'Smashed' is a relative term but, yes, Vietcong's ability for set-piece battle was, undoubtedly, severely degraded.
As was there ability to wage a widespread guerrilla campaign.
(As the war would have, no doubt, for further generations... if necessary. Nationalism [& anti-Colonialism] being perhaps the strongest motivating political forces of the 20th. Century....)
The South was increasing able to fend for itself against anything but a massive invasion from the North, and even that could be dealt with if they had American re-supply and air-support (look up the Eastertide offensive).
The war could have continued for many years, maybe even generations, but that doesn't mean that we would have needed a massive troop presence for generations.
"There really is no force like the NVA in this war."
Correct: there are at least *three* major and differing sides among the locals... Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds --- to name just the most populous 'factions'. (This is one clear difference.)
Yes, and none of them are like the NVA. Those three general sides aren't unified themselves. The Kurds are the most unified and control their area the best, but they aren't much of a threat to the government or to American soldiers. The Sunnis are a minority and don't have the strength to overthrow the government. The Shia militias are a problem to the general peace, but aren't likely to move against the government. In Vietnam we where trying to support a government that was in constant serious risk of being defeated by a large united fairly powerful enemy. In Iraq you don't have that type of enemy, instead you have violent chaos. Violent chaos is hardly good, I'm just saying the situation is different.
I agree. Because for *any* ONE faction to expose itself by going 'all out' against the foreigners, would weaken itself too much vs. it's local enemies.
Its not just that any one faction wouldn't want to wage something like Tet, they probably couldn't. Its not just that such an action expose and weaken a faction too much, its also that any one faction is much weaker and less united than the Vietcong. The Vietcong were numerous, united, and backed by the NVA. In this case you have three general factions, each one of which has its own militias (even the Kurds have at least two, and the Sunnis and Shias are broken in to numerous groups). All these little groups can create local trouble, and together all these local troubles add up to a big problem, but they can't wage a countrywide campaign against the government or against American forces. If they move in force to another area and try to cause problems they wind up fighting other militias as much or more than they wind up fighting American or allied forces. |
