Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "It was ONLY due to North Vietnam violation of Laotian neutrality that they were able to reach into Cambodia and the Mekong Delta area."
For North Vietnam to have refrained from violating Laotian neutrality would have been STUPID. The two Democratic administrations and one Republican administration had their own reasons for refraining from more blatantly violating that neutrality, but if it had been possible to win the war that way, my guess is that they would have done it. What you're doing is picking at little problems to try and explain away a war that was fairly hopeless on its face.
Re: "We were ASKED to provide assistance to the King of Laos."
We both agree that this was more than enough of a fig leaf to allow a larger US presence in Laos. My explanation for why we didn't do it is because our leadership concluded that it would be counterproductive. Your explanation appears to be that our leadership was stupid. I believe that our leadership was stupid mostly in failing to get out of Vietnam earlier.
Re: "Some of the tribes would have supported us, some would not have. Some would have switched sides with tremendous regularity, dependent upon how much money you paid them. This is very similiar to Iraq and Afghanistan."
I fail to see your point here. If you're trying to argue that we could have won in Laos because we're winning in Iraq, all I can do is laugh. You would be trying to justify stupid with stupid.
Re: "One of my best friend's girlfriends is Hmong. She said her father had some "interesting" stories to tell about how the Vietnamese would treat her people."
Yeah, just like all those emigrants from Iraq who told the neocons that American troops would be welcomed with parades and flowers, LOL. Some people never learn. What you should do is to reevaluate the usefulness and accuracy of what you are told by people (who loved the US so much that they moved here) in the light of the very similar situations in Iraq. Polling shows the Iraqis want us out.
Re: "They don't fight fair, so you can't permit yourself to be held by meaningless treaties that the other side is obviously ignoring."
I agree with you completely here. Sometimes I think you're just talking to yourself. Go back and read my posts. Find a single one where I suggested that we should be held to meaningless treaties that the other side is obviously ignoring. Hell, go find a post where I've ever said that we shouldn't have invaded Laos because we'd said we wouldn't. If you look carefully, you will find I never said any such thing because it's a stupid idea.
Let me make this very clear. Great powers do whatever they want to do without regard to treaties all the time. This is not something that was invented by Hitler, it has always been the case and always will be.
Go back and read my explanation for why we didn't invade Laos. My comment was quite clear. I believe that we did not invade Laos because our military and political leaders, on the whole, concluded that it would not assist our cause. You're the one arguing that they didn't invade because they were angels. As usual, you're blowing smoke by making up positions that I supposedly hold and then shooting holes in them, LOL.
Our leaders are not angels and our nation is not a nation of morality. We are normal humans and like any other nation, we can easily justify anything we want to do, at least in our own eyes.
The real reason we didn't try harder to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail was because it was hopeless. As the Rand study on the problem states:
The low-tech nature of Hanoi’s strategy and operations also meant that the PAVN’s logistical requirements were relatively limited. Those limited requirements proved to be a significant advantage that had major consequences for U.S. military operations in the region. In 1968, at the height of the U.S. military commitment in Vietnam, an estimated 13,700 tons of supplies per day were needed to keep Army troops in the field.[82] The PAVN, in contrast, required only a small fraction of what U.S. forces needed. Estimates of North Vietnamese requirements range widely, from a low of 15 tons per day[83]to a high of 60 tons.[84]As few as 15 trucks per day, according to one estimate, were all that was required to supply Hanoi’s forces in South Vietnam.[85] No matter how many ground reconnaissance teams were sent into Laos, and no matter how intensive the air interdiction along the Ho Chi Minh Trail—which after October 1968 reached 450 sorties per day[86]—it was almost certain that at least 15 trucks would escape the air strikes.
rand.org
Going into Laos would have had the disadvantage (for us) of shortening the enemy supply lines. The amount of territory we would be overextended on would be increased, and the presence of our soldiers would have inspired Laotians to shoot at us for the same reasons that have made young men shoot at foreigners with weapons all over this planet for thousands of years. All that would have accomplished, at best, would have been to postpone the date when we abandoned South Vietnam by a year or two. The public still would not have put up with the continuing fighting for as long as North Vietnam could dish it out.
Probably the best explanation for the weakness of the US in counterguerilla operations, as compared to the strength of our military in normal military operations, is that 1000 to 1 advantage in logistics capability that we had in Vietnam.
Here's another fascinating article on the trail:
airpower.maxwell.af.mil
-- Carl |
