Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
That's not really true. In vietnam the US won most of the battles but lost the war because of politics. Our military was fighting with its hands behind its back.. can't bomb here can't bomb there..
Much like in Afghanistan when Bush wouldn't bomb targets in Pakistan the enemy knew they could cross the border and hide.
When Obama came to office he started hitting them in Pakistan and took all kinds of political heat mainly from the Right but by doing that he was very effective and eventually dismantled for the most part al Queda and the Talib an ability to fight back.
|
In Vietnam we never lost a major battle. A great of example of this was the Tet Offensive - This was a massive assault across the board that ended in spectacular failure.
The problem with Vietnam is that there was too many restrictions as to what our military can or could not do. The military needs to be able to do it's job, not have restrictions saying "You can't bomb this city" and "You can't go into this country". If the enemy is in Laos and Cambodia, then that's where our military needs to attack. Same thing with Hanoi - We should have flattened the city. Instead we drew a line in the jungle and said "do not cross". That gave them a large base to continue their efforts, and they attacked the southern half of the country by going into other countries.
If we put boots on the ground to fight Iraq, we need to go all in with no restrictions.