The Drums of War? Pentagon Provokes New Crisis With China

[gambit]

(Chinese Support for North Vietnam during the Vietnam War: The Decisive Edge by Bob Seals)

Well the article I quoted is written by an american with pretty good credentials.

"Bob Seals is a retired Army Special Forces officer with service in the 1st and 3rd Special Forces Group, 1st Special Warfare Training Group, SF Command, Security Assistance Training Management Organization, and Special Operations Command-Korea. He is working as an Operations Analyst for General Dynamics Information Technology at the Army Special Operations Digital Training Center, US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Bragg, NC."


You will find every piece of information chauism quoted is included in this article. Who has the blinders on now?

You do. The question was never about Chinese involvement in the Vietnam War. The question was why not to the level of US involvement. Every Chinese member here obviously have never served behind a fast food counter, let alone in a military uniform and have some sort of military education. So your next homework assignment is to research out the political goals differences between the two Vietnams, and perhaps you will learn the answer to the real question.

 

[chauism]

You do. The question was never about Chinese involvement in the Vietnam War. The question was why not to the level of US involvement. Every Chinese member here obviously have never served behind a fast food counter, let alone in a military uniform and have some sort of military education. So your next homework assignment is to research out the political goals differences between the two Vietnams, and perhaps you will learn the answer to the real question.

I think I stated the reasons why China is not as involved as US in the vietnam war.

1.No one in the CMC was interested in involving a war with US.

2.Sino-soviet split and upcoming Sino-soviet conflict was more serious and important than being involved in a proxy war with US.

The goals of China at that time was keeping North Vietnam free from US attack and contest its influence in Vietnam with Soviet's. When China had achieved its first goal and failed the second one, it withdrew its involvement in Vietnam.

 

[gambit]

I think I stated the reasons why China is not as involved as US in the vietnam war.

1.No one in the CMC was interested in involving a war with US.

2.Sino-soviet split and upcoming Sino-soviet conflict was more serious and important than being involved in a proxy war with US.

The goals of China at that time was keeping North Vietnam free from US attack and contest its influence in Vietnam with Soviet's. When China had achieved its first goal and failed the second one, it withdraw its involvement in Vietnam.

I said the differences in political goals of the two Vietnams, which gave China the necessary latitude to limit involvement.

 

[chauism]

I said the differences in political goals of the two Vietnams, which gave China the necessary latitude to limit involvement.

Don't use straw man argument on this. The original arguement was US could not defeat North Vietnam, which US had failed its political and military goals in Vietnam.

 

[gambit]

Don't use straw man argument on this. The original arguement was US could not defeat North Vietnam.

Failure to understand the differences in political goals and how political goals set military objectives usually result in the above highlighted misunderstanding......Looks like I studied Sun-whatshisname better than you, if you ever read him at all.

 

[chauism]

Failure to understand the differences in political goals and how political goals set military objectives usually result in the above highlighted misunderstanding......Looks like I studied Sun-whatshisname better than you, if you ever read him at all.

You are doing this again my friend. Military actions are always the extension of politics, this is not even from Sun-Tze. There is no use to know the goals of South Vietnams because the goals were not mainly determined by itself during most of the war. Of course the goal of US varies from time to time and adminstration to adminstration. However US's army experienced as they have discribed as "tactical success and strategic failure" which China also experienced in later Sino-Vietnam conflict throughout the whole war, which means they did not achieved its goals at all during the war.

"U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo to President Gerald Ford that "in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail.' Even Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that "the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion.'

Doubts surfaced as to the effectiveness of large-scale, sustained bombing. As Army Chief of Staff Harold Keith Johnson noted, 'if anything came out of Vietnam, it was that air power couldn't do the job. Even the American commander in Vietnam, Gen. William Westmoreland, believed that a totally unrestrained air war would not have been decisive, as he remarked, 'I still doubt that the North Vietnamese would have relented.'"
"Lessons of Vietnam" by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
25 Years After End Of Vietnam War:
Myths Keep Us From Coming To Terms With Vietnam

The goal which US had partially achieved was vietnamization poliocy under the Richard M. Nixon administration.

So what are you trying to prove here besides steering the topic away from US had been defeated in Vietnam?

 

[gambit]

There is no use to know the goals of South Vietnams because the goals were not mainly determined by itself during most of the war.

Of course it does. And each Viet Nam has only one goal.

So what are you trying to prove here besides steering the topic away from US had been defeated in Vietnam?

The US was 'defeated' only in the rhetorics. Failure to understand the military aspects of the Vietnam War will give you a false understanding on how China could react to US today.

 

[chauism]

Of course it does. And each Viet Nam has only one goal.


The US was 'defeated' only in the rhetorics. Failure to understand the military aspects of the Vietnam War will give you a false understanding on how China could react to US today.

We all know what North Vietnam wants.

How about ROV, was its goal to be extinct?

"the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion." - Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara

Don't argue with me, argue with him. He is in a much better position to answer whether US won military victory in Vietnam or not.

 

[gambit]

We all know what North Vietnam wants.

How about ROV, was its goal to be extinct?

You are just being lazy.

Don't argue with me, argue with him. He is in a much better position to answer whether US won military victory in Vietnam or not.

You misunderstood McNamara and Kissenger et al wrote. Political goals determined military objectives. Military objectives determine the methods that the military institution will employ and those methods are either existing or created as the conflict progresses. People like McNamara or Kissenger speak about the war often based upon the efficacy of those methods at various stages of the war and this is the bulk of material out there.

 

[chauism]

You misunderstood McNamara and Kissenger et al wrote. Political goals determined military objectives. Military objectives determine the methods that the military institution will employ and those methods are either existing or created as the conflict progresses. People like McNamara or Kissenger speak about the war often based upon the efficacy of those methods at various stages of the war and this is the bulk of material out there.

As I said "tactical success and strategic failure"

 

[dingyibvs]

As I said "tactical success and strategic failure"

It's useless arguing with him, he's a bitter south Vietnamese who thinks China is still communist. He probably votes for the Libertarians because he thinks they're the only ones who guarantee liberty and hates the Green party because he doesn't like the color green. He's only useful for technical explanations regarding weapons systems and nothing else, so just ignore his geopolitical ramblings.

 

[Mauryan]

Actually it's North Korea and China beating the drums of war. Do a search and you will find it is not the first times Nuclear subs have visited South Korea. The only difference now is that the Chinese and North Koreans choose to highlight their presence and politicize it. Also their visits are not spur of the moment but planned long in advance. Since the days of the Cold war their has been a large presence of nuclear submarines in Asia. And will continue to be most likely for the long term.

I second this.

China still using its vintage tactics to turnaround word opinion.
IMHO US did the best to shut the mouths struck between the @$$ of these chinese and NK`s. NK is the one who made the whole situation volatile and now china supporting its stance showing some freaken 1000 year old friendship treaty?

A responsive US made it sure that who is the boss with doings instead of words unlike India.Recession or no recession,China is just a nutshell infront of US.take it as granted.period

Firstly the whole UN is a joke with a rouge state supporter as one of its UNSC member.If the whole world turns against china,it will be in a situation far worse than the 400 million poor of India and Africa.2 trillion dollar will get you no where again apart from beating a costly platinum plated war drums with diamonds embeded drum sticks.
Look at whom china offers assistance and has exclusive treaties around the world:Sudan,Niger rebels,Congo,Myanmar,NK,......list ends with all rouge states on this planet.

Again who should be blamed for the rise of china? Obviously it has to be US who let the china laundered as much to survive beating chest in the name or economic co-operation.Whats the point of crying fould after you put your own house on fire? US infact deserves this and ofcourse the rest of the world including India for being silent spectators.

 

[mike05]

I second this.

China still using its vintage tactics to turnaround word opinion.
IMHO US did the best to shut the mouths struck between the @$$ of these chinese and NK`s. NK is the one who made the whole situation volatile and now china supporting its stance showing some freaken 1000 year old friendship treaty?

Chinese traditions always honor Guanxi (relations), regardless of when the treaty was signed. In addition NK is an unstable state as we all know which is China's backyard, why poke a stick a sleeping mad dog when you can pacify it? If war breaks out in the Korean peninsula it will be a China, SK & US problem not India's.

A responsive US made it sure that who is the boss with doings instead of words unlike India.Recession or no recession,China is just a nutshell infront of US.take it as granted.period

... Again China does not want to agitate NK in case war breaks out.

Firstly the whole UN is a joke with a rouge state supporter as one of its UNSC member.If the whole world turns against china,it will be in a situation far worse than the 400 million poor of India and Africa.2 trillion dollar will get you no where again apart from beating a costly platinum plated war drums with diamonds embeded drum sticks.
Look at whom china offers assistance and has exclusive treaties around the world:Sudan,Niger rebels,Congo,Myanmar,NK,......list ends with all rouge states on this planet.

Wakeup this is the real world not some Hollywood movie, US has supported puppet government for years plus
- Created the mess in Somalia
- Supported Osama Bin Laden
- Saudi family
Resource snatching is a dirty business

Again who should be blamed for the rise of china? Obviously it has to be US who let the china laundered as much to survive beating chest in the name or economic co-operation.Whats the point of crying fould after you put your own house on fire? US infact deserves this and ofcourse the rest of the world including India for being silent spectators.

So whats your point? Should we turn the clock back and go to the Ming Dynasty? Or maybe a aggressive Super Power like Russia should take the lead?

 

[CardSharp]

Firstly the whole UN is a joke with a rouge state supporter as one of its UNSC member.

Only a joke when you're not a permanent member or don't have a permanent member who cares enough about you to use a veto.

 

[gambit]

It's useless arguing with him, he's a bitter south Vietnamese who thinks China is still communist. He probably votes for the Libertarians because he thinks they're the only ones who guarantee liberty and hates the Green party because he doesn't like the color green. He's only useful for technical explanations regarding weapons systems and nothing else, so just ignore his geopolitical ramblings.

If that is the case, we should ignore all of the Chinese members here since none of you have ever served in the military or old enough to remember anything of the Cold War...