Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boatin
I'll grant you that not everyone lining up behind a particular effort (whether it's war, or a particular social security plan) makes things harder to accomplish. It's also the very backbone of the way our country works. I think that the challenges it brings are far outweighed by the benefits.
The great US military leaders of the time, thought we could win that war?? I'm guessing discord at home had an impact on US. But approximately zero impact on the actual events on the ground. They would have worn us down with perfect unanimity at home. The American attention span just can't compete. Couldn't then, couldn't now.
We knew (know) nothing about that culture and what makes it tick. I find parallels with the war du jour.
|
Well, according to General Giap, the US HAD defeated the insurgency and the North Vietnamese militarily. That's why it became so vital for their "fifth column" to come through and win the war for them. You say we knew nothing of their culture. Well, the Romans knew very little about Carthage's culture, but still managed to defeat them.
You say that the communist controlled and financed anti-war movement in the US had very little effect "on the ground". That is not supported by the facts. The South was eventually overrun not by insurgents, but by formed, regular units of the North Vietnamese Army. US air and artillery assets alone would have been enough to defeat such a force, using the ARVN merely to protect those assets. Why didn't they? Because they had been pulled out of the country as a result of the anti-war movement.
You say that dissent is how our country works. That's not QUITE the whole truth historically. Historically, there has been debate going back and forth until a majority comes together and decides on a course of action. At that point, often the minority has historically put aside their differences with the majority to form a united front. For example, long-time isolationists put aside their isolationist rhetoric to work towards allied victory, regardless of the fact that they really didn't want to be in the war. This did not always happen. On at least one occasion, a US Senator actively supported "the enemy" on the floor of the Senate, prompting the President at the time to say ""Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." He carried through on it, too.
The lunatic-fringe far left has only recently (in a historical sense) moved from hiding their treason (and getting "the gas" when caught, after due process of law) to trumpeting their treason as being a series of patriotic acts. Will our nation survive? I don't know.