No war, not the Vietnam war, the Korean war, and especially not the war(s) in Iraq should ever be fought with restrictions on operations such that victory is not possible.

Finding young men, and yes even some young women, who are willing (sometimes eager) to kill people and break things is never difficult, so that will is easy to find in sufficient quantities at any given time.

What is difficult in our form of government is finding the will to kill people and break things sufficient to subdue an enemy completely with the least amount of danger to those we send to fight.

That same will to kill people and break things is also difficult to find in the general population because typically the need to kill and break is simply not seen as necessary by the majority and it is poorly explained by self serving bureaucrats.

We did not loose Vietnam because of a lack of power. We lost because of the lack of will in those bureaucrats.

I could go further into this, but those of you who have been there already know, and those who haven't will not understand anyway.

No. Hubris and policitians/bureaucrats go hand in hand, always.

Pure poetry. I suspect I will be stealing those words for myself in the future.

History has proven that, while certain types of wars can be won (e.g. conventional wars), others cannot.

That includes both wars and "wars".

It's like trying to destroy water with a hammer.

Vietnam was not one of those wars you describe as unable to be won. Simply taking out the dams above Hanoi would likely have won the war, but devastated the civilian population. This is the type of think vidyos is talking about. McNamera and others simply didn't have the will to inflict damage on that scale.

I know this will be taken as being "disrespectful to our hosts", but I'm only trying to apply the same standard to our hosts that they apply to men like McNamara. And to bring in another common bugaboo on this blog – take a look at the comment section on Krugman's blog. THAT'S real disrespect for a blog host. And certainly the counter-argument is "well Don isn't forcing anyone to do anything". True, but the value of that to you is a matter of political philosophy. He IS making declarations about what economic organization is best for "the rest of us", even if he doesn't force us to do anything, which is presumably butressed by his multiple advanced degrees.

I know this will be taken as being "disrespectful to our hosts", but I'm only trying to apply the same standard to our hosts that they apply to men like McNamara. And to bring in another common bugaboo on this blog – take a look at the comment section on Krugman's blog. THAT'S real disrespect for a blog host. And certainly the counter-argument is "well Don isn't forcing anyone to do anything". True, but the value of that to you is a matter of political philosophy. He IS making declarations about what economic organization is best for "the rest of us", even if he doesn't force us to do anything, which is presumably butressed by his multiple advanced degrees.

Or perhaps I'm a raging cynic.

James is exactly correct.

Furthermore our lack of will is what allowed the war to become "unconventional".

There is nothing sacred about guerilla tactics and effectiveness, it is just another way of fighting. If our forces use the same tactics then the unconventional just became conventional; and, it was clear that our guys were just as good at it as theirs and were better equipped in every sense, which includes air support.

Mao and his forces "swam like fishes in the sea of people" unidentifiable because no one had the courage to drain the sea. In a revolutionary or civil war that is understandable; but in a war of defense or conquest to not "drain the sea" is to accept the eventuality of defeat, or at best a stalemate.

My point is that politicians/bureaucrats send others to die, knowing full well that some/many will die while restricting their ability to be most effective in prosecution of combat operations. Those people have my utmost contempt because they have accepted death of their own, yet do not let their own have the best chance possible to live, which lies in killing the enemy combatant and destroying his ability to refuel, refit, feed, house, and treat his wonded. Destroying his ability to refuel, refit, feed, house, and treat his wounded means killing more than enemy combatants.

If we are going to see death accepted, better theirs than ours.

We did not loose Vietnam because of a lack of power. We lost because of the lack of will in those bureaucrats.

But what would we have won?
Look at Vietnam now.
Seems to me that the communist movement in Vietnam was defeated by its success in the war.

Like so many Really Smart People, he possessed a mindless faith in the ability of analytical genius, backed by government power, to right the world's wrongs.

Notice he did not say "to win wars". Winning wars is rarely the same as "right the world's wrongs".

DK, unlike McNamara, Don is not responsible for raining death on rice farmers, nor is he calling for brutal means against people, but rather is using the means of persuasion in support of his position.

He leaves it to the judgment of others whether they accept his arguments, unlike the means employed by political agencies which override the personal judgment of those subject to government edict.

While I too think the Vietnam war was winnable, given the will, that was still a great post.

That's givin' it to 'em!

That is, how would we have known that we won, and what would we have won?

The impetus behind U.S. operations in Vietnam was to prevent the dominoes from falling.

Well, we pulled out and the dominoes did not fall.

Was our hope not fulfilled without bringing military defeat upon the enemy?

Sam – I know how to post. My desktop has been acting up all morning. Thanks for the pointer, though.

Would it have broken them or simply pissed them off even more?

I think the latter.