even justify they were ALL insurgents. That's a huge slice of the then-population of Vietnam, m8. If you truly killed 2,000,000 people, you'll have a hard time explaining they were just threats and combatants. You'll also have a very hard time explaining you were not waging a full-scale carpet-bombing war if these are the real figures.

How can you maintain you were just fighting insurgents in Vietnam if you ended up slaughtering a huge slice of their pop.?

>>33500587
You have to consider the task they were assigned.

In order for the United States to withdraw and South Vietnam survive, either South Vietnam needed to shape up or North Vietnam needed to give up.

Neither of these factors were within the control of the US military.

ARVN consistently underperformed in every engagement from Ap Bac in '63 all the way to the Easter Offensive in '73.

This is because the South Vietnamese government sucked. The United States government did not run said government, and could not find a way to make it perform. We didn't make that shit, the French did.

The North refused every peace offer, from Marigold in 1966 all the way until the Paris Peace Accords 1972, when US troop withdrawals were already almost complete.

Strategic bombing could not compel the North to accept an armistice, because the Northern war effort did not rely on industrial production to any appreciable extent.

In every engagement between the US military and the communist forces, the US military performed adequately. In some cases, the US military performed superbly, such as during the Tet Offensive, where 45,000 VC were killed for the loss of 1,000 US KIA.

1/2

>>33490908
It doesn't really trigger me since I can acknowledge we fucked up and lost in Vietnam but at least we weren't fighting to keep or obtain a colony like every war Europe has started. The only wars they have been in that was not about their imperialistic tendencies are wars the we Americans start. Hell Vietnam was started because France didn't want to lose one of their colonies, we just fucked up every step of the way.

The problem with Vietnam is we supported an acknowledged corrupt dictator just because he wasn't a communist instead of deposing him and letting the people of Vietnam chose their own leader. We failed so completely in the propaganda field, that most of the Vietcong didn't even realise that they were fighting Americans, the thought they were fighting the French still.

>>33500659
How many US soldiers set foot in North Vietnam?

>>33500655
Speaking of France and Vietnam in the same thread.

>>33500668
In the South, the US military annihilated the Viet Cong.

The reason guerrillas played essentially no role in the Spring '75 offensive was because all the guerrillas were dead. South Vietnam was taken by T-72s fresh from Soviet factories. It was a totally conventional attack.

The only way the US could have stopped the North Vietnamese from launching conventional attacks across the border would be to invade the North. North Vietnam signed a defense pact with the PRC in 1965, so doing so would trigger a war between two nuclear powers.

The US also could hypothetically have stopped the conventional attacks, at least for a while, by killing every adult male in North Vietnam. At the rate the US was killing communist soldiers, Vo Nyugen Giap estimated this would have taken about another two years of US involvement.

It's also possible that conventional thrusts could have been stopped by a renewed bombing offensive on the north, since a conventional offensive is more vulnerable to strategic bombing against production facilities than a guerrilla offensive. Such an offensive was explicitly prohibited by the Case-Church amendment.

TL;DR the US did fine on the micro level, but didn't really think things through on the macro level.

>>33500655
We just make fun of the French for being surrender monkeys partly as irony considering how often France has been in armed conflict through the ages and partly because the French are rather insufferable.

>>33500668
>ARVN consistently underperformed in every engagement from Ap Bac in '63 all the way to the Easter Offensive in '73.
You made conflicting claims.
On the one hand:
>America was the best Army around and achieved most of its goals
>It withdrew for political reasons, otherwise it would have won
Later, you say:
>ARVN were underperforming
>even if they were trained by Americans
>VCs were trained by other superpowers
>and they were clearly trained in a better way
Now, aside from the fact I argue the latter is false -- i.e. training has never been capillar.
I find it very, er... convenient... to claim that it is always the weak ally that is underperforming.
I mean, it sounds like a tautology, to me: they are weak, so it makes sense for them to underperform.

Maybe wrong choice of allies? Maybe you should have trained them better?
But that's exactly a strategic error... which leads back to the underperforming of the US military establishment

Or maybe you think that "superiority" is assessable only in a standard firefight? Maybe you are confusing OP(erative) superiority with actual strategic superiority.

>Were Americans better at OPs?
Well, some of the time. We can still argue that VCs OPped better given their few resources, but overall the American war machine was better at operations than the actual VCs. Maybe.
>Were Americans better at bombing things?
Undeniably so.
>Were Americans capable of more kills?
Definitely yes. Including civilians, of course. :^)
>Were Americans better at training allies?
Apparently not, from what you tell me.
>Were Americans better at strategic choices, other than tactical?
In my opinion, no. Because they ended up swamping themselves in that mudhole for 11 years to the point of pissing off everyone (including their own troops) and had to pull out without achieving strategic goals.

Now, if you want to talk tactics, I concede that VCs were better guerilla, but US tech superiority led to more kills. But strategically speaking? Come on!

>>33500698
>2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam.
Again, I never said that Americans didn't score more kills overall, and with fewer losses. We should also consider the casualties (injured, etc.: all of them being casualties other than kills, but which make people unable to serve again).
What I am arguing is that the entire strategic logic of their presence there was faulty at best. 11 years and no major strategic achievement.

>Were the US able to win the war?
Yes.
>Did they want to win the war?
Apparently not.

Capability without will is nothing. An empty shell.

>>33495960
You dont even know what multicultralism is Ahmed, you see in Swedistan the brown people like yourself get to make the rules, marry children, make up their own laws, and culturally supress the natives of Swedistan.

In the US your God has no power, your Sharia courts have no power, and your regressive medieval culture has no power all of you get assimilated.

All while Europe is assimilated into the Caliphate, better get those birthrates up.

>>33500774
I don't know if you know this, but there are multiple people in this thread. Not all the shit in your reply is me.

>ARVN were underperforming
>even if they were trained by Americans

This would be an accurate assessment of the situation. The US wasn't a colonial power. As long as the South Vietnamese government operated primarily off of patronage, the officer corps would be totally crippled by corruption. The US experimented with coups, military aid, and training programs to get the South to shape up, but there was such an entrenched culture of political corruption within the South Vietnamese government that nothing short of a direct annexation would have changed the situation much. The North Vietnamese were much, much better fighters than the South Vietnamese. If this wasn't the case, direct US intervention would never have happened in the first place.

>America was the best Army around and achieved most of its goals

Well, it eliminated the Viet Cong. When the war became conventional, it depleted North Vietnamese industrial capacity to the point where an armistice was signed. Short of creating mind control and turning Mao into a US mindslave, there wasn't much more the US could do.

>It withdrew for political reasons, otherwise it would have won

And if my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt. It's totally true that if the US decided to stay in Vietnam, the North would have been unable to unseat them, and probably would have been forced to sign an armistice because the sheer attrition would depopulate the country. It's also true that the US public would never agree to such an investment of resources, and that even if they did, it would cost the US more than it would gain them.

>But that's exactly a strategic error... which leads back to the underperforming of the US military establishment

The military executes foreign policy. The White House creates it.

>>33500836
I said North Vietnam, not South Vietnam.

>>33500836
>Were the US able to win the war?
I would argue that we couldn't win the war. If we did invade North Vietnam, we would have seen in the Chinese and potentially Russians. Best case scenario should that have occurred is that we would be in South Vietnam still, just like we are still in South Korea. China may have also push North Korea to launch an offensive at the same time as North Vietnam with support for both from China.

File: 1461766899652.jpg (40KB, 600x991px)

40KB, 600x991px

>>33490953

>>33500886
>Not all the shit in your reply is me.
I don't care because we don't have ID.
So please don't try to ask for special treatment just because you're "not the other anon".
I answer to every single post individually. It does not matter to me if you are the same person or not.

>The military executes foreign policy. The White House creates it.
I don't like to see this act of unloading barrels from a boat just to put them in another boat. And I will explain why.

Consider the following:
>you entered the war with some strategic goals
>spent so much time
>depleted so much resources
>lost so many lives (relative to the amount of casualties you were ready to sustain -- that is, compared to your own standards, not to the enemy ones)
>etc.
>you did all of that to the point that somewhere up at the top it was decided the strategic goal was not worth pursuing any more
>so troops were withdrawn
Now, it doesn't matter if it was Sarge Smith, General Obvious or President Fuckson who took the final decision.

What matters here is that the VC managed to:
>resist long enough
>endure enough casualties
>until their enemies decided that crushing VCs was not a strategic goal any more
In my handbook, this is called a flat-out victory. No matter the losses.

Again, it doesn't matter who took the decision. You can complain politicians and blame them and say the responsibility is theirs.
But, as far as I'm concerned, that's a problem that is internal to the American chain of command. That's -- so to speak -- your own laundry to wash.

What matters here is that one side of the conflict lasted long enough for the other to bail out.

This is called a victory. Doesn't matter how it was achieved, and notwithstanding the superior firepower of the losing side.

>>33491220
How did the Brits get so good at COIN?

>>33491220
>I just wrote a 14 page term paper comparing the Malayan Emergency to the Vietnam War a couple of weeks ago, and I got a 94 on that shit, so all of this is fresh in my mind.
Can you post us your paper?
No need for names. I'd be eager to read it

>>33501250
Hundreds of years of oppressing brown people and running third world shitholes on a shoestring budget. You can't afford to be inefficient when you're running half the globe.

They learned the "just put everybody in camps" thing from the Boer War.

>>33501289
I'm just stupid enough to do that. Hold on.

>>33501423
>I'm just stupid enough to do that. Hold on.
I'm waiting.
Look, I'm serious.
Will you screencap or give us a link?

>>33501289
https://pastebin.com/EAtAFhv7

Keep in mind that I'm incapable of not procrastinating, so I put this together in a couple days.

Lai Teck was cool as fuck.

>be the head of a communist party
>take money from the Japanese military and the British police anyway
>arrange for all the party bigwigs to meet up in a cave
>the Japanese somehow know where and when this meeting is and crash it with a bunch of soldiers
>nobody can run away because it's a cave
>you weren't there because "my car broke down lol"
>because everyone else important in the party died
>when the rest of the party eventually schedules a meeting to confront you about all of this, steal the party treasury and leave the country
>rumors are that they finally get you in Thailand, but it's never proven

>>33501529
>Keep in mind that I'm incapable of not procrastinating, so I put this together in a couple days.
Man, I dropped out of my PhD for that reason. You cannot put a PhD together in 3 months.
So no need to explain yourself.

>>33501529
>become undisputed master of party because everyone else is dead

derp

Bampu

>>33492432
What is this from?